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

[Helfdan]

I think the title of the thread says it all. These are really two questions.

"Does evil mean Evil"?: as we've seen in this thread (and others) some DMs see evil as a political party (eg "in my campaign 1/3 of the population is evil). If this is the case, the answer would have to be "no."
However, I don't think it should be this way. In a system where evil is as black-and-white as in D&D, evil people/creatures should USUALLY be doing or planning something evil... that's what they are, after all. I don't think that you should have a bunch of NPCs who are hard-working, honest peasants who happen to be evil.

"Is a paladin free to act against evil?" Of course!!!! within the constraints of law... Now your hypothetical question is well (and cleverly) put, as fantasy world forests are often outside the boundaries of any authority.

The second situation should be easier (orc, giant, etc), for these creatures are 1-likely to be doing something villanous, 2- likely to attack the paladin on sight, and 3- USUALLY inherently evil... in most cases my answer would be 'smite away!"

If its a human/demihuman, then my answer would depend on the definition of evil in the campaign. Also, I agree with previous posters who have said that paladins should only detect evil if they suspect something. It seems to me that it would be somehow ... disrespectful... to submit someone to that kind of scrutiny agains their will (and therefore neither lawful nor good, no?)

But enough analysis... I have played at least 4 or 5 paladins in my 24 years in the hobby, and for all of them, the answer would have been "no". Unless it is a fiend, evil dragon, etc.

 

[Voadam]

A paladin meets a stranger in the wilderness. Detect evil reveals that the stranger is evil.

Does the paladin have the right and/or duty and/or option to attack and kill that stranger based solely on knowing his/her/its alignment? (Assume the paladin knows no complications or ramifications will come from the killing -- no children orphaned by a lost parent, no invasion held back by this loan stranger, no police to come arrest him.)

Does it matter if the stranger is a goblin, an ogre, a dragon, a druid, a soldier, an unarmed maiden, a demon?

Does evil (as detected by spell or ability) mean Evil? Or do you beleive there are degrees of evilness, passive evilness?

Quasqueton

I like the fact that paladin is balanced with other classes even taking away the loss of paladin powers and alignment restrictions. I'm deliberately not enforcing the paladin alignment and code rules. Smite away or deeply consider the moral implications of meeting evil are both fine in my game. I don't like to regulate the morality of PC actions that much. I also prefer games where it is easy to have a corrupt person in a good organization and evil paladins fill the bill, removing their powers is an easy giveaway that ruins certain fun plots.

However on is it a good or an evil act to smite evil based solely on that designation, there are a lot of deception magics or curses that make good people detect as evil.

 

[Ibram]

I can just imagine this: the Pal walks into a clearing and sees some guy sitting there eating an apple, walks up and cuts him down.

Party Rogue: "why did you just kill that guy?"
Pal: "He was evil."
rest of party takes a step back and tries very hard not to think of anything "evil".

To me this seems quite similar to a CE barbarian walking down the road turning to a pesant and cuting him down.

As a player I would never do this, most of my characters (even the bad ones) have a dont attack unless needed policy.

If a player did that in one of my games I would expect him to do the same if he met someone walking down the street in the middle of town. After all why is the situation different if you are in the woods or not?

 

[Quasqueton]

I can just imagine this: the Pal walks into a clearing and sees some guy sitting there eating an apple, walks up and cuts him down.

Party Rogue: "why did you just kill that guy?"
Pal: "He was evil."
rest of party takes a step back and tries very hard not to think of anything "evil".

Are you suggesting that you beleive merely thinking evil thoughts will make someone detect as Evil?

Are you suggesting that the paladin could and should just walk on after seeing that "some guy sitting there eating an apple" is detectably Evil?

Party Rogue: "You gonna just walk on and let him go?"
Pal: "What can I do, he's not doing anything bad."

One thing that prompted me to start this thread is that many people seem to be saying that a paladin (or any Good creature/character) can only attack and slay Evil if it is currently in the act of Evil. Some are suggesting that detecting as Evil (in the D&D cosmology) is not proof that one is actually, really, actively (maybe just behind your back) Evil.

So long as an Evil creature/character doesn't act Evil in view of a paladin, the paladin can't really do anything about him or her. "Evil is better, because Good is dumb."

Quasqueton

 

[Dogbrain]

In all seriousness, though, I think there is nothing at all which would warrant "smiting on sight" as a rule of thumb.

What about "Smite Me" signs stuck on the back of the unsuspecting by Trickster "clerics"?

That's something one almost never sees in D&D--a true Trickster.

 

[Ibram]

Are you suggesting that you beleive merely thinking evil thoughts will make someone detect as Evil?

I'm saying that from the characters point of view the pal just smoked a guy sitting and eating an apple. Remember that as a general rule evil people dont think of themselves as evil. How am I CG rogue to know when I might cross that line and get cut down? How can I know how close I am to that line where my alignment toggles?

Are you suggesting that the paladin could and should just walk on after seeing that "some guy sitting there eating an apple" is detectably Evil?

Yes, because he may not be the best guy but hes still just sitting there eating an apple. now if he was sitting there eating a baby it would be something different.

Party Rogue: "You gonna just walk on and let him go?"
Pal: "What can I do, he's not doing anything bad."

now lets say that the party is sitting at a table over at the Beared Clam Inn. A shady character in the corner is eyeing them, so the Pal fires off his detect evil and shady character spikes as bad. Are you saying that the Pal would be justified in just walking over there and choping off the shady characters head?

One thing that prompted me to start this thread is that many people seem to be saying that a paladin (or any Good creature/character) can only attack and slay Evil if it is currently in the act of Evil. Some are suggesting that detecting as Evil (in the D&D cosmology) is not proof that one is actually, really, actively (maybe just behind your back) Evil.

Consider this:

the great city of Goodlight is considered one of the most peaceful places in the land. Watched over by an order of Paladins it has remained untouched by evil over the long years. But yet Evil can be sneaky some times, it can sneak into the hearts of the most pure, and so the Paladins must remain ever warry. To help keep the city pure every year there is the "Week of Scouring" when the Order comes down from their fortress. The Paladins go througout the town, sweaping every inch with their power. Any evil dooers found, regardless of age, sex, or race, are rounded up and brought to the great central square where they are executed.

the above is both the logical extention of gutting the guy in the woods, and sounds terribly evil as well.

So long as an Evil creature/character doesn't act Evil in view of a paladin, the paladin can't really do anything about him or her. "Evil is better, because Good is dumb."

Quasqueton

the path of a Paladin is not an easy one, it is a hard path to live by a "perfect" code in an imperfect world.

 

[takyris]

With the "Depends on the Game" caveat...

Going by the book, you only get an Evil Aura if you:

a) Are an evil person, defined in D&D-as-written as being more than just selfish and cruel. An evil person in the rules as written would rather make a deal with a fiend than a celestial. These people are inclined to actively try to hurt people. In order to get "Evil" in D&D, you can't just be a selfish person. Really. An Evil person is not just morally-challenged. An Evil person feels uncomfortable in the town church because it makes his skin crawl, that filthy aura of goodness. In any large city in a normal-magic campaign, a priest has probably Hallowed his temple with Detect Evil, and he can, barring magic, infallibly see which people are going to serve his deity and which people are going to go serve dark evil nefarious deities in hopes of becoming a demon or devil in the afterlife. Or he can Hallow it so that anyone who is unrighteous in the eyes of his deity is stricken by the inability to speak (Silence, targetted to only affect evil people).

b) You worship an evil deity -- see "a"

So, based on the rules as written, if you see something that detects as evil, it's actually genuinely evil. A paladin can rest assured that this is not just someone who drinks too much and cheats on his taxes. This is someone who will, if given the chance, commit heinous deeds. This is someone who is a murderer, in their heart if not in fact as of yet. This person is evil. A cruel person who is ruthless and heartless but who doesn't serve demons or devils or other magical evil-powered things (liches, evil dragons, etc.), and who doesn't go out of his way to inflict pain unless it is at least in some way merited, should never detect as Neutral -- maybe Lawful Neutral, for a hangin' judge who thinks that just killing anyone who commits a crime is the safest way to go, or maybe Chaotic Neutral for somebody who won't hurt innocents but will hack down and then torture anyone who attacks or interferes with him.

This is, to the best of my knowledge, the way things work according to the rules as written. Monsters with the "Usually evil" descriptor have been raised in a society that does its darnedest to drill evil ethics into their heads, such that they aren't just "Goblins trying to survive who have to compete with dwarves for food" -- they're malicious nasty creatures who enjoy the suffering of others and would sneak attack an angel if they thought they could somehow get away with it.

Now, I personally toss those rules out. I use d20 Modern's allegiances, which allow you to differentiate between somebody who is cruel and not-nice and selfish and somebody who worships and promotes evil. The former has no real allegiance, while the latter is evil. Only the latter would show up on the radar.

Or I toss out most of the alignments as written. Goblins and Dwarves fight all the time, sure, but most of both races are neutral. Evil-whacking spells are culturally considered to be only useful against magical evil monsters, or against those who worship them, because "Evil" doesn't mean "Mean" -- it means "Wants to drown the world in blood".

Again, let me note -- that's in the rules as written. I toss those out, and if you're aiming for a shades-of-gray campaign, I advise that you do the same. In a black-and-white campaign, the paladin won't encounter an evil creature unless he's either supposed to kill it, stalk it, or be frustrated by the fact that it's protected by deluded townsfolk. In a shades-of-gray campaign, the paladin shouldn't be able to tell concretely that it's evil, either because it isn't, by its standards, or because that detection only works against creatures actually touched by dark magics, or because it's faulty (many magics can give false positives, evil creatures love to slap evil auras on ordinary folks, etc), or because it requires some major sacrifice to use it (paladin is blind for one day after killing creature it detected evil in, paladin loses Divine Grace for an hour after using the ability, paladin takes Strength damage, etc). I'm not saying those are all great ideas -- but then, I'm not saying playing a paladin in a shades-of-gray campaign is a great idea, either.

 

[Thanee]

Depends on the situation, but in general detect evil by itself does not justify a death sentence.

Bye
Thanee

 

[BSF]

One thing that prompted me to start this thread is that many people seem to be saying that a paladin (or any Good creature/character) can only attack and slay Evil if it is currently in the act of Evil. Some are suggesting that detecting as Evil (in the D&D cosmology) is not proof that one is actually, really, actively (maybe just behind your back) Evil.

So long as an Evil creature/character doesn't act Evil in view of a paladin, the paladin can't really do anything about him or her. "Evil is better, because Good is dumb."

Quasqueton

The reason Paladins don't attack Evil things on sight has to do with the *Lawful* aspect of their alignment rather than the *Good*.

Is the Paladin lawfully empowered to administer justice in this way? Is this a society modeled off of feudal Europe? If so, the Paladin might be authorized to defend himself. If the Paladin serves the local Lord, the Paladin might be authorized to defend others. If the Paladin has been granted the privelige of High Justice, then the Paladin might be authorized to administer a final solution to an Evil problem.

One reason that Paladins might not Smite on Sight is because they do not have a lawful reason to do so. And yes, you can appeal that a God (if the Paladin has one, they don't need to have one, but they can) has a higher authority than the local lord. Sure, that might be the case, depending on your game.

Does your Paladin have any Compassion?

You see, Paladins are pretty Good generally. They gain Divine powers from being Lawful, and Good. That is a pretty serious gift, when you think about it. Lay on Hand and Remove Disease aren't there solely to help the Paladin out. Those abilities aren't even to simply help out your adventurering companions. Those abilities can help those that are less fortunate.

The lonely old widower that came down with TB in his ramshackle farm near the edge of town is slowly dying. The Paladin has it in his power to help this old man. Whether it is to cure the cough so he can care for the crops, or even if it is to ease that pain so the old man can die in his sleep and move on to his reward in the afterlife, the Paladin can help this man. What about the little boy that fell out of a tree? Lay on Hands and he feels a bit better. As Good people, a Paladin can express great Compassion. Most of the world cannot live up to a Paladin's standards. While that knowledge can breed arrogance, one of those standards should be more Compassion for fellow beings than others show as well.

The Paladin sees a guy in the forest who detects as Evil. Should he Smite on Sight? Would he be stupid not to? After all, he hasn't seen the guy do anything Evil. Surely, this guy is just hiding his acts from the Paladin, so the Paladin is morally obligated to strike first, right? Otherwise, the Paladin is perpetuating the Good is Dumb mindset.

Or, should the Paladin sit down and talk with the guy? Maybe, tell him that he can see that his heart is troubled and he needs to come clean of what is bothering him. Maybe encourage a path of right and clean, honest living. Maybe that Compassion will help save a soul and gain a friend.

Both of these are possibilities on why a Paladin might not Smite on Sight. It all depends on the situation, and the personality of the Paladin. There really isn't a quick and easy answer to your question, because the question is still relatively generic. I can sit her all day and think of reasons why the Paladin should act in one manner, or another. But, ultimately, I tend to think of people that stride the land looking for people that are different and immediately trying to kill them as striding the road toward Tyranny and Evil.

Actually, I have always thought it would be an interesting RP experience to start off with a Paladin that was kind and Good. Then, the Paladin starts becoming more and more convinced of his own surety and power. He has Divine Powers and nobody else does! He _knows_ that he is always right. In fact, he cannot be wrong. The, to take that arrogance and start taking it one step further, then further, then further. To intentionally have the Paladin Fall from Grace through blind arrogance. It could be an interesting story. But, that is a bit of a hijack for the topic.

My answer to the original question is a qualified "Maybe". You haven't provided enough information. It is all situational and there will be circumstances where any answer is potentially acceptable.

 

[Ranger REG]

According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, (also known as the Paladin's Handbook), you must first see if the evil character wishes to repent. If he refuses, you may smite him down.

Heh. The idea of a paladin wandering in the wilderness where man's law cannot touch them and asking passers-by if they repent is a bit unnerving. The wrong answer will lead you to an unmarked grave being swallowed up in the forest. Somehow, that is the worst image a paladin could exhibit.

But you have reminded me of an excerpt from the Dragonstar material, where the Empire is led by a leader who is a dragon, and every 500 years or so they elect a different dragon, the current one is a black dragon (definitely evil to the core). The empire have a set of law, one of which is called the Principle of Active Morality. In a place where you are being checked for your alignment, this principle protect the individual's belief and thought. Simply put, you are judged by your action, not what is in your heart.

But it must be hard for a Paladin to work under the Dragon Empire, serving in the Imperial Legion with a Drow as his superior.