Thoughts about the nature of evil

[Luddite]

IMC....

Every creature has an alignement that gives them a foundation for their actions. And this Alignment is some type of connection with the Primal Forces (Good/Evil, Law/Chaos). Having a non-neutral alignment will have both good and bad effects. (ie healing spells work better if the Cleric, God and Target all share the same alignment)

Player Races all have Free Will this means they can act outside their alignment, and if they do so their alignement can change. Though it does take a lot of time. Changing your ties to the primal forces is a metaphyscal change.

This means that even though a Character may show up on Detect Evil, that does not give someone the right to "purify" (aka kill them) the evil. Free Will means there is a chance for redemtion of the Soul. In fact Killing a Character who has Free Will and has an Evil Alignment is kind of a bad thing, since then the character's soul will go off to increase the power of Some Evil Diety.

The Basic idea is that your alignment is your Nature, but your demenor and actions are independent of that.

For Creatures without Free Will (IMC Kobolds) there are created with force from some type of Evil Diety. Therefor killing them does not change the Balance of Power in the grand scheme of things.

IMC, I base my good/evil axis on the Seven Saintly Virtues/Deadly Sins. For Law/Chaos, it is a question on how Orderly or Random a Chacter views himself, family, community, nation, and the universe. ( ie someone who leads a regimented life, follows his family's traditions and respects his ancestors, works to promote his community, belives that governments and laws are a good thing, and that thing happen because of Fate or Destiny is Lawful. A Chaotic person is some who "Lives for the moment", has little ties to his family, has little need for communities, thinks governments need to be Challenged for progress, and that Luck rules his life.)

-The Luddite

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do agree with the "always" rule, personally. IMC, only those with connections to those forces will show up as either/or to detecting spells, etc.

Though since they may not be fighting Evil and even if they are, it doesn't mean they can kill them. Also, just because you have an alignment is no reason to act within it 100% of the time.

Also, the ease of detecting evil makes investing in protections very important.

The thing I've always wondered is, if it is good to kill evil beings, why aren't the weaker evil beings wiped out by the powerful celestials? Heck, even the non-evil beings (Lawful and Chaotic neutrals) would likely want to put and end to the creatures.

I mean, sure, the celestial may not be able to destroy all evil, but they could at least destroy all orcs on the world, and that's one less stronghold of evil. Heck, the more potent ones could probably destroy all the mind flayers in the world, and be only breaking a sweat.

There has be a reason why the epitomes of good and law don't lay waste to the masses of evil creatures in the world -- a reason that, just because they know it's evil, they don't kill it.

Answer that, and you have a campaign where detect-type spells won't nessecarily be a liscence to kill.

 

[Glamdring]

The thing I've always wondered is, if it is good to kill evil beings, why aren't the weaker evil beings wiped out by the powerful celestials? Heck, even the non-evil beings (Lawful and Chaotic neutrals) would likely want to put and end to the creatures.

I think this is because the powerful celestial beings realize the overarching importance of the Great Wheel, the eternal dynamic of Good vs. Evil, and how that balance must remain in check at all times. To wipe out all the weaker evil beings would upset that balance. We all know this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Which means that if the PC's use "they're evil!" as an excuse to wipe out a party of bugbears, they could see one of the most bizarre alliances capable, when the next time they see a group of bugbears, they're guarded by a celestial or two...

Or, at least, if they make a habit of that.

That also implies that they won't destroy all evil in the world, given the chance. That they'll allow some evil to happen, and just hope that greater good can surmount it. They will allow, concede for some evil to happen, so that the good can counteract it.

It's a bit of a heartless view of things, but there are certain aspects that appeal to me with that kind of worldview.

It means that if a paladin PC starts to drop to the lowest level of the Abyss and actually may clear it, that some high-powered celestial would be up for physically stopping them...because if the Abyss didn't exist, then it would throw everything out of whack.

It means that if something had the power to wipe out the lower planes, the forces of Good would be very much against the use of that, despite how many lives it would save.

That makes fallen celestials concievable, even as more common than risen fiends (since they see nothing wrong with throwing everything out of whack).

It's not nessecarily a wrong reason, and it is probably actually one of the most likely. And it solves the problem of PC's killing things because it's simply evil...evil is nessecary, though unfortunate. It solves the problem.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Here are some specifics on that paladin situation I posted earlier:

Both paladins are in service to a god of justice and law, and they act much like a secular police force in my world. Where the paladin differ is in their belief about how justice should be implemented. The NPC paladin is very conservative in his beliefs- he believes the law is the law no matter what, and ANY infraction of the law must be punished. He really is concerned with the wellfare of people as well- twice in the campaign he has nearly sacrificed his own life to safegaurd innocent lives, and he routinely offers freely of his own wealth, resources, and time for the betterment of people.

A very Lawful Good stance in many ways.

The PC paladin also strongly believes in the law, and is a compassionate man as well. He is just as sacrificing towards helping others as the NPC, but where they differ is in their approach towards how justice should be handled. Where the NPC believes that "God will sort them out", the PC paladin often tries to determine motvie before he metes out justice. If he feels the action was warranted, he might not punish the crime, but instead tries to help the person understand what he did was wrong, and tries to rehabilitate them.

This is not Lawful Good. This is Neutral Good.

Example- in one adventure, the daughter of a merchant had been run over and severly injured by a joyriding careless nobleman. The noble was intoxicated at the time, and didn't remember the incident, so when the merchant came to him and asked for his aid in making sure his daughter recieved aid, he refused. Desperate, the merchant blackmailed the noble with some false info until he paid the merchant's fee so the merchant could pay for his daughter's medical recovery. The PC managed to prevent the nobleman from double-crossing the merchant and having him imprisoned, while at the same time helping the merchant's child. The PC also used a rare potent one-shot healing magic item to restore the little girl's health. The NPC paladin would have likely arrested the merchant on ground of extortion and blackmail of a noble, which would have been punished very harshly, and the girl would have been fatherless. The NPC would likely have helped heal the little girl with his own funds, but the fact remains she would have lost a parent.

And the fact remains the merchant broke the law. Why didn't the merchant try and find help in another way? Why didn't the merchant sell his house or holdings or what have you to get his daughter healed? He broke the law, and he did it for good reasons, but he also did it out of convience.

The initial disagreements between the two men were mostly over implementation of justice, but recently it has escalated to a higher level. In some recent adventures, the PCs in my campaign had to make a tough moral decision, and in order to insure the wellfare of many people, they willingly worked with infernal forces to right a wrong priests of the PCs own church did a long time ago. When the NPC met the PC paladin again, he detected some demonic taint on him, and was concerned that he might be selling out to diabolic powers. The NPC then rationalized that the lax attitude of the PC towards criminals might in fact be due to his desire to work with them to cause havoc and damage to society. The NPC has not declared a witch hunt against the PC yet, but he is watching him like a hawk, and tries to discredit him when possible. The NPC is truly worried that the PC is a serious danger, but he doesn't have proof yet that he can have him tried for. The PC, on the other hand, had to make a tough moral decision- and he probably chose the right thing to do since it would save many lives, but at the possible cost of his honor and reputation in his church.

So, are both of these guys LG?

The NPC Paladin is LG with LN tendencies, but the PC Paladin is purely NG from your description of him. He analyzes the situation as it comes to him, and does what he thinks is the best good given the circumstances. That is not Lawful Good, that is Neutral Good.

Honor, reputation, the law, are all vital parts of the LAWFUL part of the LG alignment a Paladin has. Now, I'm not surprised you allow this, as many people view the Paladin as an upholder of just the good, and not good and the law.

The Paladin is designed to be a classic knight, and he is supposed to not only follow the tenets of morality at all times, he is supposed to uphold the law and the commandments of his church and god. Many DMs do not enforce the latter part of the Paladins code, however, which leads to many Paladins having LG on their character sheets, but being Neutral or Chaotic Good in true alignment.

The association with infernals is definitely unacceptable to any LG Paladin, and if you seriously want to keep the Lawful part of the Paladins alignment, I suggest you penalize the players character for taking such actions.

 

[Tiberius]

(Though I'll confess that the stiff-necked knight (What was his name?) might have been LN...)

Derek Crownguard. As I recall, he went quite mad and fell at the Battle of the High Clerist's Tower.

-Tiberius

 

[Magius del Cotto]

How I usually handle it...

Usually, I don't use alignments in my games, since they usually don't do a good job of reflecting the characters.
However, in my creature feature, I'm going to handle things a little differently. I have it set up as a tournament where the players have to prove their worthyness against a number of different creatures (currently running at almost 1300), not all of which will be willing to fight.
They kill the creatures outright, without thought, they get points toward evil. They grant it mercy, they get points toward good. The more they show mercy (such as using subdual damage), the more "good" they will be.

 

[willpax]

To answer the original question, it seems that most of the posters on this thread see evil as an absolute; most see it as a particular force with particualr embodiments, and only a few like their game worlds to be colored in many shades of gray. The reason for this preference seems to be that they see the real world as a world with little that can be confidently described as unquestionably evil, and find the moral clarity to be enjoyable.

I apologize if I have asserted something that people disagree with; this is simply my interpretation of the general lines of the discussion so far.

I think Kamikaze Midget's question about why the powerful forces of good don't simply wipe out evil has a long history within the Christian tradition, where an all-powerful God has a history of allowing evil things to happen. To my knowledge, no one has given a good answer to that question except Job, who argues that all of our answers are totally inadequate.

Moorcock does a lot with the idea of cosmic balance (in his books, between law and chaos). Either force taken to an extreme leads to emptiness and sterility. Some of our other definitions of evil (as the infliction of suffering, as the privileging of self over others) are a bit more situational in practice, but suffer from the same overall logic. If we had a world with no suffering, then the avoidance of suffering would not be an understandable goal; likewise, if everyone privileged others over self at all times, there would no longer be a self to privilege, making the moral imperative meaningless.

Maybe Derrida and the deconstructionists are right: every concept carries its own negation within it.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

In the last game I played in, our paladin was detecting evil from up the corridor. We came around a corner and ran into some Bugbears, who aggressed at us (though not very much, because we had surprise; they growled, was all). So the party commenced to slaughter them, and didn't even give them a chance after the psion whipped out his Mind Blast. So, no explanations, no questions, not even time to really attack us -- they just jumped to a conclusion. The paladin sensed evil, and so the first things we run into must be evil. Right?

When I protested the merciless slaughter of the bugbears (which I'm not even sure was legal; I thought they were stunned, not helpless), the entire party rebuked my arguments by saying "These guys detected as evil. In this game, to be evil you must have done evil. Thus we are justified in killing them because they deserve punishment." So we killed all but one, whom we questioned and whom the paladin managed to convert to worshipping Bahamut.

I don't think what the paladin did was very lawful. He didn't hold court, he didn't ask for witnesses, he didn't even ask for a defense. He just passed judgement like Judge Dredd, and bloodied his hands. I'd say (were I DM) that would be Chaotic at best, and I have stripped a paladin of his status for doing just such a thing as killing helpless folk.

So I'm not comfortable with "Evil is as Evil does." I don't think mortals should detect as any strong alignment, no matter what alignment they may have, unless they have some metaphysical connection to an outsider or force. Outsiders and Undead, now, are definitely strongly aligned. The rest of the world is just trying to make a living and advance its goals.

A few of my definitions of alignments are as follows:

Lawful Good -- You try your best to watch out for the weak and oppressed. Laws exist to prevent anarchy, and you must follow every one of them as best you can, or have a really good explanation. Mercy is a good thing, and should be practiced at all times.

Lawful Neutral -- Laws exist to prevent anarchy, and they have been handed down by an authority. It is not in your power to defy that authority. The universe is highly ordered; you can influence your peers or underlings, but your superiors don't have to listen to you. The Law must be followed to the fullest extent, and only the duly appointed authorities may interpret the law, pass judgement, and execute that judgement. Mercy must be provided in the laws to apply.

Lawful Evil -- Laws exist to prevent anarchy, and though they have been handed down to you, you are free to use them to further your own objectives. You can use other people, or other people can use you. You can exploit, twist, redefine, and generally bend laws to do anything you want, and only a higher authority can call you on it. So it's good to cultivate ties to those above you. Mercy is for the weak; leave no enemy behind you.

(This is already long enough without six other definitions)

TWK

Boy, I have huge problem with your party's morality. Here's a couple of questions that you might want to put to them next time they jump some guys just "coz they detected evil."

1. Is execution the only punishment for evil? Is it Good to execute tax evaders? Poachers? Some guy who dipped a girl's pig tails in the ink well in third grade? All these acts are evil, do they all deserve death?

2. Do the pcs enforce the same standard on themselves? Moral hypocrisy is not a lawful position and probably not good either.

3. Is the evil of the enemy still ongoing? What have they done to correct it? Consider this scenario:

pc: We slew the bugbears because they were evil.

npc: yes, they kidnapped some children from the village. Where are the children?

pc: I don't know.

npc: well didn't you question them?

pc: nope.

npc: so, children must die because you were too lazy to try and do the right thing. You just went for your swords! This is not a good act...yada yada yada (you get the picture).


IMC I have no problem with detect evil revealing the alignment of any evil being, mortal, outsider, whatever. But just knowing the alignment of the being doesn't justify its slaughter. Maybe the cobbler is LE because he secretly fantasises about torturing the bullies in the village who make his life miserable. He's never done anything about it so how do you justify killing him?

Anyhoo - some thoughts.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have alignments and love shades of grey.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's not moral clarity I desire, just the ability to tack a name onto some motives and call it "x, as a tendancy." Very helpful in characterization and description of what a person thinks in two words. But no more than a stereotype that need not be lived up to.

Meanwhile, about the paladin issue...it bears repeating:

To be lawful, you don't have to care one whit about the laws of society.

You have to value order and organization, sure. And you have to respect laws as extensions of that. But even paladins can lead rebellions, for the right causes.

Breaking a law is not, in itself, cause for you to be considered nonlawful. Not saying the paladin isn't being neutral, just saying that simply violating the law isn't a reason to say he's such.