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

[Thornir Alekeg]

Detect Evil is basically useless as anyone who isn't a paragon of virtue can detect as evil if the DM feels like it; also detecting as evil doesn't mean anything as the paladin isn't allowed to use that knowledge in any way.

Also, a Paladin must have suberb forsight and see all possible effects of any action, for any result that isn't purest good will cause them to lose their paladin abilities.

That seems to be what many DMs are saying. Why don't you just ban Paladins rather than stuffing over any player who dares play one?

Geoff.

Go back and read my post. Detect Evil is not useless, it just is not a nice simple test to put a Paladin's concience at ease. I do not advocate stripping a paladin of powers unless it is an overt act that is against the paladin's code. If a player were to commit some kind of act that I as DM saw as outside his code, I would first take a look as to whether I felt the player and I were of an understanding. If I felt that we had some serious miscommunication I would talk to the player and work to an agreement. If I felt that we had a good understanding, then I would probably give an in-game warning.

The paladin in my Scarred Lands campaign did this. It was a relatively minor transgression, he thought he was collecting spoils of combat, but it was a little more like looting. He received a couple of dreams, but he did not make the connection and continued to do the same minor transgression. I finally had him temporarily lose his Divine Health, and subsequently develop a minor pox. This made him review his actions more closely, and with some prayers for forgiveness, his Divine Health was restored, although he still carries some scarring from the pox to remind him.

 

[Arnwyn]

I am asking this for *your* opinions on the subject. I know what *I* would do, so I don't need anyone suggesting I do it *my* way.

Ah, thanks for the clarification (needed in these kinds of threads, IMO). With that, I shall now be able to answer the question:

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?

Short answer: No.

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

Sure, detected by the spell it does mean "Evil" (actually, I have no idea what you exactly mean by that), but I believe there are different degrees of evil. A person can be "Evil" - but if he/she never fully acts on it, then... meh.

And are you suggesting that there is no (D&D) universal answer about Evil?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. I think any DM can justify the appropriate actions that paladins should take against evil/Evil in his/her campaign world - and I certainly don't think there is one truth about evil in D&D beyond demons and devils.

[All answers are "IMC", of course - the only way to answer the original question.]

 

[takyris]

Okay, there seem to be some folks confusing "In my campaign" with "the rules as written". I specifically said "In my campaign, I threw out the rules as written", but there are people saying "It never says that". Let's take a look at the 3.5 SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

So first off, right off the bat: Evil creatures debase or destroy innocent life -- these aren't thieves, these aren't low-grade selfish people. Murderers or those we'd classify as being on a level with murderers.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So, some folks will only kill you if you get in their way and it's reasonably convenient, but others are trying. For some campaigns, this could be a loophole -- sure, Billy the Psychopath is evil personified, but as long as nobody ever gets in his way when there are no witnesses around, all is good.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

So Neutrality is either balance or ambivalence or apathy with regard to people in general. Which means that Evil is, by process of elimination, angrier and meaner and crueler and, well, eviller than that.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose.

Evil people recognize that they are evil, either with a "Yep, that's me, what are you gonna do?" aspect, or with an "I chose to be this way" aspect. According to the rules as written, evil people will almost always recognize that they are evil. Someone who does horrific stuff for misguided and ultimately tragic purposes is Neutral, not Evil (ie, your basic Shakespearian tragic character, Othello or Hamlet or Macbeth -- although Macbeth's wife could be labelled Evil because she's fully aware of what she's getting her husband to do).

Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Good and Evil are objective states, in the D&D universe, in the rules as written -- not just opinions.

So, good and evil is an objective, not subjective, matter. Evil people will destroy or debase innocent life if it is convenient to do so, and some will actively pursue such activities rather than simply seizing an opportunity should it arise. The average evil person, according to the rules, understands that he or she is evil, and has either chosen to be that way or does not have the capacity to be another way.

If I were DMing a game with the rules as written, I would be very careful of who I made evil, because that's pretty much the bottom of the barrel. Most mercenaries aren't even evil by those definitions -- they'd be comfortably in Chaotic Neutral, with no real respect for the law but no active need to kill people and no particular wish to hurt innocents. The average mercenary is hired to fight other fighting people, and the average mercenary would probably refuse to kill an innocent child or villager, even if they'd have no trouble going into battle against a bunch of armed warriors.

Most people don't fit the description of evil -- far fewer than "one third of the population". Evil is reserved for the truly antisocial, the people who will kill without hesitation or remorse, and will enjoy it.

By the rules as written, if, as a paladin, I saw someone in the woods who was evil, then I would be well within my rights to kill them. Evil peple don't have families back at home -- or if they do, then those families are either evil as well, or they're people who are in great danger should they ever get in the evil person's way.

I could also follow that person to see where he's going, to see if he has other evil people working with him on some nefarious plan. That's viable, too. But letting him go? No. Until such time as somebody comes up with a spell that generates false positives, anyone who detects as evil is evil -- and anyone who is evil should be removed before they can destroy or debase any more innocent life.

In the rules as written, of course. If your campaign plays by different rules, that's fine, but just make sure you know what your campaign says...

 

[Silveras]

My answers are predicated on how I set up and run my homebrew world:

• Evil is wilful, not incidental. You do not qualify as being Evil just by virtue of not being Good enough. You have to choose to be Evil.
• The Paladin may, or may not, have the right of summary justice. This varies from realm to realm.
• Redemption is possible, and is the preferred method for dealing with Evil.
• Some races are truly, or near-truly, impossible to redeem. Goblins, Orcs, and Ogres are considered "evil by nature". Attempting to convert/redeem such a creature is alternately considered a fool's errand or a mighty undertaking (depending on the success).
• Outsiders are not redeemable by non-Epic characters.

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.)

No. The Paladin does have the duty to probe, though, and find out more about this evil. Depending on what s/he finds out, further actions may include striking down the evildoer, or attempting to redeem him/her.

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

Yes. Some are redeemable, others are embodiments of pure Evil, and some are shepherd teaching Evil to new recruits. Unfortunately, detect evil alone does not tell you which are which, hence the Paladin must probe and find out more.

The Paladin, in my world, is justified in striking out at the Dragon or Demon (races considered impossible to redeem). The Goblin is a race that would bear watching (considered near-impossible to redeem). The Ogre is *probably* going to attack and make the Paladin act in self-defense anyway. The maiden, soldier, and Druid (presumably human) are all redeemable races.

The degree of evil is a factor after that. The Druid would likely show a stronger aura than the soldier or maiden at the same level, and Evil Druids are an enemy religion in my world. The maiden and the soldier are likely candidates for redemption, though.

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

There is no passive Evilness, no. But there are degrees, as indicated in the spell description: Faint, Moderate, Strong, Overwhelming. The stronger the aura, the more justified the Paladin is in taking action. Faint and Moderate auras would be candidates for redemption at first glance, but more information may change that. Strong auras are ones to approach cautiously. Overwhelming auras... once the Paladin recovers from being stunned, s/he should prepare to take it down, or die trying.

 

[Kemrain]

I play in a very 'Shades of Grey' game, and I enjoy it immensely. Paladins detect the Evil Type, and creatures that have an Evil Aura regardless of their alignment (Clerics of Evil Gods and Undead). Simply having Chaotic Evil on your sheet isn't enough, in this game, to get you an Evil Aura, and thus you can't be detected.

That stated, I'm soon to play, and looking forward to, a Chaotic Neutral Half-Demon. Though she has done some very evil things in the past, she has morals that do not fall into an evil alignment. She believes in Freedom above all, and is actively working to overthrow an evil, unjust despot because she believes her to be wrong. She has a son, and is happily married (to a human), and she loves her family more than anything- she'd readily give her existance for theirs- and insists that her son be raised to respect life and the freedom of others. She has no conscious desire (instinctial urges don't count) to do harm to innocents, values life, is capable of mercy, wears the holy symbol of the God of Justice, and has spoken with said God (though she does not 'worship' him they are on speaking terms, regardless that he'd rather like her to be a more goodly creature.) She has actively attacked demons in the past, and seeks to have her weapons made Holy, to better combat them, even though they'll burn her flesh and harm her essence (negitive levels). To top it off, she has never harmed the soul of another living creature (important fact, IMC).
Given that she tries to do decent things, or at least questionable things for decent reasons, opposes overtly evil beings, is wiling to sacrifice of herself for others (even if those she deems worthy of the ultimate sacrifice are only a small group), bears no ill will towards the Good, and is capable of showing compassion and mercy to those who have not earned a different fate, she is consitered Neutral. (She's just not altruistic enough and is too pragmatic to count as good. Probably never will, but that's another issue.) However, because her Type is Evil, she radiates as overwelmingly evil, and is quite detectable by Paladins and the like.

Though she's certanly not good, she is only Evil in her blood- her heart isn't in it. Even among creatures that are almost always evil, like fiends, there are individuals who don't enjoy the tormented screams of the damned, and aren't guilty of the atrocities that have marked their souls for all time. (Or perhapse that genuinely regret having committed them.) It's difficult to find a Demon who'd rather spend her time on the Prime not to cause suffering, but because the Abyss is just too Evil for her, but not quite impossible.

The Paladins in this game, however, are little like the Paladin Bot's I hear so much about. If confronted with a creature that detected as Evil, they would be ready to do combat, but if the creature did nothing wrong, the Paladin would be incorrect simply to kill it- the unprovoked slaying of a sentient being is Murder. Subduing is another matter, however, and banishing of Outsiders is acceptable as well. Non-sentient undead may be destroyed at will, but the ones that think are more 'put out of their misery' than 'righteously smited unto hell', and it is not at all uncommon for Paladins to feel awful while doing what they must. Humans that are evil are brought to justice and tried, and if found guilty, serve their sentence. Those found innocent are released, though when the verdict is questionable they will probably be watched. Known offenders are always monitored. Evil is certanly meant to be dealt with, but the rights of others are not to be impeeded upon in the proscess. To do any less would not be Lawful and Good.

Detect Evil, in my game, is more of a warning than anything else. It lets the Paladin know something supernatural is going on. But Evil is not always simply to be slain. Paladins have Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills for a reason, damnit!

That said, we call our game "d20 Fantasy" and use DnD as a guideline, so we've strayed quite some ways from the 'norm'. I've shared this to help illustrate an extreme opposite from the one portrayed in standard DnD. Though I'd have difficulty enjoying a black and white game, it pleases me that others do not.

I'm glad this thread can stay civil for 4 pages.

- Kemrain the [Evil], but not evil.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Here's what I pulled from the SRD:

Alignment:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. (my emphasis)

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Paladins:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Nowhere does it state that Paladins must destroy all evil. As Lawful Good, they are "committed to opposing evil", and they combine that with a discipline to "fight relentlessly." As paladins they must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Again, it does not say destroy or kill, but punish (and now the Lawful part kicks in again). It also does not say punish those who are evil , but instead "those who harm or threaten innocents". The Detect Evil ability becomes not a method to convict, but a tool to aid the paladin in knowing whether a person on creature should be watched closely or might be trusted.

 

[takyris]

Hey, Thornir!

Here's what I pulled from the SRD:

Alignment:A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. (my emphasis)

This would be fine, except that the section to which you're referring is talking about how players should build their characters. "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity." So all of that "not a straitjacket" stuff is really just saying "You can still act the way you want to," not "People might just have 'Chaotic Evil' days once in awhile."

If they detect as evil, then their general moral and personal attitude is that killing innocent people is fun and, if possible, the simplest way to solve a problem.

Lawful Good: No problems there, especially with "Hates to see guilty go unpunished." Opposes evil relentlessly, check.

Nowhere does it state that Paladins must destroy all evil.

Of course not. There might be Neutral creatures that are endangering innocents, too, and they've got to go as well. Man-eating tigers and such.

As Lawful Good, they are "committed to opposing evil", and they combine that with a discipline to "fight relentlessly." As paladins they must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents".

And, by the definitions in the SRD, any person who detects as evil threatens innocents, either because they will kill someone as soon as it's readily convenient to do so, or because they're actively looking for the opportunity. If you really want the paladin to be a redeemer rather than a smiter, you should take away the class' Smite Evil ability and give the paladin the chance to cast Atonement once per week instead. That's a perfectly viable variant class, but according to the rules, redeeming evil people should only be a "If it's reasonable and you can do it while maintaining the safety of innocents" option, because letting innocent people get killed because you wanted to give a psychopath a chance to decide not to be a psychopath is, if not a paladin-breaker, at least a disappointment to your deity.

Again, it does not say destroy or kill, but punish (and now the Lawful part kicks in again). It also does not say punish those who are evil , but instead "those who harm or threaten innocents". The Detect Evil ability becomes not a method to convict, but a tool to aid the paladin in knowing whether a person on creature should be watched closely or might be trusted.

I disagree. By the rules, punishment is great for situations where capturing somebody is viable, but the paladin can't really capture someone out in the middle of the woods unless he's got a spare horse. If you meet somebody out in the woods and they detect as evil, they're a threat to society. They're either a bomb waiting to go off the first time somebody spills ale on their tunic, or a conscious threat choosing to harm innocents. In either case, the paladin should either track them or attack them. Letting them go is only a good paladinic idea if the paladin is on his way to do something very important and can't take the time to chase the guy.

But, to reiterate, the guy is evil. All that "not a straitjacket" stuff means that the guy is not prohibited from doing good actions and doesn't have to kick every puppy he comes across, and that your character doesn't always have to be perfectly in line with his alignment when you play your character as a PC. Did you also note the part where it says:

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

(emphasis mine)

How can that be interpreted in any way except "if it's evil, it is a monster or villain, a potential threat to the innocent, and, since my job is to protect the innocent, I should roll initiative"? I can understand "In middle of bar-crowd, and paladin needs to figure out more about this person, see what their connections are." I can understand "Paladin should investigate this matter further." That's great. A paladin/rogue can certainly take an investigative approach to learn more about someone in order to figure out whether they need to be whacked immediately or traced back to some dark master, But this "They haven't committed a crime" jazz is a House Rule, because it goes against what's written in the SRD. In the SRD, if it detects as evil, it's a monster or a villain.

If you're making one-third of the villagers Evil because they aren't nice people, then you're altering the rules, and complaining that it doesn't work well is sort of like saying "Yeah, I decided to alter the driving instructions -- I don't put the clutch in before shifting anymore. Hey, why does my car make that awful grinding noise? Man, manual transmissions don't work very well." If you change the rules and then something else breaks because of it, don't blame the rules.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

This would be fine, except that the section to which you're referring is talking about how players should build their characters. "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity." So all of that "not a straitjacket" stuff is really just saying "You can still act the way you want to," not "People might just have 'Chaotic Evil' days once in awhile."

I don't have the entire SRD here. Does another part describe alignment differently for non-characters?

Of course not. There might be Neutral creatures that are endangering innocents, too, and they've got to go as well. Man-eating tigers and such.

I agree that neutrals can endanger innocents as well, but I still don't see anything saying they must be destroyed...

And, by the definitions in the SRD, any person who detects as evil threatens innocents, either because they will kill someone as soon as it's readily convenient to do so, or because they're actively looking for the opportunity.

I view the idea of threatening innocents differently than you do, I guess. I see "threatening innocents" as active, not a potential.

If you really want the paladin to be a redeemer rather than a smiter, you should take away the class' Smite Evil ability and give the paladin the chance to cast Atonement once per week instead.

I never said that, I do not think I mentioned redeeming anywhere in my post, but anyway...

I disagree. By the rules, punishment is great for situations where capturing somebody is viable, but the paladin can't really capture someone out in the middle of the woods unless he's got a spare horse. If you meet somebody out in the woods and they detect as evil, they're a threat to society. They're either a bomb waiting to go off the first time somebody spills ale on their tunic, or a conscious threat choosing to harm innocents. In either case, the paladin should either track them or attack them. Letting them go is only a good paladinic idea if the paladin is on his way to do something very important and can't take the time to chase the guy.

Hmm, you seem to have a different definition of punishment as well.

pun·ish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnsh)
v. pun·ished, pun·ish·ing, pun·ish·es
v. tr.
1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt: My boots were punished by our long trek through the desert.

I go by the first or second definition, I guess you use the third. I hope you don't work in the justice system...

How can that be interpreted in any way except "if it's evil, it is a monster or villain, a potential threat to the innocent, and, since my job is to protect the innocent, I should roll initiative"?

Where does it say "protect the innocent"? I see "Help those in need," and "punish those who harm or threaten the innocent." Now, your individual game may have a paladin code that says "protect the innoncent", but it isn't in the SRD.

If you're making one-third of the villagers Evil because they aren't nice people, then you're altering the rules, and complaining that it doesn't work well is sort of like saying "Yeah, I decided to alter the driving instructions -- I don't put the clutch in before shifting anymore. Hey, why does my car make that awful grinding noise? Man, manual transmissions don't work very well." If you change the rules and then something else breaks because of it, don't blame the rules.

Nope I do not buy the one-third villagers are evil, I view the majority of people as neutral - they just don't really want to be bothered.

And I do not think I was blaming the rules for anything. I'm just trying to look at one way of interpreting the rules. People can play it however they feel in their own game, they can interpret or change the rules however they want and who is to say if they are right or wrong.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I play in a very 'Shades of Grey' game, and I enjoy it immensely. Paladins detect the Evil Type, and creatures that have an Evil Aura regardless of their alignment (Clerics of Evil Gods and Undead). Simply having Chaotic Evil on your sheet isn't enough, in this game, to get you an Evil Aura, and thus you can't be detected.

Kemrain, I'm quite surprised that you manage to have a "shades of grey" game with that re-imagining of Detect Evil. Given that it only detects real bad guys, it seems that it IS a sure-fire substitute for Detect Bad Guy. Sure, if you don't detect, it doesn't mean you're clean, but if you DO detect as evil, you're either a demon in disguise, a priest of an evil deity, undead, or a blackguard. Unless the world is full of characters like the one you describe who have the evil subtype but aren't actually evil (and I would imagine that, in most worlds, such cases are one in a billion or so), people logically would conclude that if you detect as evil, you deserve to die.

No alignment detection at all or core rules alignment detection seems like it would be more conducive to a "shades of grey" game.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

So first off, right off the bat: Evil creatures debase or destroy innocent life -- these aren't thieves, these aren't low-grade selfish people. Murderers or those we'd classify as being on a level with murderers.

Takyris, you're reading too much into "destroy" innocent life and not enough into "debase" innocent life. You're also ignoring the population and random NPC generation tables and their presumed alignment distribution (which, naturally will vary from area to area and should probably be interpreted as typical of a neutral aligned area).

An evil person need not be a serial killer to fit that description. A prison guard who enjoys humiliating and beating the prisoners would fit. The warden in Shawshank redemption who has a prisoner killed when it turns out he has evidence of the main character's innocence fits that description. The guard who shot him fits that description (destroyed innocent life, check). The head guard who is noted for his cruelty also fits that description. For that matter, the gang of prison rapists probably fits that description as well. What they did was certainly debasing innocent life. Of course, the guards and warden from Shawshank redemption probably seemed like decent enough folks to those outside the prison. They married, had kids, paid their taxes, and probably went bowling with everyone else and without either Detect Evil or being able to know what went on in the prison (or how the prison's work programs were leveraged for bribes and blackmail), you would probably not guess their characters.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So, some folks will only kill you if you get in their way and it's reasonably convenient, but others are trying. For some campaigns, this could be a loophole -- sure, Billy the Psychopath is evil personified, but as long as nobody ever gets in his way when there are no witnesses around, all is good.

I don't think this is a loophole. People tend to behave worse when they're sure they won't get caught. That's true of neutrals (and probably most good characters too) as well as evils. And evil people aren't necessarily irrational. The greedy evil thief might kill a witness or a guard without a second thought if he thought it increased his odds of making a successful robbery but that doesn't mean that he's going to go out of his way to kill the guard even if the attempt INCREASES his chance of being caught.

This particular aspect of human rationality has served societies quite well because creating social structures where evil is likely to be disadvantageous and greater evil more disadvantageous enables most of us to live side by side with evil people without being hurt. There are a lot of crimes that never happen because "I'd probably get caught and it's just not worth it." (Also, note that one of the reasons that rape, for instance, doesn't carry a death penalty in most places is because we don't want to give the rapist incentive to kill his victim afterwards. Thus, the evil rapist doesn't come to think "if I leave her alive, she could identify me and if I'm convicted of killing her, I'm not any more worse off than if I'm convicted of rape so I might as well kill her." Violence in the commission of a robbery bears a stiffer penalty than simple robbery for similar reasons. All of this depends upon the supposition that evil people act upon some calculation of self-interest as well as simply behaving in accordance with their evil nature).

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

So Neutrality is either balance or ambivalence or apathy with regard to people in general. Which means that Evil is, by process of elimination, angrier and meaner and crueler and, well, eviller than that.

And this, doesn't necessarily make evil people 1 in 100. Simply going into any middle school and observing the children there will demonstrate that there are large segments of the population whose behavior is meaner, crueller, and eviller than simple ambivalence or apathy to the feelings of their fellow men and women. There's a lot of research that indicates that most people quite enjoy cruelty when they think they think they can get away with it. There's very good reasons that military forces place such a strong emphasis upon discipline and adhering to the regulations governing military life: it accustoms people to NOT doing what they otherwise would do on the field when people who might object aren't looking. (This applies to both treatement of their own forces and to others).

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose.

Evil people recognize that they are evil, either with a "Yep, that's me, what are you gonna do?" aspect, or with an "I chose to be this way" aspect. According to the rules as written, evil people will almost always recognize that they are evil. Someone who does horrific stuff for misguided and ultimately tragic purposes is Neutral, not Evil (ie, your basic Shakespearian tragic character, Othello or Hamlet or Macbeth -- although Macbeth's wife could be labelled Evil because she's fully aware of what she's getting her husband to do).

Note that this statement in the SRD is not exclusive. Some people are good or evil as a matter of choice. Most recognize but do not choose their attitude. That still leaves room for categories of people who choose but do not recognize their attitude or for people who neither choose nor recognize their attitude.

There are quite a few other Shakespearean characters worth discussing here. Iago, for instance, is clearly evil by the most restrictive definition available. Yet he worked indirectly, goading Othello into murder rather than murdering himself. Hamlet's uncle is probably best interpreted as evil as well. He may have felt regret at the murder of his brother but it's not clear how deep or sincere that regret was. The rules don't indicate that evil people can't feel guilt. It just doesn't stop them. (And it didn't stop Hamlet's uncle). Hamlet himself could be interpreted as borderline evil (his treatment of Ophelia is rather dastardly and he shows little regret for the killing of Polonius). However, one can make a case for his neutrality as well. Macbeth, OTOH, is probably evil. He murders the king in order to take his place. Destroying innocent life for profit. Check. That his wife egged him on in that is not an excuse.

A better source for what this could mean, however, is the Icelandic sagas. There are a number of minor characters in the saga of Njal the Burned or Grettir the Strong who introduce themselves as "I'm a bad man" or "one of the worst men in Iceland" and don't feel any particular need to change who or what they are. Some of them don't even seem particularly bad on a simple reading of the story either. Generally, what they seem to mean is that they have had a lot of quarrels and have killed men--perhaps even waylaid them for their money. They recognize that this falls into the social category of condemned (though not too strongly) acts but aren't particularly bothered by it. If they were D&D characters, they'd probably say "I'm what you think of as 'evil.'" Recognizing that one would be under social condemnation for what one does is different from A. Being bothered by that fact, "Yeah, I'm evil, what are you going to do about it?" B. Accepting the truth of the condemnation ("yeah, the white man says I'm evil but he's the oppressor; I follow the morality of my ancestors" just because morality is objective doesn't mean that individual characters see it that way (IRL, many people believe morality to be objective but there are plenty of people who don't see it that way so it's quite possible to be in error about morality)) C. taking it seriously "good, evil, whatever, I'm the guy with the gun," or "the survival of my people is more important than good and evil." or D. making change a priority in life. Thrassymachus, in Plato's Republic, for instance, maintained that it is the appearance of virtue rather than virtue that is worth having. A clear and common response to the recognition that one's acts would be condemned as evil is to try to ensure that nobody finds out about those acts.

Faint evil auras deserve a chance at redemption. But if you're a 2nd+ level cleric of an evil god you have devoted your life to the advancement of evil. In that case you simply have to die. And the paladin is there to facilitate it.

Interesting. My impression is that very few evil clerics actually dedicate themselves to the advance of "evil." Instead, they dedicate themselves to their own advancement. Evil deities offer power which is useful for that advancement. And, for evil people, the power of evil deities is preferable to that of good or neutral deities: 1-because they can actually get it (good deities would withhold spells from them), 2-because the evil deity demands nothing unacceptable to them (a good or even neutral deity might ask for a different perspective; why adopt that when you can just pick a deity that matches your perspective), 3-because evil deities often have connections with people who can get the kind of theings evil people want done.

Also, I think it's quite possible that a fair number of leading merchants and political leaders in cities as well as skilled fighters, etc will be level 10+. They will also radiate moderate evil without necessarily being serial killers, etc. The highly successful merchant who cheats his competitors at every chance he gets and doesn't think twice about tossing a poor man into debtor's prison (actually, he's come to enjoy it because it demonstrates his superiority and power--and it serves as a warning to anyone else who would welch on his debts) could easily be Com 6/Exp 4. Similarly, the corrupt judge could easily be Exp 4/Aristocrat 6.

 

[Joe Shmoe]

Well the stranger in the wilderness, even if he is evil should not be (smote, smitten?) because what if he is only minorly evil, or if he is evil, say he was carrying an important message for the PCs like, "there's a huge demonic invasion in the next village over, and you have to go fight it/warn the other town"
Also keep in mind that nobody, and this means practically NOBODY will be evil for evil's sake. Nobody goes out into the world and says, "I think I'll become an evil mastermind and rule the world" and that what almost everybody does is what they think is the right thing to do. I'm not saying that everyone is paladin like either. Everyone does things that might not be completely right, but there is still a better reason than because I'm evil.
EDIT: Of course, what am I thinking, in a fantasy campaign you have demons, devils, and evil dieties, which against all logic are evil for evil's sake. I guess that's what I get for liking fantasy games...