Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1550557" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.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.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).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).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.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.</blockquote>

Verification