Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 1551695" data-attributes="member: 2486">Three Evil Aristocrats...There are three evil Aristocrats, Lord Nasty, Lady Evil and Baron Unpleasant, who are competitors and are constantly trying to do each other down.  They arrange each other's (evil) henchmen to be killed, kidnap each other's (evil, adult) children and are generally bad to each other.One day, Captain Virtue and his noble team of paladin-bots arrive.  They kill everyone.  Henchmen, children, nobles and all, and nothing is left surviving.  As Unpleasant, the last of the three, dies, he says "Why did you kill us?" Captain Virtue says "Because you were evil".  Unpleasant, bemused, says, "Yes, we were evil because we constantly sought to attack each other.  But you killed us all- more than we had ever done- and yet you're good."  Unpleasant then gurgles and dies.What does this illustrate?  The point is that evil is not purely a function of action, but also one of intention.  The aristocrats plotted against each other for personal advancement; the paladin smote them for righteousness' sake.  If a hired assassin had bumped off Lord Nasty, he and the paladin are performing *exactly the same deed* (if anything, the assassin is more sparing as he ignores the henchmen that don't get in his way).  Yet one is evil, one is good.As soon as you accept that morality is partially contingent upon motive, the entire "right to smite" edifice comes crashing down.  Evil can do good, but for evil means.  Evil can do neutral (as it were), for evil means.  Societal restriction, fear of punishment, rational self-advancement, adherance to tradition, arrogance, pride, cowardice, apathy, insecurity, or even some thin strands of compassion can prevent an evil character from doing evil.  A lemure who is informed by the paladins that unless he does good he will be smitted might do good, but is not good.  The efficient despot, who realises that advancement of his own power is best served by building a prosperous economy might be evil but aids all.  Evil isn't always about arbitrary harm, it can also mean the shameless advancement of self to the exclusion of all others.Worse, the premise of a "right to smite", particularly with an active population of paladins, one creates a moral code predicated on fear.  Fear is no way for a lawful good community to enforce, intimidating its citizens to shy away from bad thoughts.  There is no tyranny worse than the tyranny of the righteous.  The constant threat of smiting breeds resentment, especially amongst those connected to the victim.  Good must spread because people accept its superior virtue, not because they get smited otherwise.  Fears of the "fires of Hell" might be a useful method of social control, but it's not a good one (probably LN).Paladins must always, as with all enforcers of the law, punish action, not morality.  To do otherwise descends a dangerous path and the King-Priest of Istar lies grinning at the end.</blockquote>

Verification