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

[Thotas]

Okay, I've since read Universe's description of things. Things weren't as harsh as I thought. But still, I'd say the paladin made a rash decision in the heat of combat. Not enough to warrant even the temporary loss of abilities. Some sort of warning or better yet, some sort of "making a point" thing ... most people might suggest a dream from the god at this point, but I've never liked that bit personally.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Since I started the thread, I'll answer it my way now.

The way I handle it is pretty much right out of the core rules:

Evil (as detected by detect evil) means Evil. The creature/person with an Evil alignment is Evil. Not "misunderstood", not of a "different philosophy", not "naughty", not "not-good" -- Evil. Has done Evil, will do Evil.

That's funny. I'm pretty sure my approach is core rules too. Our approaches aren't the same.

But I'm curious why you would think that a "different philosophy" is not evil. There are plenty of philosophies in this world that exist to rationalize or excuse evil and many more that have been put to that task. In that way, they are evil.

I'm also curious why you and others on this thread still seem to insist that all evil is scenery chewing villainy complete with villainous cackles. Most of the things that we acknowledge as the greatest evils IRL aren't that way and most of history's greatest villains are understandable as exaggerated examples of qualities that are present in the people you and I meet every day. It may be that many campaigns would rather deal in broad strokes with obvious villainy than with the every day sort of evil that characterizes most evil people but that doesn't seem like any reason to deny that the every-day kind of evil is actually evil.

"Not good" (read: Neutral) is not Evil. One mistake does not make one Evil. The Chaotic Good rogue in the paladin's party has nothing to fear of the paladin, if he is truly Chaotic Good. Those who write CG on their character sheet and then act CE in the game are a whole other problem and discussion.

Someone who hasn't done Evil for fear of getting caught is like someone who hasn't done Good for fear of putting their neck out for someone -- in other words: is not Evil (or not Good).

The difference between Neutral and Good is whether or not they put their neck out for someone--or, more to the point, whether or not they are the kind of person who would put their neck out for someone, given the opportunity.

On the other hand, the difference between neutral and evil is that neutral people don't generally let themselves enjoy the pain or suffering of others but evil people do and that neutral people would not generally go as far as evil people in hurting others to get their way. (I say wouldn't go as far because it seems to me quite likely that a neutral person might neglect to warn an enemy or a rival about a deadline, might steal hotel towels, might mock and ridicule the unpopular kid in school in order to fit in with his peers, and might keep the money from a wallet they found on the street, etc. All of those actions hurt other people but in most cases don't hurt other people as seriously as other actions that might be taken; evil people would go further in all of these things).

Both of these are potentially counterfactual definitions. Sir Galahad is good before his virtue is put to the test because he is the kind of person who would do good if the opportunity presented itself even if he hasn't yet. Sir Mordred is evil before he has his chance to betray King Arthur because he was the kind of person who would betray and murder even though he hadn't done so yet.

However, the parallel you draw between "not doing good for fear of putting out your neck" and "not doing evil for fear of getting caught" is inaccurate. Good is distinguished from neutral at least partly be the fact that the good person IS willing to risk putting out his neck in order to do good. Neutral, on the other hand, is not distinguished from evil by the fear of getting caught. It's distinguished from evil by what happens when the fear of getting caught is removed. The evil person, if offered a reward for killing someone with the guarantee of not getting caught says "you betcha!" The neutral person says "no." The evil person, if left alone in the king's treasury, takes everything he can get and rides into the sunset. The neutral person--at the very least--stops his theft before he bankrupts the kingdom (or quite possibly doesn't steal at all). Evil is unscrupulous not suicidal or stupid. And neutral is not just evil with the fear of punishment. Neutral characters have some scruples which, according to the PHB, always stop short of taking innocent life.

A paladin has the right and duty to destroy evil. That is his job. That is why the Lawful and Good powers of the universe invest him with the powers to detect and smite evil. You don't appoint a police force and then expect them to sit on their hands.

The "wolf" may not be stalking the "herd" at this moment (because he's currently full, tired, or otherwise busy), but to ensure the safety of the "herd", the "shepherd" has the right and duty to strike and kill or drive off the "wolf". [Wolf = Evil, herd = innocent/peaceful people, shepherd = paladin.]

But. . .a paladin would be wise to ensure that nothing bad would come (to him or others) of killing the Evil creature/person. Although the universal powers would probably approve of killing an Evil priest sitting in a tavern, the civil authorities will probably not be too happy with the act. (Since so many people have twisted this wilderness encounter into a city encounter.) A paladin can be arrested, tried, and even executed by normal city authorities if he strikes down someone without tangible evidence. A paladin should act within the (good and just) laws to erradicate Evil as far as possible without allowing Evil to be Evil unchecked.

Why on earth would the city authorities object to the paladin simply smiting the evil priest sitting in the tavern if your other statements about the paladin's duty and the nature of evil are true? It is every bit as much the responsibility of the civil authorities to protect the people of their city as it is the responsibility of the paladin. If the evil priest (or evil person) sitting in the tavern is a "wolf" who needs to be killed in order to protect people, the city authorities should commend and reward the paladin for killing him out of hand. (Or at the very least, they should punish the paladinbot and then commission another just like him to do the same thing under their authority).

On the other hand, if the Gestapo-paladins of Swordpoint are behaving unjustly and the paladin smiting the evil man in the tavern is acting wrongly, then the paladin smiting the evil man in the wilderness is acting unjustly or wrongly as well.

If evil people are also protected from arbitrary, "pre-emptive" execution, assault, and theft, just like good people in the town, then it stands to reason that a paladin shouldn't begin acting differently because he meets them in the wilderness. Evil people form a significant portion of most societies. Furthermore, the population of evil people is not a fixed and unalterable body. Instead, it changes as some evil people repent of their ways, some good and neutral people are corrupted by compromise and rationalization, and new people, both good and evil are born into the world. Because of these factors, and a number of others such as the moral effect of running Swordpoint's death camps on the "paladins" who do so, most societies have been content to protect their evil populations and keep them in check with laws that to a lesser or greater extent keep their villainy within acceptable limits.

-snip-

Fighters fight. Barbarians rage. Wizards study magic. Rogues sneak. Paladins smite Evil.

Quite right. But paladins smite only the evil that needs smiting at the time that it needs it. Paladins strike the head from the shoulders of the black knight, wash their arms in the blood of death cultists, and eradicate thieves' guilds. On the other hand, they generally don't eviscerate twelve year old boys who enjoy pulling the wings off butterflies, burning ants with magnifying glasses, throwing rocks at stray cats, and beating up smaller boys for their lunch money. They don't generally go into a village, find the drunk who beats his wife and put an arrow through his eye. They might well turn the merchant who uses a false set of weights over to the city council who proceeds to boil him in oil (historically, people were much harsher on economic crime than people are comfortable with in modern western societies). However, even then, they would most likely not simply run him through with a spear as he begged and cowered behind his shop counter. (Good is better served when people know what he did to deserve death and his execution is public--that way, people can see that those who break the rules don't get away with it and that vengeance has been taken for them (so they don't need to take it themselves)).

 

[frankthedm]

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.

very good take on it, i remove the "level" factor but when the taint on someone's soul is strong enough, then it is Right to Smite.

They lead to to the light, wanderers on Hell's path.
Those who choose to follow it, only know Their wrath.
- a children’s nursery rhyme from my game

I don't know about other peoples games, but when a paladin is around, the evil should fear.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm also curious why you and others on this thread still seem to insist that all evil is scenery chewing villainy complete with villainous cackles.

Elder-Basilisk, this and most of the rest of your post is simply making strawmen and then argue against them -- you are not arguing what I and some others have actually written.

If you want to play a game where evil is not really Evil (no scenery chewing or cackles necessary), then that is your opinion. But by the RAW, evil is Evil:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“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.

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Quasqueton

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Thanks, Queen_Dop. I think your DM and I see eye to eye on many issues, and I would love to play a paladin or a cleric in his campaign.

I am certainly having a good time playing in the game. It's a little difficult... but, at the same time, my DM says that Batman is a Paladin... so, there are strict rules and codes to follow... but, you still get to have a TON of fun in the quest for Justice.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

All in all, the evil ninja guy taught my incredibly zealous Palain a very valuable lesson... and, I really think that was what the DM was getting at. She needed to calm down... and, she has... a little...

It's made for a very interesting character point that she thinks about often... ahhh, the regret!

 

[Aristotle]

I do not play with evil = EVIL, and to be honest I interpret the core rules as supporting the way I play. I guess we all are in need of some clarification in the next rules revision.

Furthermore the paladins that most of the evil = EVIL people are describing sound much more like Chaotic Good characters than Lawful Good ones (I'll do what ever I can get away with to further good?). A lawful character would live by the law whether he was in the city or in the wilderness. Those laws are established boundaries that he has grown to respect and hold dear. He would not throw them out at the first chance to bash a head in. If the law states he can kill anything that pings as evil, then have at it. But if the law requires proof, then the paladin will also require proof. Law doesn't get much simpler than that guys. Just establish what the law is and let that guide the decisions of your paladins.

The other thing to keep in mind here is that you should define what evil is in your world. That isn't altogether easy as evil is a human construct used to define things that a culture finds morally wrong or inhumane. Most of you seem to adhere to a very modern moral code in your fantasy games... That's fine, but make sure your players know it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Elder-Basilisk, this and most of the rest of your post is simply making strawmen and then argue against them -- you are not arguing what I and some others have actually written.

According to Dictionary.com a straw man is:

1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.

Obviously 1 and 3 aren't applicable in your case. Definition 2, however, doesn't fit either. In order for definition 2 to be applicable, I would have to be the one creating an argument that is not advocated by any others in the discussion in order to easily refute it. However, as the rest of your post demonstrates, I am not setting up an imaginary argument that has no supporters in this thread. You actually are advocating that the RAW leave no room for subtle, low-key, or commonplace evil. After all, what do you mean by saying that evil (alignment) always and only means Evil if not that commonplace, low-key, and/or realistic evil does not correspond to an evil alignment?

If you want to play a game where evil is not really Evil (no scenery chewing or cackles necessary), then that is your opinion. But by the RAW, evil is Evil:

Since you have managed to overlook or ignore all of the arguments I've put forward here to the effect that evil can be realistic, commonplace, and even low-key rather than cartoonish and still fit within the RAW, I'll reiterate them here:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Two things are relevant here: First, this is an introductory statement and, as such, is probably not intended to exhaust the definition of evil but rather to admit further clarification.

Second, by focussing on the idea of killing rather than debasing (and even destroying) you are missing out on the greater meaning here.

Debase: To lower in character, quality, or value; to degrade

A schoolyard bully who enjoys pushing younger, weaker, or less popular students heads into the toilet and giving them swirlies is debasing innocent life.

A brothel owner who lures poor women into his country with promises of honorable employment and then manipulates them into a life they did not choose (usually through a combination of humiliation and threats) is debasing innocent life.

A professor who stands one of her students up for ridicule when from the class when he expresses an opinion that differs from hers is debasing innocent life (the intent is to humiliate and intimidate that particular student into changing or keeping silent about his opinion and to intimidate other students so as to prevent them from voicing dissent).

Most of the scandal at Abu Ghraib is about guards who participated in the humiliation and debasement of "innocent" human life (though I don't think it matters whether or not the prisoners are innocent myself).

Destroy also has different degrees. It would be reasonable to say that someone could "destroy" a person's life without killing them. In the Princess Bride, Wesley's threats to Humperdink center on exactly this point: that he would destroy Humperdink but not kill him. Similarly, it's reasonable to think that burning someone's house down, getting them fired, turning their family against them, and breaking their kneecaps would qualify as destroying someone's life--even though they were still alive. In fact, if the speeches of lawyers are to be believed, any one of those things could constitute destroying a life.

“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.

But here comes the explanation of the first sentence. (Not the full explanation because that comes in the elucidation of the specific alignments and even that may be taken as emblematic rather than exhaustive). Now, it's clear that hurting, oppressing, and killing others is evil. That's three different levels on which someone could behave evilly.

Hurting obviously admits a lot of different degrees. A person can be hurt when the popular people decide to ridicule them as fat or stupid. A person can be hurt when newspapers print lies about them based on anonymous sources. A person can also be hurt when the union enforcers work them over with tire irons and they spend the next few weeks in the hospital. Even if no one particular act instantly makes a person evil (mocking the fat, unpopular kid who later commits suicide for instance), the RAW seem to support a variety of different kinds of evil here, some of which are quite commonplace.

This is even more apparent with oppressing people. While I think that most of what is said about oppression in academia these days is a load of hogwash, it does illustrate that oppression is a very flexible term. The sherriff of Nottingham oppressed the saxons with Prince John's high taxes and with harsh reprisals for Robin Hood's actions. The Taliban was said to oppress women by forcing them to wear burquas (depending upon the country in question) and preventing them from working in certain fields or gaining an education. Some people would say that men in Afghanistan were oppressing women in that case. Apartheid South Africa certainly oppressed its majority black population. Exactly what would constitute an individual's involvement in this oppression is unclear but it would be bizarre to maintain that only the leaders (Prince John, the Sheriff, Mullah Omar, and the legislators who voted for Apartheid) were doing the oppressing and that everyone else was just "following orders" or "obeying the law." The oppression standard also supports a more subtle view of evil.

Killing people. Okay, I think we're all clear on that one.

Have no compassion and kill without qualms if it is convenient. I think that this is a clear allowance for a counter-factual, dispositional analysis of D&D evil. The villain "has no compassion" and has no qualms about killing people. However, it has not yet been convenient for him to kill anyone so he hasn't. It seems to me that under this definition, he is still evil as the description still applies to him (albeit counterfactually in the case of killing without qualms). It's quite possible to be evil without having the capability to kill and get away with it. (I believe that the troublemaker who stirs up Njal's sons to kill Thorgeir the priest in the saga of Burnt Njal fits this description quite well myself--he never killed anyone himself (Skarphedin did that) but he was clearly responsible for the death).

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

First, it's important to note that these descriptions are typical rather than exhaustive. This describes villains who are lawful evil rather than giving a list of criteria that might make a villain lawful evil. Consequently, it's entirely possible that there will be people who do not fit every aspect of this description. That does not necessarily make them neutral; they can still be lawful evil. It just means that they are not as lawful evil as some other characters. (In the same way, many a lawful-good fighter or wizard doesn't quite fit the description (perhaps sharing some lawful neutral or neutral good traits) as well as an Exalted Paladin). Alignment is not a straitjacket for NPCs either.

Second, it's important to note that the primary distinguishing factors of the lawful evil villain are 1. playing by the rules and 2. a lack of mercy or compassion. That could fit a lot of "commonplace" villains I discussed in my earlier posts.

Lawful evil villains even often have taboos that prevent them from engaging in deeds they consider particularly heinous such as killing in cold blood or hurting children. (The well-known antipathy of ordinary criminals to child molesters in the prison system comes to mind here). As such, they are prime candidates for the common-place evil I discussed.

Note that the description of a lawful evil villain doesn't reference killing except in reference to the fact that some lawful evil villains have compunctions against killing. Even an excessively (and tendentiously) literalist reading of the rules would not establish that one has to be a murderer to be lawful evil.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

A neutral evil character's defining characteristics are listed as "doing whatever she can get away with" and being "out for herself, pure and simple." There are plenty of people who can't get away with murder (or haven't yet had the opportunity to do so) but can get away with a lot of lesser things (see hurting and oppression above).

She might kill for profit, sport, or convenience but I don't think it's necessary to suppose that every neutral evil character has done one of those things. That she would (counterfactually) be willing to do such things if "she can get away with it" is sufficient.

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

The chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. (Which may or may not be murder depending upon the circumstances). I don't think it's necessary to suppose that every chaotic evil villian is greedy AND hateful AND lusts after destruction. A combination of several of these should be sufficient to land a villain in the chaotic evil camp. Note again that the chaotic evil description doesn't directly reference killing. Presumably, a hot-tempered biker who is known for starting tavern brawls, beating up people for their money, enjoyed mayhem and destruction, etc could be seen as chaotic evil even if he hasn't yet killed anyone. And he would still be judged chaotic evil at the end of his life even if he never killed anyone.

The upshot of all this is that the rules as written support the use of evil alignments for people who aren't EVIL (to use your terminology) and that all evil individuals do not necessarily deserve to have their head smitten from their shoulders by a wandering paladinbot.

 

[Quasqueton]

First off, this reply is not exhaustive. I don't have time to address each and every point you make, so I'll just hit some highlights.

Re: strawman arguments:

I'm also curious why you and others on this thread still seem to insist that all evil is scenery chewing villainy complete with villainous cackles.

Who on "my side" of this debate has said this?

You actually are advocating that the RAW leave no room for subtle, low-key, or commonplace evil. After all, what do you mean by saying that evil (alignment) always and only means Evil if not that commonplace, low-key, and/or realistic evil does not correspond to an evil alignment?

Where have I, or anyone on "my side" of this debate, said this? Evil can be subtle. What does "low-key" mean if different than subtle? And if by "commonplace" you mean. . .

*Note: my answers below are all within the context of D&D alignments.*

A schoolyard bully who enjoys pushing younger, weaker, or less popular students heads into the toilet and giving them swirlies is debasing innocent life.

If this was an adult regularly doing similarly humilating acts against adults = Evil. Should be punished. But a child is a different and complicated debate. Can we agree to keep alignment debates regarding children a seperate topic?

A brothel owner who lures poor women into his country with promises of honorable employment and then manipulates them into a life they did not choose (usually through a combination of humiliation and threats) is debasing innocent life.

Slavery = Evil. Should be punished.

A professor who stands one of her students up for ridicule when from the class when he expresses an opinion that differs from hers is debasing innocent life (the intent is to humiliate and intimidate that particular student into changing or keeping silent about his opinion and to intimidate other students so as to prevent them from voicing dissent).

If this is standard operating procedure for the professor, and is meant specifically and only to break the child(ren) and keep them effectively enslaved = Evil. Should be punished.

Most of the scandal at Abu Ghraib is about guards who participated in the humiliation and debasement of "innocent" human life (though I don't think it matters whether or not the prisoners are innocent myself).

This threatens to break the forum rules. I'll skip this.

It would be reasonable to say that someone could "destroy" a person's life without killing them. In the Princess Bride, Wesley's threats to Humperdink center on exactly this point: that he would destroy Humperdink but not kill him. Similarly, it's reasonable to think that burning someone's house down, getting them fired, turning their family against them, and breaking their kneecaps would qualify as destroying someone's life--even though they were still alive. In fact, if the speeches of lawyers are to be believed, any one of those things could constitute destroying a life.

Yep. Evil (when considered in a vacuum, without context -- for instance "destroying" a tyrant is different than "destroying" a common farmer living on the other side of the fence).

Killing people. Okay, I think we're all clear on that one.

Actually, let's use the more specific term: murdering people. Using "killing" in this context is like saying "carnivore" instead of "cannibal".

Assuming the actions you described above were the regular modus operandi for each, and not just a "phase" or the result of one-time poor decision making: If the paladin met the bully, the brothel owner, and the teacher in your above examples in the Forest of No Context, they would detect as Evil. But a foolish, youthful cruelty is not grounds for the evil alignment. A regretted, ill-conceived action is not grounds for the evil alignment. But a pattern of acquiring slaves through deceipt and coersion is grounds for the evil alignment.

Note, though, that if the paladin met the above examples in context, he could and should choose to act within civil laws for punishment, not summary execution.

It all comes down to: do you consider a schoolyard bully as Evil? A slaver? A cruel professor? If so, then they get the Evil alignment, and are target's for a paladin's smite. If you consider their actions as not rising to the description of Evil, then give them the Neutral alignment, and they won't be detected by a paladin.

The biggest problem with paladins vs. Evil seems to be that many DMs will give the Evil alignment to someone not really deserving of it. And then they punish the paladin for acting on the false alignment.

DM: "He was only stealing for food because he was starving."

Player: "So why did he detect as Evil?"

DM: "Because stealing is Evil."

Quasqueton
P.S. I probably won't be able to respond to any response to this till next week.

 

[Kalanyr]

If the paladin met the bully, the brothel owner, and the teacher in your above examples in the Forest of No Context, they would detect as Evil.

I think the point is that yes they would detect as evil, but smiting them is a bit excessive for their crimes, therefore a Paladin should *NOT* smite any and all things that detect as evil, in the wilderness or wherever.