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

[CalrinAlshaw]

The only people who say a Paladin doesn't have any chain of command or those people who treat the Core Books like a bible and refuse to accept any ideas accept their own interpretation of the LETTER of what is written.

It is generally accepted that a paladin has to follow a deity of somesort. (Divine abilities, you know, from divine beings, paladins are not level 1 gods)

Most deities have some sort of church. Most churches have some sort of church hierarchy. Generally the lower in the hierarchy you are, the more people who can command you around. Most churches are ALSO attached to some state/nation where they (help?) set laws. (Church hierarchy stuff again) First and foremost, a paladin being a holy warrior is going to follow his orders and deities beliefs, codes, and sometimes laws.

Not only all of this, any decent church that trains paladins would teach them that although Detect Evil is a general indicator, it can be fooled by magical items and some spells, which SHOULD give most paladins the clue that they better freakin think before they act.

Calrin Alshaw

 

[Al]

Two quick points against Quasqueton, Takyris and the 'smiters':

1. The Concept of distinction between action and motivation

As I have already outlined, one can be evil without performing acts normally defined as 'evil', if the motivation for those acts is sufficiently 'evil'. I cited the example of three executioners- one driven by a love of justice, the second by duty and the third by a perverted desire to chop people's heads off. The same action produces three different alignments- good, neutral and evil. Yet to argue that the evil headsman ought be smited is somewhat nonsensical, since he has in no way harmed society or innocents any more than the others.

Paladins punish actions, not alignments.

2. The notion of proportionate punishment

The professor-jerk outlined by Elder_Basilisk has been denounced by Quasqueton as evil, therefore the logical extension of that argument is that if such a professor was met in the wilderness he ought be summarily executed. And if he should have reached level 11 through his publication of numerous works (say, on an optimal way to fund charities, which has saved thousands of lives, which he has published for his own aggrandisement and pride but nevertheless performed a societally good deed), then he'd radiate moderate evil. Under the takyris/Quasqueton line, he's dead. Is this fair or proportionate, just because he's a power-crazy jerk in the classroom? I think not. Given a choice between summary death for minor misdemeanours or mercy, I'd opt for the latter. Perhaps rough him up a bit at most, tell him to rethink his ways, but execution- hardly.

Paladins punish proportionately.

Both of these have solid groundings in the core rules and BoED respectively. The core rules acknowledge a dichotomy between action and intention in that they are more lenient on the paladin who inadvertantly breaks his code than one who deliberates does so. Given that the acknowledgement of a segregation between action and intention exists, it is perfectly logical to assume that evil people exist who have never performed Evil deeds.

Secondly, BoED states quite categorically under the sections about prisoners and mercy the appropriate way to deal with surrendering opponents. That Quasqueton (IIRC) should advocate smiting a surrendering/non-combatant opponent is in direct opposition to this. To argue that Good doesn't just destroy all evildoers in an arbitrary judgement is not to argue that Good is stupid (as Quasqueton contends), but, rather, to assert that Good is Good.

 

[takyris]

Two quick points against Quasqueton, Takyris and the 'smiters':

1. The Concept of distinction between action and motivation

As I have already outlined, one can be evil without performing acts normally defined as 'evil', if the motivation for those acts is sufficiently 'evil'. I cited the example of three executioners- one driven by a love of justice, the second by duty and the third by a perverted desire to chop people's heads off. The same action produces three different alignments- good, neutral and evil. Yet to argue that the evil headsman ought be smited is somewhat nonsensical, since he has in no way harmed society or innocents any more than the others.

Paladins punish actions, not alignments.

The headsman who likes hurting people and who has turned this desire to hurt people into a position as an effective headsman is not evil. One psychological theory I vaguely remember from high school states that many excellent surgeons are people who had a deep desire to hurt or cut people but turned those instincts to something beneficial to society instead. Any actual psych people, please feel free to blow that out of the water.

The argument you should be refuting, the argument that I at least put forward, is that you don't get slapped with the "evil" alignment unless you have done something that, in the minds of good-oriented deities, merits you getting whacked. You've successfully shown me someone who I don't think is evil.

2. The notion of proportionate punishment

Which is again countered by the argument that someone not worthy of getting hit by a smite wouldn't detect as evil. The obnoxious professor certainly deserves a lecture about his insensitivity, but he doesn't deserve to be killed, I agree, unless more information surfaces in this hypothetical example. As such, I don't believe he'd detect as evil -- like I said earlier.

The core rules acknowledge a dichotomy between action and intention in that they are more lenient on the paladin who inadvertantly breaks his code than one who deliberates does so. Given that the acknowledgement of a segregation between action and intention exists, it is perfectly logical to assume that evil people exist who have never performed Evil deeds.

No.

Remember the whole "alignment is not a straitjacket" thing, the "people have good actions and bad actions" thing? You don't become evil unless you both intend to commit and do commit a whole lotta evil, to the point where you bring your own personal alignment curve down. You are bringing up neutral people doing individual minor evil actions and then claiming that they're evil, but not worthy of smiting -- but by the very arguments used against the "smite away" point, there are still neutral people. They don't turn evil as soon as they commit one evil action. It takes a consistent and repeated alteration of both your intentions and your actions to turn evil. Someone who thinks evil thoughts all day long, every day, and even harder on the weekend, but never acts on it, is not evil. Someone who keeps accidentally commiting evil actions despite having the best of intentions (trying to make dinner and accidentally poisoning people, trying to babysit and accidentally turning the kids into zombies, etc) is not evil. You have to have both, and you have to have both consistently enough that it becomes your average state, not your "crossing the line this one time" state.

 

[knitnerd]

The new paladin

The new paladin in town noticed that two player characters were exuding evil but would not kill them until they did something evil. He survived about three hours.

 

[Aristotle]

The people that Al is describing are evil by the way I interpret the rules. By the interpretation I'm seeing the smiters give they are saying that evil alignments are much rarer than what the books seem to indicate to me. I guess thats why so many people have said 'Run it to your preference so long as your group knows where you stand and they are okay with your interpretation'.

I don't like the psych argument about how evil people can find good outlets for their darker desires and therefore they are not evil. I don't think the rules really imply those sorts of situations, nor do I think this argument should hinge on things one would require a psych degree to know anything about. That would leave quite a few of us out of luck when trying to interpret the rules.

If I described the "evil headsman" and the "good headsman" to my players they would quickly agree that the one was bad and the other one was good. If one of the players was a paladin he may dislike the bad one and respect the good one, but he wouldn't kill the bad one because he hasn't done anything legally wrong. Even though his moral reasons for doing what he does remain sinister.

Once again I think the line that is getting blurred. This isn't an issue of good and evil so much as one of law and chaos (the paladin would consider both aspects of his alignment equally important). In my opinion the evil headsman has not found a way to channel his truly evil desires into a "good" thing. His desires are *still* evil... He has just found a legal way to sate them.

 

[Al]

Remember the whole "alignment is not a straitjacket" thing, the "people have good actions and bad actions" thing? You don't become evil unless you both intend to commit and do commit a whole lotta evil, to the point where you bring your own personal alignment curve down. You are bringing up neutral people doing individual minor evil actions and then claiming that they're evil, but not worthy of smiting -- but by the very arguments used against the "smite away" point, there are still neutral people. They don't turn evil as soon as they commit one evil action. It takes a consistent and repeated alteration of both your intentions and your actions to turn evil. Someone who thinks evil thoughts all day long, every day, and even harder on the weekend, but never acts on it, is not evil. Someone who keeps accidentally commiting evil actions despite having the best of intentions (trying to make dinner and accidentally poisoning people, trying to babysit and accidentally turning the kids into zombies, etc) is not evil. You have to have both, and you have to have both consistently enough that it becomes your average state, not your "crossing the line this one time" state.

Looks like we have different interpretations of 'evil' then . I like 'broad evil', perhaps partially driven by the desires and needs of our group (i.e. I like playing non-stereotypical villains and the players like bashing evil people ) but it seems you prefer 'narrow evil' as favoured by the BoVD. With such a paradigmatic difference, it looks like this is going to be one of those 'agree to disagree' threads.

 

[S'mon]

I like "evil is evil" - only a fairly small minority of humans in most 'normal' societies are of Evil alignment (eg on Oerth only a small number of Nyrondese or Furyondians are evil, a much higher proportion of Great Kingdom or Scarlet Brotherhood humans are evil of course, though not a majority except among the ruling castes). And of those Evil humans, only a small minority are so debauched as to Radiate EEEEVILLL and be detectable by a Paladin's det evil radar. Death/murder cultists like the Hashishim and Thuggee would probably qualify, worshippers of Devils and Demons, _some_ clerics of evil gods - certainly clerics of Gods of Evil, but there are evil gods who are 'just a bit evil', like there are humans.
IMC if a true* Paladin Detects Evil, he really has detected EVIL, and pretty much has moral permission from his god to smite it, although doing this in civilised areas may result in trouble with the authorities.

*There are plenty of non-Paladin Paladinlike characters IMC, mind you, some of whom are enthusiastic witch-burners and may register as Lawful Evil if checked. Most such have no supernatural powers (probably Fighters or Experts), some may have been invested with supernatural powers by evil entitites.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You don't become evil unless you both intend to commit and do commit a whole lotta evil, to the point where you bring your own personal alignment curve down. ... They don't turn evil as soon as they commit one evil action. It takes a consistent and repeated alteration of both your intentions and your actions to turn evil.

And, by the same reasoning, you don't cease being evil as soon as you stop committing evil actions. It takes a consistent and repeated alteration of both your intentions and your actions to claw your way back up to neutral, and eventually to good.

Let's say we have someone who is Evil. She's performed terrible deeds in the past, and revelled in them. But something's happened, recently, to change her outlook: perhaps the death of a child or lover, or a scornful rejection by a parent, or whatever. Something that's made her reevaluate her life.

She goes to a priest of some God of Goodness and Mercy, and confesses her sins, and declares her intention to redeem herself.

He assigns strict penance; donating her entire fortune to Charity, must labour in the Temple of Holiosity as a menial for a year, must deny no request for aid, etc, etc. She agrees, and sincerely intends to obey the orders imposed.

She has done terrible things in the past, but she is no longer a danger to any innocent in the future, and will in time, left unmolested, become a force for Good.

Content with her new direction, she exits the Temple, and is all set to begin her consistent alteration of actions.

And a wandering Paladinbot detects evil, and chops her head off.

-Hyp.

 

[Quasqueton]

Quickie reply. . .

Exactly.


A 1st level evil person dies when they pick up a holy sword. Is the sword wrong?

This is a good point.


Isn't there a logical circle of definition followed by the "universal powers that be" (Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, the gods, whatever)? I mean, a paladin is given the ability to see evil, and given the power to smite evil. So someone whom the UPTB have decided is Evil would show up to a paladin's detect ability, and would be vulnerable to a paladin's smite. If the creature was not "evil enough" in the UPTB's "opinion" to be immediately smited, then it shouldn't show up as evil on the detect evil radar.

Its like if a class had the ability to detect orc and smite orc. If this class looked at someone and they showed up as "orc", wouldn't that mean that what ever universal power that determines what race a creature is has determined that this particular creature is sufficiently "orc" enough to be identified as such, and smited. Is a half-orc sufficiently "orc" enough to show up on the detect orc ability? If so, doesn't that mean that he is "orc" enough to be immediately smited by the class? If a half-orc is not "orc" enough to be smited, then it shouldn't show up as an "orc" on the detect orc ability.

And a quarter-orc creature? If it shows up as "orc" under detect orc scrutiny, then the UPTB condone attacking and killing that creature. If it doesn't show up as "orc", then the UPTB do not support attacking and smiting that creature.

Giving a class the ability to detect [any/all] evil and smite [any/all] evil, but then telling them they are restricted to only immediately destroying a small subset of evil, without any tangible way of identifying that subset is wrong. That's why I think evil should be Evil, and open to immediate smiting. Anything not "evil enough" to be immediately smited should not be identified as evil.

Another analogy (I'm already late anyway): if a DM introduces a new weapon to the campaign, and classifies it as a martial weapon, then a fighter can pick it up and use it immediately. The DM shouldn't say, no, you can't use *this* martial weapon. If the DM doesn't think the fighter should be able to use it without special training (attention), then he should classify it as an exotic weapon.

If a DM doesn't think the paladin should smite this particular person because he isn't "bad" enough to warrent it, then the person should not be classified as evil. Neutral is a good catch all alignment for those who may be often naughty, but are not Evil in the DM's definition.

Quasqueton
I wrote this fast, so I really hope I made sense.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Its like if a class had the ability to detect orc and smite orc. If this class looked at someone and they showed up as "orc", wouldn't that mean that what ever universal power that determines what race a creature is has determined that this particular creature is sufficiently "orc" enough to be identified as such, and smited.

He's sufficiently orcish to be identified, and should circumstances be such that his death is warranted, he's also sufficiently orcish that the Smite will affect him.

That doesn't automatically mean that Smiting him is the appropriate action; only that it will work if necessary.

If the character accidentally Smites someone who is not an orc, the Smite attempt is wasted. His 'Detect Orc' ability doesn't necessarily say "This is an orc who must be Smitten!"; it could, rather, say "This is an orc; therefore, should Smiting be required, it will not be a waste of an attempt."

-Hyp.