If you ask me, the whole discussion has gone somewhat off-track. Paladins certainly aren't obliged to slay every evil group they come across. They're obliged to take stock of the likely consequences of their actions as well. Slaying the evil king who is the biggest obstacle to Iuz's domination of the Bandit Kingdoms isn't something a paladin ought to do. Similarly, an apprentice paladin ought to have the sense not to challenge Sir Villainous DoBad the epic Blackguard just because he's there.
In a D&D world, I'd expect that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the sentient creatures are evil. Sure paladins may exist to smite evil but there's so much evil out there that they have to pick and choose which evil to smite. Usually, one of the criteria for the picking is whether or not the paladin actually can smite the evil. Sir Villainous DoBad is on the other side of the kingdom so Sir Hero DoGood can't smite him. Mayor Lecherous Greed of corruption has the trust and confidence of the king, so the paladin needs to think carefully before smiting him. Chet Insurgent, the bandit chief is a wicked man but he doesn't do anything bad in town--and when he does bad things, they're to Iuz's minions in the bandit kingdoms; smiting him would be counterproductive. Greedy Jeff the baker is a thoroughly contemptable man but needs a sound thrashing (which he's likely to get from the cuckold Jeb) rather than killing. Cleo the cutpurse needs dealing with, but catching him would take time and other people can do that without Hero's help. On the other hand, Rapacious Rob, the notorious murderer and outlaw is also in the area and is harming the people the paladin swore to protect so he's the evil Hero DoGood decides to track down and smite.
You'll note that Hero DoGood's decision to smite Rapacious Rob has normative, absolute elements (he's evil, he's an outlaw, he's a murderer and deserves death) as well as prudential elements (unlike Sir Villainous DoBad, he's easy to get to and defeating him is within Sir DoGood's ability), some consequential considerations (unlike Chet Insurgent, killing Rapacious Rob won't allow Iuz's military more space to regroup), and considerations of group identity/personal commitment (Rapacious Rob attacked citizens of a town to which Hero DoGood is personally connected. . . and whose citizens have more of a rightful claim to his loyalty and protection than those Sir Villainous DoBad is harming for instance).
Also, when Hero DoGood decides to go after Rapacious Rob, he won't simply tell his companions, "sorry, I know we had to work with Rob to escape the Mind Flayer but he's evil so I have to kill him" and set out to pursue Rob on his own. (Some paladins try to be the Lone Ranger and sometimes they succeed, but wiser paladins get help). Instead, Hero explains why Rob is a threat and if his companions don't agree, he'll go to the town and round up a posse to take Rob down. After all, Hero may be strong enough to defeat Rob or even to defeat Rob and a few accomplices if he gets lucky but if he wants to be sure to defeat Rob and his bandit gang, he'll need help.
There shouldn't be any question of "must I kill them because they're evil"? At least a third of the world is evil (IMO and IMC, it's more like most of the world). Instead, the question should be, "which evil should I smite and why?" If anyone has played the Neverwinter Nights module, "Tallanvor's Pride", I think it is a pretty good exploration of that question--or at least a necessary caution to the "evil=smite" approach.
jgbrowning said:
But it most definitely makes one ask the following question.
Can someone be evil without ever doing an evil action?
If your answer is no, why does the paladin have to wait until another evil action is performed before he can take action against a human, and would he have to wait if it was against an Ogre? (IE. if he saw an ogre on the street and it detected as evil, would he be required to wait until the ogre did something evil?)
If your answer is yes, how does one become evil without doing evil?
To answer the question--because it's a good one--yes, one can become evil without actually doing evil. I think the character in Crime and Punishment is a very good example of this. He begins as a neutral--or possibly even good--character with an admiration for the so-called great men or geniuses whom he supposes to be above the realm of "common" morality. As his circumstances decline, he begins to imagine how he would act if he were one of them. Then he begins to toy with the idea of actually acting that way. By the time he's bought the hatchet and is on his way to kill the landlady, I'd say he's evil even though he hasn't done anything. If a carriage had run him over on the street when he was on his way to kill the landlady, he'd still have been evil when he died.
Intent often preceeds action and people are culpable not just for what they actually do but also for what they try to do. From a moral point of view, a rapist doesn't become less vile just because no vulnerable women jogged down the dark trail where he was lying in wait. IRL, of course, there's always the question of whether or not someone would really have done the evil action or whether their conscience would have prevented them at the last moment. The fiction of D&D, however, can allow paladins to tell the difference between the Crime and Punishment character who really will commit murder and Tom Cruise's character from Minority Report who plans to murder the man he thinks to be his son's kidnapper but doesn't.*
In any event, the question is somewhat beside the point. The question that ought to preceed it is this: can someone be evil without meriting death as a matter of earthly crime and punishment?
*OK, so he is actually holding the gun but as I recall, he didn't actually pull the trigger--someone else does.
