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

[Elder-Basilisk]

Not necessarily (though they and many other evil people don't have goals that would be recognized as good). In the Christian tradition, for instance, demons and devils aren't distinguished between, but they are not evil for the sake of being evil. Generally, they are considered to be evil because of pride ("better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven") or some other sin. They are often considered to continue in evil behavior out of spite ("God punished me so I'm going to punish God by hurting people he loves"), jealousy, anger, etc.

Evil deities are somewhat different. There are few examples of such things about which we have a lot of information IRL. Loki could be thought of as an evil deity. It's not clear why he is treacherous in the tales but he generally has some goal in his betrayals--he's not treacherous for the sake of being treacherous. The greek gods as presented in many of the myths might be though of as candidates for evil deities (particularly Poseidon, Aires, Hades, and possibly Dyonisius, and Zeus). They, however, generally did their evil deeds out of anger, jealosy, lust (they were all womanizers and many of them didn't bother with consent), pride, etc. Even the goddess of discord who tossed the golden apple into the hall of the gods did so with recognizable human motivation: she was miffed that she hadn't been invited to the wedding. Other gods about which we have less information but that might well be considered evil would be Molech (to whom the ancient middle easterners sacrificed babies) and the god of the Aztecs to whom they sacrificed the hearts of their prisoners. In these cases, if my understanding is correct, the evil is primarily associated with the worship rather than the god. So the question is not, "why is the god evil?" but rather "why does the god want his followers to do evil things?" The obvious answer is "because he's evil." However, the answer need not stop there. It might be that he benefits from consuming the souls of the sacrificed children or soldiers (sacrifices are often portrayed as the food of the gods). Then his evil lies in the fact that he finds such food acceptable. It might be that he wants to take human life as a demonstration of his importance (pride). In that case his evil lies in the fact that he finds his ego more important than human life. (Of course, it's also possible that the evil god doesn't care about the sacrifices per se--he's made that a precondition of his help and service because he wants to encourage people to do things that are abhorrent to some good god or other whom he hates and despises).

One need not suppose that even creatures who are supernaturally evil are evil for the sake of being 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...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Double Post

 

[takyris]

Hey, Thornir,

First off, apologies. Wrote my post poorly -- I didn't mean to imply that you particularly were doing the "I am changing the rules and them complaining about them." In Tackyland, that was supposed to be a vague and impersonal "You". Some people here are, in my opinion, deviating from the rules and then complaining that paladins don't work in their variant rule systems. You don't seem to be doing so, and I apologize for implying that you were.

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

I think the bit where I said "the three evil ones are for villains and monsters" is what we get.

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

This perhaps gets us into another problematic D&D ii that I was taking for granted but which by no means needs to be taken for granted -- the fact that, in a standard D&D society, corporal punishment or death is the only generally plausible means of dealing with anyone beyond peasant-strength. You're right in that the paladin is supposed to "punish" evildoers, and it says "punish" and not "kill" -- but if you're dealing with D&D levels of power, what other kinds of punishment are actually viable for anyone beyond peasant-power? Building a jail that can hold your average wizard is next to impossible except in the largest cities. Curses, geases, and polymorphs aren't viable in most cases because, by the time you're powerful enough to cast them, they're powerful enough to remove them or have a friend do so -- unless we're talking about someone of much lower power.

Fines are decently possible, I suppose. I hadn't thought of fines.

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

I see it as a shades-of-gray issue. In a black-and-white campaign, which is what D&D is geared for (in my opinion, and I could be wrong), you shouldn't meet an evil person, generally, unless he's on the way to do something evil, at least indirectly. In a shades-of-gray issue, sure, you can meet an evil guy who has a plan to do some horrifically evil stuff but isn't doing so at the moment, and you have to weigh the options -- attack him now with "he was evil" as your only justification or risk having a ten-year-old girl stare up at you a month from now and say "You knew! You knew he was evil, and that he was going to do something to someone, someday, and you didn't bother to stop him, and now my parents are dead!"

In D&D, I believe that you don't get the "Evil" alignment, according to the rules, unless you are an evildoer. I don't see a slippery slope, because I don't see the D&D universe as being "Minority Report" (movie, not story), where they might have a tendency toward doing something evil but are by no means guaranteed to do something evil. I see it, according to the rules, as "If they're evil, they're gonna do something evil unless you stop 'em." I'm open to being proven wrong on that one.

"Stop 'em" can in some circumstances be something other than "smite them", but I don't see most of those penalties as viable except when you're a lot more powerful than your opponent. In "I'm much more powerful" cases, I'm fine with non-smiting -- a prison, an involuntary incarceration in a temple where Good priests can attempt to rehabilitate you, enforced public service under a geas, and so forth.

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

I take your points about different punishment well, and that's what I'm describing above. To the personal comment at the end, I'll note that I prefaced all of this with "I don't use this in my system, because I'm interested in more shades of gray," or words to that effect. I'm interested in definitions of good and evil that apply more directly to the real world -- and I in no way think that these definitions apply to the real world. In real life, it's a lot easier to punish somebody in a non-smiting fashion.

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.

So, by your reading, then, a paladin is free to let an evil cleric kill some villagers, because "protect the innocent" isn't in his charter, but once they're dead, he should then punish the cleric?

C'mon. "Help those in need" plus "Punish those who harm or threaten the innocent" equals "Protect the innocent".

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.

Agree.

Hey, Elder Basilisk:

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).

Sorry, posting from work. Don't have it with me, and it's not in the SRD. If you don't mind, is there a "general alignment of average person you meet" table with randomness assigned? I'd be interested in seeing what their charts are like.

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.

I think your examples of the Shawshank Redemption people are good, and I think that if somebody like that shows up in a D&D world being played by the standard rules, the paladin should act against them. Or at least, I think I think that. Maybe those folks aren't evil, but Chaotic Neutral, and in their minds, they're pursuing justice, because the people in prison aren't innocent. Except that one of them was innocent. Yeah, then Evil, and the paladin should act against them. In D&D-land, you only get "Evil" if you're an evildoer, not an evil-consider-er, so a paladin knows that his actions are either a punishment for past evil or a pre-emptive strike against future evil.

If such a warden were protected by law, then the paladin shouldn't break the law, of course. He should, however, get his buddy the rogue to do some reconnaissance and figure out what the warden's dirty little secret is, and then bring it to light so that the warden can be tried in public and then punished appropriately as per the laws of the area. This is a far cry from "You encounter an evil person in the wilderness."

As for your very interesting notes about morality as being different in different areas, I think it's a great point, and I agree with it, but it directly contradicts official D&D rules. It is, I will note, closer to what I actually use, but D&D doesn't believe in subjective reality. D&D believes in objective reality and objective morality, such that the same people will "detect as evil" no matter what religion you're from or culture you're in.

But, again, what you suggest, with the implicit subjective morality, is closer to what I actually use.

 

[Kemrain]

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.

In my game, the rarity of creatures that radiate evil is the mitigating factor. Undead aren't common, Fiends generally less so, and Priests of Evil gods are either persecuted as criminals, or tolerated as a nescessary part of the pantheon's extention in the mortal realm. If it pings, it generally IS evil, but only about 1% of anything will ping, so you can still have a Shades of Grey game in an absolute world. Humanity is generally exempt from this Absolute-ness.

And caution is always advised, because anyhting that pings is gonna be pretty rough, or cursed with a false aura.

- Kemrain the [Evil], but still not evil.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Hey, Thornir,

First off, apologies.

Accepted and apologies for my personal comment as well.

So, by your reading, then, a paladin is free to let an evil cleric kill some villagers, because "protect the innocent" isn't in his charter, but once they're dead, he should then punish the cleric?

If the paladin knows the evil cleric is off to kill innocents, absolutely not, Smite away! If he does not know that the evil cleric is actually out to harm innocents, then he is, IMO, pushing his own respect for life and his compassion. If he suspects the cleric is up to something: try find out what the cleric is up to, or keep an eye on him. If this gets the paladin to the "knowing" level - smite away! I guess in my mind I see Paladins as the prototypical good cop.

 

[Umbran]

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

With the caveat that, even within the rules, there's interpretation to be done by the DM. Within a given campaign Good and Evil are objective states. But exactly what those states are varies from campaign to campaign.

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.

The average evil person might understand that they are evil. But that doesn't mean all do. The rules leave wiggle room for those who are not making a conscious choice about it. And for purposes of the original question of the paladin's dispensing of justice, knowing may or may not matter, depending on the code.

In addition - those without Knowledge (Arcana) or Spellcraft skills may know jack about it. Alignment in D&D is largely a mechanic for the magic system. Those who don't know magic may be unaware. They may know that Joe the Thug is a downright nasty character, but Sam the Commoner won't talk about Evil with a capital "E".

Also, I'll reiterate - folks who detect as "evil" have the balance of their actions so far weighing on the side of evil. Evil people have destroyed and debased life in the past. They may currently carry a negative karmic balance, but that does not speak to current or future activities. Again, for the paladin that leaves us with questions in executing justice.

That said, though, I think DMs ought to put a bit more care and thought into who and what they call "evil".

Until such time as somebody comes up with a spell that generates false positives, anyone who detects as evil is evil...

Uh, you might want to go read the description for the Misdirection spell. False positives right there in the core rules.

There are other false positives - a cleric of an evil deity can detect as evil without being evil themselves. Remember that a cleric can be a step removed from the deity's alignment. So, a cleric of a LE deity can be LN, and of no particular threat to the populace. We can also construct a false positive involving the stunning effect of some overwhelming auras and reasonable assumptions on the paladin's part.

Simply put - Detect Evil is a 1st level spell. There can and will be ways to thwart or mislead it. Depending upon it as your judge and jury is apt to get you into trouble.

 

[takyris]

Hey Umbran,

That said, though, I think DMs ought to put a bit more care and thought into who and what they call "evil".

That's probably the best thing to do, in any version of the game -- that, and talk with your players about what everyone should expect.

Uh, you might want to go read the description for the Misdirection spell. False positives right there in the core rules.

D'oh! And there we go. Thanks. The paladin officially now has doubt. That's reason enough right there not to initiate combat against an evil-detecting person he meets in a neutral, empty setting.

As for Neutral clerics of Evil deities... I'll be honest and say that I'd aim towards smitin' 'em anyway. "Yeah, that's great, you're an impartial and not-cruel priest of the god of slaughter and tyranny, which means that you're going to be fair and evenhanded in the manner with which you attempt to meet your god's demands -- which include slaughter and tyranny..." Not saying I'd attack him over cocktails, but he pings as "as evil as an outsider", yes? This is purely Tacky, not the rules, but I just fundamentally have issues with deviations that severe from the ethics of your deity. If your deity is LAWFULevil, and you're LAWFULneutral, that's fine, and hey, maybe I shouldn't cleave into you after I finish smiting the guy who says that he's NEUTRAL when in fact his deity is neutralEVIL.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hey, Elder Basilisk:

Sorry, posting from work. Don't have it with me, and it's not in the SRD. If you don't mind, is there a "general alignment of average person you meet" table with randomness assigned? I'd be interested in seeing what their charts are like.

DMG 110: Random NPC alignment:
d%
01-20 Good (LG, NC, or CG)
21-50 Neutral (LN, N, or CN)
51-100 Evil (LE, NE, or CE)

DMG 138: Power Center Alignment
d%
01-35 Lawful Good
36-39 Neutral Good
40-41 Chaotic Good
42-61 Lawful Neutral
62-63 True Neutral
64 Chaotic Neutral
65-90 Lawful Evil
91-98 Neutral Evil
99-100 Chaotic Evil

I'm actually quite surprised at how skewed towards law the power-center alginment chart is. Naturally, all of these charts are probably not intended to be directly indicative of the normal demographic spread of humanity and ought to be dramatically different in different areas (in Greyhawk, for instance, evil people are the vast majority in the Bandit Kingdoms, a large minority in Greyhawk, and a smaller minority in Nyrond or Furyondy) but I think they do serve to indicate that the designers view evil aligned people as common rather than rare.

I think your examples of the Shawshank Redemption people are good, and I think that if somebody like that shows up in a D&D world being played by the standard rules, the paladin should act against them. Or at least, I think I think that. Maybe those folks aren't evil, but Chaotic Neutral, and in their minds, they're pursuing justice, because the people in prison aren't innocent. Except that one of them was innocent. Yeah, then Evil, and the paladin should act against them. In D&D-land, you only get "Evil" if you're an evildoer, not an evil-consider-er, so a paladin knows that his actions are either a punishment for past evil or a pre-emptive strike against future evil.

If such a warden were protected by law, then the paladin shouldn't break the law, of course. He should, however, get his buddy the rogue to do some reconnaissance and figure out what the warden's dirty little secret is, and then bring it to light so that the warden can be tried in public and then punished appropriately as per the laws of the area. This is a far cry from "You encounter an evil person in the wilderness."

The final reaction of the paladin to the Shawshank Redemption warden seems appropriate to me too. However, I don't think it is a far cry from "you encounter an evil person in the wilderness." The warden and his guards live in a fairly rural area so, in an environment without cars, it's quite likely that a paladin would in fact encounter them in the wilderness if he was wandering through their homeland in the morning or evening. That's the problem. The paladin who encounters an evil stranger in the wilderness around Greyhawk city doesn't know if it's Tharg the Merciless, bloodthirsty ravager of Erythnul, Acolyte Jinan (LN) of the local temple of Hextor, or the Shawshank redemption warden returning to Greyhawk city after visiting his cousin's wedding (or collecting his money).

As for your very interesting notes about morality as being different in different areas, I think it's a great point, and I agree with it, but it directly contradicts official D&D rules. It is, I will note, closer to what I actually use, but D&D doesn't believe in subjective reality. D&D believes in objective reality and objective morality, such that the same people will "detect as evil" no matter what religion you're from or culture you're in.

But, again, what you suggest, with the implicit subjective morality, is closer to what I actually use.

You misunderstand me. My point was not that D&D morality is relative. It isn't. It wasn't that real morality is relative either. I don't believe that it is.

My points were different than that:

1. Just because morality is objective doesn't mean whe care about it. We can say, "it's objectively wrong but who cares? As long as I don't get caught, I won't suffer." That's the position of Thrassymachus in Plato's Republic. What is important is not virtue but rather the appearance of virtue (and, in D&D land, the money to buy a ring of mind shielding).

The argument of the amoralist is actually stronger in D&D-land than IRL. In D&D-land, one can say, "Heironeous and Pelor value "the good," Hextor values "the law and calls their 'good' weakness." I will do what I wish, attempt to maintain the appearance of virtue. And, in the end, my soul will probably go to Hextor and he'll reward me. At least, IRL, if one accepts the immortality of the soul, it's generally thought that either God will send him to hell where he'll be punished or karma will ensure that he's reincarnated as a cockroach. Depending upon one's religious and metaphysical beliefs, it's possible to justify morality to someone who believes that might makes right. In D&D-land, that's not quite possible.

2. Some people, in D&D, and IRL will take the position that they should do evil so that good will come of it. Torture the prisoner and get information that saves lives. Torture is evil but it's OK because we're the good guys. Now, a few prisoners are bound to be innocent. Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. All they need to do is convince themselves that it's justified, and they can go all the way down the path to evil even while thinking they're righteous. And, if the god they worship is LN, he (and his priests) might not even care. (For followers of good gods, their priests might detect evil during the weekly sacrifices and talk to them about the state of their soul but that doesn't necessarily mean the people would listen. Historically, now, and in D&D-land, there are a lot of people who don't listen to their priests. There are also a lot of people who don't often come to evening sacrifices and who leave as soon as they're over so that nobody has a chance to talk to them).

IRL and in D&D-land, rationalization is the path to objective evil.

3. Even in D&D-land, it's a mistake to assume that just because there is undisputably objective good and evil, everyone will view those as the most important facts of life. Faithfulness to tradition, adherence to the ways of the ancestors, and group identity can be every bit as powerful a motivation as "it's right." Robert E. Lee was no fan of slavery but he fought on the wrong side of the civil war because he identified himself with the people of Virginia and felt obligated to follow them in secession. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "I tremble for my country when I think that God is just" yet he kept slaves. His way of life was more important than what he himself thought to be right. I have no trouble imagining a man, woman, elf, dwarf, halfling, or orc who chooses to follow an evil path--knowing that it is evil--because that is his peoples' and his ancestors' way of life. In that case, his people probably don't ever use Detect Evil so he may have no reason to believe that the newcomer's, northerners', or abolitionists' Detect Evil spell is detecting something objective. And, even if he does, the fact of objective evil may not be sufficient reason for him to change.

None of that entails moral relativism. There's no contradiction between objective, moral facts and people either not caring, deluding themselves, or choosing to adhere to an objectively wrong code. In fact, most people who, IRL, believe in objective morality see such behavior everywhere. It should come as no surprise that such occurs in D&D-land too.

There's a further point too. Detect Evil detects evil in people not in actions. While I just used Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee as people who did something that they knew to be wrong, I wouldn't categorize them as evil men. From what I've read, Robert E. Lee, might reasonably be called good and Thomas Jefferson was probably neutral on the worst interpretation of his actions. John Brown (the leader of the Harper's Ferry incident), OTOH, was, from what I've read, quite possibly evil. Even if he wasn't, it's certain that there were evil abolitionists. (Evil men attach themselves to good causes all the time). There's no doubt that there were evil slave-owners. However, what would Detect Evil have told a young Abraham Lincoln about the morality of slavery? Not much.

Let's consider what the young Abraham Lincoln could have learned. Here is a group of abolitionists. Most are upstanding members of the community but several of them radiate evil. There is a group of slave-owners. Some of them radiate evil but not all of them (some are neutral, a few are good, and quite a few can afford rings of mind shielding). Next to them is a group of overseers. More of them radiate evil. I don't think you could treat that as proof that Detect Evil reveals slavery to be evil.

Empirical investigation with Detect Evil and Detect Good would probably reveal that good people tend to oppose slavery and evil people tend to support it. Empircal studies with detect evil over time would probably show a strong tendency for people involved in slavery to become evil. It might even show that, the closer one was to the actual treatment of the slaves, the more likely one was to become evil. (Slave traders were almost universally evil, slave overseers were very likely to be evil and even more likely to be evil after overseeing slaves for a year or two. Slave owners were significantly more likely to be evil than the general population). Case studies might show people like Isaac Watts who was evil when he was a slave trader but became good after he abandoned the slave trade. So that might demonstrate a statistical link between slavery and evil but it wouldn't necessarily demonstrate a causal link. (Slavery apologists would probably fund some studies in the North that would find a higher incidence of evil among sweatshop owners than among the general population and argue that it is actually being forced to manage poor laborers that is evil. They might find that more so-called wage-slaves were evil than slaves and argue that, while slavery may be worse for the masters' moral health than the factory system, it's better for the slaves' moral health). In short, empirical investigation with Detect Evil, probably wouldn't make much difference to the persuasiveness of the arguments the young Lincoln had to sort through to determine that slavery was an evil.

When one considers that all of this talk of sociological studies and empirical investigation with Detect Evil is rather anachronistic, it doesn't seem at all clear that Detect Evil would give our fantasy counterparts a significantly more secure a sense of right and wrong acts than we have without it.

That doesn't entail moral relativism either. It just points out that Detect Evil is no magic bullet against moral uncertainty. And it's certainly no magic bullet against rationalization for the normal man.

 

[Umbran]

...but I think they do serve to indicate that the designers view evil aligned people as common rather than rare.

Not at all. The random NPC chart is designed to produce encounters, and as such it is skewed for purposes of producing action and drama.

 

[Kalanyr]

Hm. Seems to me you're already out on a limb in saying that 1/3 of all humans are good (or evil). I don't know where you came up with that number, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in the core rules anywhere.

Demographics are the purview of individual DMs. If we want to go by the books, we have only a couple of guidelines. In the DMG, fully half of all NPCs created for encounters are evil. But this doesn't mean much, as most of the population isn't there for "encounters".

In the PHB, we are told that the "most common" alignment for humans is flat Neutral. That implies that over a third of humans are such, leaving less than one third for the extremes.

We are ?

Originally posted by [/b]3.5e PHB P13 Humans, Alignment Subheading[/b]
Humans tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality. The best and the worst are found amongst them

Looks like we are told just the opposite to me.