Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1553758" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.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.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.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)).</blockquote>

Verification