Hypersmurf said:
Well, their religious beliefs will if they're a non-evil cleric of an evil deity
Definitely true. The non-evil cleric of evil deity comes closest to throwing a wrench into the gears of my position. However, I gotta say, if you're a chaotic neutral priest of the CE god of slaughter and maiming and talking on your cell phone in movie theaters, you probably have it coming to you. just because you execute your CE orders without passion or prejudice doesn't mean that you're ot advancing the cause of evil.
So if someone who has boiled children in their parents' blood just to listen to the sounds of their eyeballs popping, slaughtered villages to sacrifice to his Demon Liege, and failed to rewind his video rentals has a sincere change of heart, he ceases to radiate evil, even though he has never in his life actually committed a single Good act?
Having a sincere change of heart implies committing good acts as an attempt at redemption.
However, it is possible, albeit unlikely, for you to encounter someone just after they've had that moment of truth and realized that evil is no longer for them, although they've done nothing to atone. In that case, they would no longer be evil -- since it's "the moment of truth" that involves their change in heart.
I think it varies based on the situation, but "when you change alignment" seems to be a sticky point, here. For the record, one of my favorite scenes in recent computer-game memory is in Knights of the Old Republic, where (if good) you first defeat an evil opponent and then redeem them, showing them how their own evil ways led to their defeat. Just because I'm sayng "smite" doesn't mean I'm saying "kill". If they die in the course of the combat, that's fine, if somewhat regrettable (although worth it if it means saving innocents from that person), but a paladin should be willing to try other means.
So if I'm playing a paladin, and I see moderate evil radiating off of somebody, and I question them and realize that they are indeed evil, and then, during the duel (that I challenge them to) I see a look of resignation cross their face and see the evil aura fade (because they've just had a change of heart), I would step back and stop the fight. That doesn't mean that they're no longer legally responsible for their past crimes, but it
does mean that I think they are worthy of redemption -- and, if possible, I would testify to their change of heart in a trial and beg the court for leniency on their behalf.
Doesn't this mean, by extension, that if someone who has never actually done anything wrong has a change of heart, he could show up as Evil despite having never acted upon his new impulses?
I'd still hold that you don't become evil just by thinking evil thoughts. Insert vague Harry Potter quote about being defined by our actions, not our capabilities, here.
Elder Bas said:
How about we try to stop?
Deal.
As to whether or not "children" is an appropriate word for them, it rather depends. At least half of the PC classes have random starting ages that reach well into that area. So, it's quite possilbe that someone with the age and personality of the high school bully, for instance, could have a barbarian level in D&D land. The concept of a child is pretty flexible (some cultures treat people as coming of age at 13, some at 18, and some at 21, etc).
Ah. Herein lies another point of disagreement. In actual medieval and renaissance-era times, children in Europe were considered small adults, and treated as such. Granted. But I don't believe that D&D should use the cultural standards of medieval and renaissance-era times. Nothing in the rules supports such a standard. We've got racism that, among PC races, is toothless at best -- "Dwarves tend to be annoyed with elves and dislike half-orcs, but everyone is given the chance to prove their ability, regardless of race". We've got no sexism. We've got classism not really addressed at all -- and while that doesn't prove my point, I think it works toward disproving yours, since class distinctions were so powerful and important during those times that, if D&D were supposed to represent a real-world historical culture, it would have addressed this in greater detail.
I'd hold again that kids are kids -- they can indeed be nasty little buggers, but we cut them slack because they are in the process of growing into ethical creatures. Everybody starts out selfish and ignorant of the fact that others can suffer by our actions. I doubt that the D&D folks want us to stat infants as evil because they only care about their own needs and don't care about who gets hurt in the process.
Your point about child cutpurses is well taken. They could indeed radiate evil, if they've been praised enough and seen enough darkness to decide to go that way. And if a paladin saw an evil child, and had the chance, he ought to do what he can to rectify the situation. Because of the "if safe, then use minimal force" clause I advocate, this probably involves arresting the child rather than smiting his head from his shoulders.
Swordpoint is run by Lawful Neutral clerics. A paladin walks into Swordpoint during the annual purge. Does the paladin
A. Join the clerics because they're smiting evil and evil needs to be smited
B. Wince and think "it's probably not the best way to run a society but who am I to judge--they're evil so they've got it coming."
C. Oppose the injustice by word and deed.
(For the record, C. is my answer though B. might be acceptable in certain circumstances. From your post you seem to prefer B but I don't think you can consistently rule out A as an acceptable paladinly answer).
Ah. I was under the impression that Swordpoint was an actual location mentioned by someone.
Well, if they're Lawful Neutral, the paladin should see what they're doing. Are they smiting Evil, or are they smiting Chaos? If they're smiting Chaos as well as Evil, that's an entirely different can of worms. However, if they're only targetting Evil -- ie, the paladin gets an evil ping off of everyone who's targetted by the clerics -- then I think that "B" is the appropriate action. "A" isn't, since it violates what I believe to be the paladin's requirement to use less force if it's safe to do so. Most of these people are, by the Tacky/Quas standard, deserving of death if they radiate evil. However, even though they are deserving of death, they might still have a chance at redemption if the situation allowed them to be captured safely. Ergo, the clerics are indeed acting in a Neutral manner -- they are protecting themselves from evil people, which is laudable, but they are doing so without compassion or mercy, which is not.
And, of course, there's always the chance (in a rat-bastard-DM kind of way) that something like this could happen:
- Three young cutpurses detect as evil.
- Lawful cleric pings them with a glowing radiance that marks them as set for termination.
- One of the cutpurses is caught by a crossbow bolt and drops to the ground, bleeding.
- Both of the other two cutpurses turn, and one of them runs back... to grab the purse of the fallen guy.
- The other cutpurse, seeing the greed of his partner and how his partner has just left a friend to die, robbing him instead of doing anything to help, realizes in a flash how empty his life is, and,
above and beyond the fear of getting caught and killed, sincerely decides that he wants to change. and means it on a deep and faithful level (as opposed to "If I get out of this, no stealing ever again, really this time..."). He goes from Neutral Evil to Neutral, and no longer detects as evil.
- The paladin, who had left his Detect Evil running, sees that the cutpurse no longer detects as evil.
The paladin now has an obligation to protect the cutpurse. Whether this means begging for a re-detect to show that the cutpurse is no longer evil, asking that he be tried as a non-evil person for his crimes, or actively blocking his pursuit ("As a paladin of Torm, I can truly say that there are no evil people in this barn behind me. Do you doubt my word?") is a different matter, and will vary by the paladin's individual faith and personality.
And
that would make for an interesting session.
