Using Detect Evil/Good

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, Kant pointed out that ethics are not universal, that they cannot ever be so, and that we should, all the same, pretend that they are.

Try rereading the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Especially the bit about universifiability. If that's not an assertion that ethics must be universal, nothing is. Kant is a classic example of an absolutist moral philosopher. If you don't recognize that when you read it, you shouldn't be discussing philosophy.

If you want to argue that ethics need not be universal, you have some company (I think that they're wrong and can be shown to be so (by more or less the reasoning Kant puts forward which is why I mentioned him) but you will have company). Kant, however, is not among that company.

As to the rest, it just amounts to a restatement of your assertion in the face of facts and arguments. If you think that a [Good] society would run Nazi style death camps, Stalin style Gulags, or Mao/Pol Pot style re-education camps in order to get rid of evil and would still be likely to remain good, apparently nothing can dissuade you from that belief.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's a very good point and I think that the possibility of detecting evil would certainly have an impact upon the legal and ethical systems of most societies.

However, I'd argue that most moral codes don't have a means for detecting if someone is evil. They don't have a magical one but most of them have had fairly reliable methods of determining who was in the bad group by simple observation. To the 1st century Jews, for instance, drunkards, tax collectors, and prostitutes were generally thought of as evil. And, as readily identifiable groups, it wasn't that hard to figure out who was who.

Hyper-calvinist Christians, have an even more infallible method of detecting evil. Everyone is evil. That's the point of their "total depravity of man" theology. I don't mean to be completely flippant (as this example may or may not even be applicable to alignment depending upon the interpretation of alignment and the particulars of the way the theology is expressed) but it seems to me that the changes would be incremental changes in the degree of certainty afforded by the reasoning and proceedures employed rather than changes in the nature and fundamental structures of society.

However, all the moral codes we've ever come up with don't have a means for detecting if someone is, in fact, Evil. We have to use observable fact, counting on such things as reasonable doubt, the 'reasonable man' idea, witnesses, etc to construct a legal case. And we still get it wrong from time to time, even when it appears to be an 'open and shut' case.

On the other hand, it certainly isn't 'good' to just off-handedly kill that person. He has no chance for redemption, no chance to change his course in life, etc. One of the chief tenets of 'good' is 'mercy'.

Thus, he 'bears watching'. Let's imagine a trial where the magistrate has a priest or (better) a paladin do the Detect Evil thing as part of establishing a case. If someone did in fact detect as Evil, then it would certainly look bad for them but it doesn't prove they did a particular dead. All the priest can report is 'Sir, this man has a heart as black as the Abyss itself'

Now, how does a society deal with a person who is actually detected as being Evil? Surely he will find it difficult to get work once this gets out. He may be spat upon, etc, depending on the attitude of the society.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This is a great thread. My one semester of philosophy in college doesn't come even close to giving me the background to participate in the heavier philosophical debate, but great stuff nonetheless.

I can say that IMC, I am actually more generous with the results from Detect Evil. I allow it to give the paladin a general sense of the purity of an individual's soul, and detect evil objects and auras as well. It hasn't been a problem at all because,

* The paladin is not an absolute, Judge-Dread-type authority. He's a non-ordained member of a Lawful-Good church. As such, he doesn't have the authority under God to pass a death sentence in most cases.

* Paladins are not the majority. If everyone could Detect Evil then everyone would trust in its power, and could verify if a paladin is telling the truth. But only paladins and spellcasting priests can do so, which are not the majority in the game world. Thus, it takes more than, "I detected he was evil!" to convince a magistrate of a divine license to kill.

* Exactly because I allow Detect Evil to work so broadly, the paladin cannot use it as a way to mark targets. Most evil NPCs he comes across are only mildly evil, and thus easily and quite possibly redeemed. And even those that are strongly evil may have political connections that shield them...

I like Detect Evil, and have used it to create interesting situations in game. The paladin was once at an auction where one of the items up for sale, a green-metal (yep, that metal,) morningstar was for sale. To the paladin's surprise, it showed as evil. But when he went to try and confiscate it, it had already been sold to an old man, who thought the paladin was crazy when he claimed the weapon was evil in and of itself, and refused to part with it. The paladin couldn't very well kill the old man for having the morningstar, even though it was truly and plainly evil to his divine sight.

 

[jasper]

lord dragon I salute you. That has been the briefest and most accurate way I have read on how to run detect evil and paladins.

 

[jessemock]

an assertion that ethics must be universal,

Is an assertion that ethics are, in fact, not universal. That's the problem with Kant's ethics: it rests on a counterfactual; Kant asks us to act as if our decisions are part of a universal ethic--when, actually, they are not.

In order to understand what a universal ethic really means for Kant, you have to read his Anthropology.

As to the rest, it just amounts to a restatement of your assertion in the face of facts and arguments. If you think that a [Good] society would run Nazi style death camps, Stalin style Gulags, or Mao/Pol Pot style re-education camps in order to get rid of evil and would still be likely to remain good, apparently nothing can dissuade you from that belief.

That's really the rub, isn't it?

First, you want to use Dungeons and Dragons morality in order to analyze the real world--clearly a mistake.

Next, you want to use the real world to define the parameters of a fantasy society in all games played under the core rules--another mistake.

Last, you're unhappy with the fact that the alignment system in Dungeons and Dragons may lead to in-game behaviours that, in the real world, you would want to call Evil, though, in game, they amount to Neutral or even Good.


All of this is your problem.

Under the rules of this game, racism and genocide are okay. Sorry, but that's how it is.

As I've stated before, this is not the problem I have with the Detect Evil spell and all of the concomitant alignment game mechanics. There exists for me no dissonance between the way I play make-a-believe and the way I perceive and act in the real world.

I dislike alignment mechanics, because they cut short some of what I consider the best aspects of role-playing. I like it that evil is Evil and good is Good, but that doesn't mean that I want everybody to walk around with a sign around his neck declaring him to be one or the other. I consider it fun to try to figure out an NPC's ethics by interacting with him.

Then I'll kill him.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

lord dragon I salute you. That has been the briefest and most accurate way I have read on how to run detect evil and paladins.

Why thank you. It may not work for everyone, but it's been good for my games.