The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Elf Witch]

I'm just going off the 7 Deadly Sins. So sloth and lust are definitely evil. As far as the Thief in the Thieves' Guild... if he really does steal from people for a living (instead of getting a real job maybe?), yes I'd definitely say that's evil. If you'd ever been ripped off you'd probably agree.

In real life I have been mugged and yes it sucks.

But in a fantasy setting I don't see all thieves as evil. I don;t think the 7 deadly sins should be used to decide what is evil in a DnD world.

 

[gribble]

Smite Evil works on evil creatures

Of course (unless it's in the PHB, but not the SRD, which would be unusual for pure rules), the Paladins class ability doesn't define what an "evil creature" is. It's certainly valid to interpret this as "has an evil alignment" (which also includes creatures with the [Evil] descriptor), but I'd say it's just as valid to interpret it as "has an evil aura". After all, if the paladins god tells the paladin that something is evil, why would he then turn around and stop him from smiting it?

Just doesn't make sense.

 

[phindar]

Doesn't whatshisname on SVU regularly assault suspects?

I'd say the Law and Order people are probably Neutral Evil at best, considering they regularly try to incarcerate innocent people or those that are actually victims. Their primary concerns are getting props for "getting the conviction" and really have nothing to do with upholding law or promoting good.

Elliot Stabler, played by Christopher Meloni. He doesn't "regularly assault", but yeah, he's got a temper. As for NE L&O, I watch a lot of L&O at work (mainly SVU and CI, because that's what's on when I'm at work), and they are pretty much the definition of straight-arrow cops. You very rarely see them do anything but play by the rules, though they'll do about anything they can within those limits, and do occasionally cross a line here and there at major story arcs. (Now, the cops of The Shield have a lot less to do with upholding the law or promoting good, but that's a different show.)

But that's why the L&O cops are good examples of paladins to me, not because they're perfect, but because they try, and get frustrated, and are tempted to circumvent the law, but are usually reigned in by their conscience. And when they're not (which happens from time to time), the fact that they win a case dirty weighs on them as heavily as losing. Early on in SVU, Stabler gets in trouble for telling a psychiatrist that sometimes, when he's alone with a perp, he wishes he could just shoot them. (There's a funny exchange later between his captain who says, "You told the police psychiatrist you wished you could shoot suspects!" and Stabler yells back, "I didn't say suspects, I said perps!") Keeping in mind that SVU deals with the molestation, rape and severe child abuse cases; wishing that the perpertrators of said crimes didn't have the protection of the law is fairly understandable. And even then, they almost always play by the rules.

There was a good line on the Closer the other day (as you can tell, I do love a good police procedural, though not the CSI family of shows), where after they couldn't make the case against someone they knew to be guilty, Kyra Sedgewick said to another detective, "We don't prosecute, we don't judge. We just find out the truth." In that respect, I think paladins have slightly less restrictions than tv cops, because once they find out the truth, they do get to judge and prosecute a little. But the truth is important, because paladins shouldn't be attacking people on a guess.

I have, perhaps, put more thought into cop shows and D&D than is really necessary, but its because I have always wanted to run a paladin and cleric -centric game that focused on the law enforcement in a large fantasy city. Law & Order: D&D. I would even love it if we incorporated the dirtier cops of The Shield, and those of the Canadian Coroner's office on Da Vinci's Inquest. But every time I mention it to players I'm met with blank stares, so I guess I'm waiting on a group who loves cop shows as much as I do. (Or they're just afraid they'll have to turn all the loot they find over into evidence. Its probably 50-50.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Nah, that sounds like a great idea. Grab Atlas Games' Crime & Punishment and an appropriate city book (Ptolus would work great for this, as would Five Fingers or Sharn) and have at it.

 

[Trench]

I'd rather make my cop campaign a bit more Homicide and less Law and Order, but yeah, it's a good idea. I may even steal it...

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's certainly valid to interpret this as "has an evil alignment" (which also includes creatures with the [Evil] descriptor), but I'd say it's just as valid to interpret it as "has an evil aura".

Now you're stuck with a circular logic problem, though.

If evil creatures are creatures with an evil aura, then what does that include?

1. Undead.
2. Evil Outsiders.
3. Clerics of evil deities.
4. Evil creatures.

1 is unambiguous. 2 and 3 have issues, but we'll ignore them for now. Let's look at 4.

Evil creatures are creatures with evil auras. One category of creatures-with-evil-auras is... evil creatures. So to determine which creatures have evil auras, we need to know which are the evil creatures.

Well, that's easy... it's the creatures with evil auras.

... hmm. Not so easy after all.

If Detect Evil detects creatures with evil auras, and creatures with evil auras are defined as creatures with evil auras... how do we know which creatures Detect Evil detects?

-Hyp.

 

[gribble]

If Detect Evil detects creatures with evil auras, and creatures with evil auras are defined as creatures with evil auras... how do we know which creatures Detect Evil detects?

Very true. Still doesn't solve the problem that the term "evil creatures" isn't defined anywhere that I've found. In fact, it seems pretty clear from the description of the holy weapon special property (where it specifically calls out different effects for "all of evil alignment" and "evil creatures") that it isn't just "creatures with an evil alignment".

Of course, one could assume "evil creatures" is used as a seperate term to include "all of evil alignment" and "creatures with the [Evil] descriptor", but that seems redundant as the only effect of the [Evil] descriptor is to treat the creature as if they had an evil alignment...

The only solution that makes any sense to me is to assume the detect evil spell is incorrect, and rather than "evil creatures" it should read "creatures with an evil alignment", and that "evil creatures" refers to anything that detects as evil.
Or perhaps "evil creatures" refers to only creatures with the [Evil] subtype (assuming there are/can be some which are not evil outsiders)? But then merely evil aligned creatures wouldn't detect as evil at all, unless they were also clerics/undead/outsiders/creatures with the [Evil] subtype...

Outside of the rules, it just doesn't make logical sense that creatures detected by Detect Evil != creatures affected by Smite Evil. I mean, if something detects as evil, that means it is evil, right (even if not of the evil alignment... the spell isn't called "Detect Evil Alignment", it's called "Detect Evil")?

Unless you can think of another way of explaning it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

In fact, it seems pretty clear from the description of the holy weapon special property (where it specifically calls out different effects for "all of evil alignment" and "evil creatures") that it isn't just "creatures with an evil alignment".

I don't agree - I think the Holy property is using two synonymous phrases.

If it dealt 1d6 extra damage to evil creatures, and 2d6 to all of evil alignment, I'd agree that the two were obviously different. But the 'all of evil alignment' is referring to the effects of being hit by it, and the 'evil creatures' is referring to the effects of wielding it; if the two phrases mean the same, it doesn't lead to a contradiction.

For example, the Arrow Catching shield ability:
A shield with this ability attracts ranged weapons to it. It has a deflection bonus of +1 against ranged weapons because projectiles and thrown weapons veer toward it. Additionally, any projectile or thrown weapon aimed at a target within 5 feet of the shield’s wearer diverts from its original target and targets the shield’s bearer instead.

The shield has a +1 bonus against ranged weapons. Projectile or thrown weapons divert from the original target. Do the two phrases "ranged weapons" and "projectile or thrown weapons" mean different things because they are both used in the same description?

Or perhaps "evil creatures" refers to only creatures with the [Evil] subtype (assuming there are/can be some which are not evil outsiders)?

Would that mean that "nonevil creatures" are creatures without the [Evil] subtype? That would make it very dangerous to use the Holy Word spell - unless you have the [Good] subtype, you're likely to deafen yourself... blind as well if you have the Good domain.

-Hyp.

 

[PallidPatience]

Could you walk me through the logic that leads you to believe that "evil creatures" and "creatures of evil alignment" are two different things, please? I don't think I quite followed.

 

[Torm]

Important Question

Hey Whizbang -

Can a player in your campaign world PLAY as an Orc? Savage Species, and all that?

If not, then you are safe in ruling them as always being evil beings. But if so, then unless you also limit that player to Evil alignments, that means that Orcs in your world CAN be Good. Which should inform a Paladin's choice somewhat, I would think.