Does evil mean Evil? Is a paladin free to act against evil?

[FireLance]

Well, in my campaign, you need to actually do evil fairly regularly to get an evil aura (just thinking evil thoughts won't do it), and similarly you actually have to do good for some time to get a good aura (or cleanse an evil one). The in-game way to rid yourself of an evil aura immediately if you have a change of heart is the Atonement spell.

 

[Quasqueton]

I see alignment as much simpler than Hypersmurf is trying to make it. Hypersmurf is trying to turn this into a Rules Forum debate. (No offense Hypersmurf, but this *is* how you argue in the Rules Forum.)

The Universal Powers That Be (UPTB), be they the gods, the tangible and objective powers of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, the DM directly, or whatever, are what decide who is evil and who is not.

A paladin fights and destroys evil. For this, the UPTB give him detect evil and smite evil. If that evil person is in the process of redeeming himself, and the paladin uses detect evil on him, the result will be based on what the UPTB decide. If the UPTB think that person is no longer evil because of a change of heart, then he will not show as evil. If the UPTB think that person is still evil because he has not yet done anything not-evil or good, then he will show as evil. Whatever the result of the detection, the result will be the direct decision of the UPTB (read: the DM).

I don't think the UPTB should be in the business of trying to trick paladins with his UPTB-granted powers. Mortals may be trying to trick the paladin (with the rarely used, but often threatened misdirection spell), but the UPTB have set up the rules, and they (read: the DM) should stick by them.

A DM saying, "You have the ability to detect and smite evil, but not all evil you detect will be really evil and deserving of your smite," is just being a jerk to the paladin's Player.

If detect evil is so inaccurate, why bother with it at all? If the paladin can't trust the UPTB in a campaign, then why play a paladin? Play a LG fighter -- at least that way the Player won't be tricked into thinking someone is evil before actually witnessing an evil act. And after witnessing an evil act that he could have stopped by being proactive against the evil, a fighter can't be stripped of his powers by the tricksy and unpedictable UPTB (read: the DM).

Quasqueton

 

[Hypersmurf]

I see alignment as much simpler than Hypersmurf is trying to make it. Hypersmurf is trying to turn this into a Rules Forum debate. (No offense Hypersmurf, but this *is* how you argue in the Rules Forum.)

Why on earth would I take offence?

The Universal Powers That Be (UPTB), be they the gods, the tangible and objective powers of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, the DM directly, or whatever, are what decide who is evil and who is not.

Doesn't that start to get into subjective morality, though?

Gruntharg the Barbarian is renowned for his cunning and skill in battle. He singlehandedly wiped out a tribe of goblins, potentially saving the lives of thousands of halfling peasants who might otherwise have been caught in the path of their relentless advance. Evil? Not according to the priestess of Yondalla!

Gruntharg the Barbarian is reviled for his bloodthirstiness and lack of mercy. He singlehandedly wiped out a tribe of goblins, migrating into new territory to escape the predations of a trio of marauding Gray Renders. Warriors, females, and children were all slain in his rampage. Evil? Absolutely, according to the shaman of Maglubiyet!

If it's the gods who decide "What is Evil?", then their own interpretations will be brought to bear.

A DM saying, "You have the ability to detect and smite evil, but not all evil you detect will be really evil and deserving of your smite," is just being a jerk to the paladin's Player.

I don't agree. I don't see how it differs from the Detect Orcs/Smite Orcs ability described. The Detect ability will tell you whether or not the Smite will work, but it's no guarantee that it's justified...

If detect evil is so inaccurate, why bother with it at all?

It provides a starting point. It gives an indication that someone may not be who they claim; it can give warning of potential ambush; it can be considered circumstantial evidence.

But it doesn't have to be a red-dot sight, automatically preceding carnage.

-Hyp.

 

[Quasqueton]

Doesn't that start to get into subjective morality, though?

If it's the gods who decide "What is Evil?", then their own interpretations will be brought to bear.

No, no, no. In the D&D cosmology, Evil, Good, Lawful, and Chaotic are not subjective terms. They are objective universal forces defined by their own existance. Evil is Evil and Good is Good. Surely you are not suggesting that Maglubiyet sees himself as Good? He is Evil and he knows it. His followers know it. All the other gods know it. All the followers of the other gods know it. Why do they all know he is Evil? Because he *is* Evil by the definition of Evil in the D&D universe.

Murdering a living victim in sacrifice to Nerull is not looked upon as a Good act by Nerull. He sees it as Evil, because it is Evil.

Just like the definition of Up and Down are not subjective to or change by the orientation of the observer. Good and Evil in the D&D universe are not subjective or defined by the point of view of any given being.

Quasqueton

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It provides a starting point. It gives an indication that someone may not be who they claim; it can give warning of potential ambush; it can be considered circumstantial evidence.

But it doesn't have to be a red-dot sight, automatically preceding carnage.

Indeed. Detect Evil doesn't have to be a targetting device to be useful. IMO, having information about the character of various people you might deal with peacefully is actually more useful than having a smite-dar that takes three standard actions to pinpoint anything. I would rather know that the man who is asking us to help him eradicate a group of slavers (because they've become inconvenient to him and he wants to muscle in on some other illicit activities they've been doing) is evil (which he probably wouldn't be under your definition) than know that I can smite the guy in fullplate carrying the heavy flail and wearing the symbol of Hextor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Surely you are not suggesting that Maglubiyet sees himself as Good?

Not at all. But He can view the slaughter of goblin civilians as an Evil act.

Whereas Yondalla, in this case, might see it as a case of 'Nits make lice'; to Her, killing off all the goblins to prevent any conflict with Her halflings is a worthy deed.

If the gods decide what is evil and what is not, their own agendas will influence their votes!

-Hyp.

 

[Quasqueton]

Indeed. Detect Evil doesn't have to be a targetting device to be useful. IMO, having information about the character of various people you might deal with peacefully is actually more useful than having a smite-dar that takes three standard actions to pinpoint anything. I would rather know that the man who is asking us to help him eradicate a group of slavers (because they've become inconvenient to him and he wants to muscle in on some other illicit activities they've been doing) is evil (which he probably wouldn't be under your definition) than know that I can smite the guy in fullplate carrying the heavy flail and wearing the symbol of Hextor.

By your definition, what use would it be to know the guy you're talking to is evil? I mean, just because he maybe beats his wife, or cheats his customers, or some other "commonplace evil" doesn't mean he isn't sincere and honest about wanting rid of the slavers.

And why would you want to smite the Hextor priest? He might not actually be evil (LN), and might not be actually be a threat to you or anyone else. He's just of a different religion, that the paladin shouldn't persecute just because he pings as evil on the radar.

Quasqueton

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

On the other hand, the notion that people or gods value evil for the sake of evil runs counter to at least one element of the commonsense definition of evil: something blameworthy and to be avoided.

Maglubiyet may see himself as evil and may see his followers as evil but he doesn't see them as bad or blameworthy for that reason. There's no evidence that Maglubiyet sees his own evil as a cause for recriminations or regret. In fact, he sees the evil of his followers as cause for praise and the bestowal of divine abilities. So [Evil] may be evil but, according to Maglubiyet, it's not bad. It's little-g good to be evil. Similarly, according to Maglubiyet, it's bad to be [Good]. Maglubiyet and the evil gods of D&D could accurately say with Milton's Satan, "Farewell remorse: all good to me is lost; Evil
be thou my Good."

To be sure, D&D good and evil correspond roughly to (portions of) real world good and evil. However, D&D good and evil primarily encompass the descriptions of behavior that would be considered good or evil IRL. (Murder is evil IRL and it's evil in D&D; risking one's life to save others is good IRL and good in D&D). They don't incorporate the emotive or praise/blame aspects of good and evil (which are relative in D&D as discussed above).

(IMO, the D&D cosmology Law and Chaos aren't objective no matter what the rulebooks say. As described, they come out to a bunch of incoherent nonsense).

No, no, no. In the D&D cosmology, Evil, Good, Lawful, and Chaotic are not subjective terms. They are objective universal forces defined by their own existance. Evil is Evil and Good is Good. Surely you are not suggesting that Maglubiyet sees himself as Good? He is Evil and he knows it. His followers know it. All the other gods know it. All the followers of the other gods know it. Why do they all know he is Evil? Because he *is* Evil by the definition of Evil in the D&D universe.

Murdering a living victim in sacrifice to Nerull is not looked upon as a Good act by Nerull. He sees it as Evil, because it is Evil.

Just like the definition of Up and Down are not subjective to or change by the orientation of the observer. Good and Evil in the D&D universe are not subjective or defined by the point of view of any given being.

Quasqueton

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

By your definition, what use would it be to know the guy you're talking to is evil? I mean, just because he maybe beats his wife, or cheats his customers, or some other "commonplace evil" doesn't mean he isn't sincere and honest about wanting rid of the slavers.

It tells me that my paladin is not dealing with a good man who wants to get rid of the slavers because they're a corruption on the moral health of the town. That knowledge alerts my paladin to be on the lookout for an ulterior motivation and for treachery. (Evil may not mean that he's being dishonest about what he wants but it does make it more likely--and it also means that he's probably lying about the reason). If it is at odds with his public reputation (as it often is, after all, even Plato's Thrassymachus would admit that a reputation for virtue is desirable), it tells me that he's hiding something and who knows what my paladin might find if I look. That's information I wouldn't have and wouldn't know to look for without Detect Evil. That, in turn, can lead to more information.

Depending upon the strength of his aura, it might yield other information too. The 14th level evil fighter warlord whose armies were defeated by the paladin and who has disguised himself as a common soldier in order to avoid justice would be given away by his aura of moderate rather than faint evil.

And why would you want to smite the Hextor priest? He might not actually be evil (LN), and might not be actually be a threat to you or anyone else. He's just of a different religion, that the paladin shouldn't persecute just because he pings as evil on the radar.

True. And I wouldn't advocate smiting him just because he's a priest of Hextor. However, if my Nyrondian paladin spots the Hextorite priest leading the troops of the North Kingdom, he doesn't need detect evil to know that there's a good target for his smite. Similarly, if my paladin is driving the slavers out of some silver mines and discovers a white dragon disciple leading a force of Druergar, he's not going to detect evil before he smites her. My point was that, in most of the cases where smiting is justified, one can know that it will probably work (and that it is justified) without any magic at all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By your definition, what use would it be to know the guy you're talking to is evil? I mean, just because he maybe beats his wife, or cheats his customers, or some other "commonplace evil" doesn't mean he isn't sincere and honest about wanting rid of the slavers.

Right. It's circumstantial evidence; not enough to convict by itself, but it lends support to suspicions.

And if you determine that he is deserving of death for some reason, you know a Smite won't fizzle on him.

-Hyp.