Evil with a Capital "E"

[Desdichado]

From past discussions on this board, it looks like a lot of DMs are already doing something very similar -- screw that, identical -- to what you do.

I do it that way as well, but it hasn't really been an issue in the last game I ran. The last game I played in, however, had a paladin who was always asking if everything was evil (so he could Smite it, of course.) The DM never really told him much of anything was evil, though. Including the swamp goblins and the animated skeletons.

Didn't make him any less effective. It was just an adventure that didn't feature much Evil.

 

[bwgwl]

i've done something like you suggest. however, i only limit detects that way, not smites or other kinds of powers that affect evil.

so a paladin could indeed smite a greedy and "small-e" evil merchant, but he wouldn't be able to use his detect evil ability first to be positive the guy was indeed evil... basically he has to guess.

i codified it by saying only outsiders, dragons, magical beasts, constructs, and undead could have their alignment detected. these are the types of critters that have intense magical "essences."

 

[herald]

I have often thought of instuting this sort of thing myself. But my take was more like Bold Type:

Bold types: Evil Clerics, Demons, serial kilers.

Not so bold types would be the kind of people who wouldn't nessesarily do terrrible acts of cruelty, but wouldn't stop them either. Individuals like this are not irredemable, but not likely to be esily motivated to do good.

Non-bold evil types can be perfectly charming, and even cling to most moral codes that Neutral and Good individuals might, but might be willing to put themselves above "the Law" so to speak. in one or more circumstances.

For example: A non bold individual might upstanding and moral in most ways, but be a racist. (THIS IS NOT TO SAY RACISM IS ANY LESS WRONG THAN ANY OTHER EVIL IN THE WORLD)

If said individual acts un ethically to said individual with aforthought to malice, I would say they were non bold evil.

If they were to cause physical or emotional harm, or intimated harm or caused others to do so its BOLD EVIL.

But it is my opinion that non bold evil is redeemable. It's why clerics go among the masses and preach. It's why Paladins exist. It's the reason cathedrals are created. To inspire individuals who might go down a dark path to aspire to a better life.

Using this sort of comparison, it can be easy to see why an "evil" person might be friends with a "good" person. Both individual carry aspects that can be quite admirable, but character flaws only come to surface sometimes when real danger or deep loss occurs.

We generally associate dark emotions with evil.

Hate
Jealousy
Revenge
Greed
Anger

There are others, but we know from previous events in our own lives, every one is saddled with these feelings. It’s how we deal these that make or break us morally or ethically. There are several schools of thought on this I know and we could go round and round on this. But when it comes down to it, its what a person does in these emotional situations that define much of a person’s character.

And that is where the alignment wheel often succeeds. It allows flexibility in explaining actions morality and ethics.

Perhaps using and idea from AD&D would work better. Earlier versions of D&D showed characters having sort of two different alignments.

Like NG for a neutral good aligned person with some neutral tendencies. Or CN(g) for chaotic Neutral with some good tendencies. The former character might like to occasionally walk on the wild side, and do things that are questionable form time to time. The latter might have a soft spot for children or pets and actually go out of his way to assist or aid them. But might turn a blind eye to every one else.

In the examples that I have shown you, I never saw a CE(g) or a LG(e). And it might seem far fetched at first glance, but it’s not really that big a leap in imagination. Perhaps it could show that an evil person could be redeemed or a good person could be beginning a slide into darkness.

Well I’ve rambled enough.

 

[Umbran]

But how many cities in your campaign world use "detect law" at the gates and deny all non-lawful people - i.e. potential troublemakers - access? I just believe that a lot of that should happen.

No, there shouldn't, for a number of very good reasons...

First, remember that by the PHB and DMG, the vast majority of people are neutral. Only folks who are willing to stick their necks out for the cause - willing to act to support the ideal - have other alignments. People who simply want to live their lives quietly are neutral. Screening out non-lawfuls would empty your city, and cripple trade.

Next would be cost - even as a first level spell, the cost of enough detect Law or Good spells to check everybody would be prohibative. Lots of people enter a city.

Lastly would come inefficacy - Let's say you check everyone at teh gate with Detect Law. What do you find? Only lawful people enter by the gate....because all the chaotics will find another route! What, you think a chaotic is only going to come in where you want him to? Also, it isn't as if only having lawful people in town would actually stop trouble. Lawful doesn't mean placid. A paladin will quite certainly start trouble if he sees Evil afoot. Now, instead of simple thuggery, you've got people causing trouble over things they strongly believe in. Yeah, that'll be a gain

So, it's expensive, probably won't work, and will cripple your economy if it does. Doesn't sound like a very good option to me.

 

[Al]

I like Balsamic_Dragon's solution.

Personally, I dislike Detect Evil etc. It really destroys any sort of tension, intrigue or the like. You can circumvent it, with cunning twists (both sides are evil- which do the PCs choose) or extensive deployment of magic items/spells, but essentially, it is annoying.

However, it is interesting in that this could very easily be turned against the PCs. Even non-evil ones. The classic 'chaotic good' avenger could get into a lot of trouble in a lawful neutral city...and in a lawful evil one, it can barely be thought.

Umbran: Perhaps, but the trick is to not Detect Law, but detect Chaos/Evil. The cost for Detect Evil is virtually negligible (just hire a 1st level paladin); Detect Chaos is harder, but a rich city could probably have an item which could do it (like a magical 'trap' that casts Detect Chaos on all passing through the gates). As for those circumventing the gates, this can easily be stopped with tighter security around the walls (many cities were walled) and possibly an issue of passes to those who have entered by legal means.

 

[CWD]

First, remember that by the PHB and DMG, the vast majority of people are neutral.

Actually, the PH says:

"Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality."

 

[Archangel]

Alignment in reality is already highly variable depending on the culture. One evil act here is acceptable somewhere else. It's extremely hard to have a definite defintion of alignment. Magic is a huge part fo D&D, the DM should be accounting for the fact that the PC's have spells for detecting alignments and think of a realistic way to account for this difference from reality. Besides, evil is evil whether its from its demon or the local drug dealer.

Personally, I do not think that evil is accepted by any civilized culture. Some justify their acts (religion, revenge, self-defense, "he was MORE evil", etc.) so as to make them not evil.

As an example, using the "intent" method of abjucating Detect Evil, take the following two examples:

a) Joe Bob is sneaking up on a lady to kidnap, rape, an kill her. All because of the need for some sort of perverse physical pleasure. His greed for sex, power, riches, etc. drive him.

b) Jim Bob is a religious fanatic. He is entirely convinced that a group of people's very existance is evil and a threat to his eternal peace. He grabs a couple of assault rifles and murders men, women, and children.

Example a) would detect as evil, even though the result was less a travesty in the public eye. He had personal greed a gratification as his motivation. Any civilized culture would punish this individual (unless he had a real good lawyer).

Example b) would not detect as evil, even though the result caused great grief to many people. In his heart he was not acting out of greed (he may not have even acted out of malice). Does it make it right? No. In fact many, many people would be exclaiming the evil of this person. But, others (who also believe that the group in question is evil and a threat) would treat the man as a hero.

You see, evil acts are not always seen as evil if the reason if easily justifiable to the masses. These are the "necessary evils" that people talk about. We see it in our world all the time (sometimes on the receiving end, sometimes on the inflicting end - unless you live in Switzerland and are neutral - oo how I envy the Swiss). Anyway, I can justify and condemn the same act based on my perception of the person committing the act.

I believe that this interpretation of the use of Detect Evil is necessary, or else the PCs in many cases would detect as evil (if call an act evil, it is still evil when the Paladin does it - such as killing). If you want to judge acts and not intent, and you decide that killing is not evil, then you may have creatures that are normally evil due to the intent of their killings no longer detecting as evil (especially if killing is their ownly evil act).

Now, to be fair a DM shouldn't say that all the villains are acting out of benevolent religious feelings. Evil individuals still do evil acts with evil intent and therefore detect as evil.

I believe that I have begun to ramble now, so I shall bid you farewell.

 

[trix]

...

This is actually quite good.

Absolute Evil and malice become two distinctly different things.
(Kinda like 0 and 0.00000001).

It makes it easier for 'e'vil to exist in society. It gives a good reason why 'E'vil isnt wondering the streets, and uses 'e'vil minions to do its bidding. It makes the alignment issue more distinct, but not resolved.

Are goblins good or neutral ?

Creatures are "Evil" with a capital E if they are one of the following: outsiders from an evil plane, evil undead, clerics who have the evil domain, or those who have been lured by and/or pursued the favor of evil gods.

So all undead, evil aligned clerics, and 'tainted' individuals (ie: marked / vassels through which Evil may easily manifest itself, etc) become clearly Evil.

Creatures who are "evil" with a small e if they are generally selfish, hateful, nasty guys who tend to kill or hurt others for their own pleasure and benefit.

So goblins are Good, with conflicting values with the rest of civilisation (which is what i'd expect it to be, unless the goblins are 'tainted' [ie: warlock/bad shamen whatever]).

Basically, this would mean that Paladins and good-aligned clerics would be somewhat limited, but the upside is that alignment will become more of a roleplaying tool and less of a game mechanic limitation.

Well, it would be appropriate to have the G/N/E calculated. Your character is good, unless you are tainted - in which case you're evil. If a player decides 'N', then s/he should give a darn good reason for it. (For this reason, true druids are rare?) This would also mean that its a triangle, not a linear drift between alignments.

Law / Neutral / Chaos is a bit easier to roleplay if one must.

-Tim

 

[Vaxalon]

The reason that kingdoms don't exclude non-lawfuls at the gate, the reason that paladins don't kill evil people on sight, is that there are far too many of them to be doing that.

Remember, a chaotic evil axe murderer and a guy who really really WANTS to kill his wife will show up exactly the same on a detect evil spell.

IMC, during Good church services, the priesthood casts "Detect evil" and scans the congregation. What do they do if they detect one? They invite them to a private conference. "Son, I there is a heavy weight of sin on your soul. Can we talk about what is troubling you, and perhaps save you from an afterlife spent in the depths of the pit?"

 

[Umbran]

Actually, the PH says:

"Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality."

PHB, pg 88, Table 6-1 lists humans as "Neutral", noting that there is variation, but that this would be the most common alignment.

Continue to read the alignment descriptions on Pg 88 and 89. Your typical, run of the mill person would be neutral.

This is an important distinction - it's a major difference between the various races. Humans are neutral. Dwarves, elves, and gnomes are good - meaning that generally members of these other races will stick their neck out for a cause, where a human won't.

And you wonder why nobody trusts humans?