What must one do to be "evil" alignment?

[Merkuri]

Without the will to choose, I'd contest that an individual can't be good, evil, lawful or chaotic.

Yes, but didn't you say the death of free will would be evil? I would think that'd be lawful, not necessarily evil.

Not that it really matters.

 

[Harmon]

Thinking about killing other people is not evil.

The question is, if you had the opportunity to kill people for your own pleasure or profit and get away with it, would you actually do it?

If yes, then you are evil - even if you never get the opportunity.

You really need to reread what I wrote.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, but didn't you say the death of free will would be evil? I would think that'd be lawful, not necessarily evil.

Well, sorta. The swap to passive voice makes a difference in this case. The death of free will is merely the extinction of intelligent life. Might be an accident. Death isn't necessarily evil.

The killing of free will is evil, because murder is evil.

IMHO, of course.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Harmon]

I'll go a step further. Stamping out evil is evil, because it eventually requires the death of free will, or of everyone who has free will. (Free will requires that one be able to choose Evil -- free will requires the potential for evil.)

-- N

Well said.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Can a hermit be evil if he's never exposed to people? Must you "commit" an action to be "evil"? Certainly just thinking selfish or destructive things isn't evil is it?

Alignment comes under the heading of "description" for characters. Actions determine alignment - it must be that way because if alignment determines actions then players CANNOT have their characters behave in ways in which alignment will ever change and that is an abominable approach to good roleplaying. But, in the very rare circumstance that you simply don't have opportunity to do evil and thus demonstrate your alignment then the mere desire and willingness to do evil when the opportunity does eventually present itself is sufficient.

The reason I ask is that I'd like to have an encounter where the paladin is encouraged to "detect evil" and finds several peasants minding their own business, who've never committed a crime, who aren't hostile to the paladin or his religion, but who are evil.

In this case, the fact that the NPC's radiate evil demonstrates that barring only magical misdirection or obfuscation these individuals ARE evil - even if they are not KNOWN or actively seen to do evil things. This, however, does not make them an immediate threat justifying their death at the hands of the Paladin. In ANY reasonably cosmopolitan society this is something that a Paladin will run into on a daily basis.

How the paladin handles the situation should be largely based on the paladins present circumstances more than the evil peasantry. Is he just wandering the street aimlessly with nothing to do? Then he might well decide to undertake watchdogging these peasants, learn what evil they ARE up to and put a stop to it. He is likely busy with other tasks so maybe he just notes who they are if he can so that he might investigate later. Maybe he grabs the nearest constable and simply says, "Keep an eye on those fellows - they are likely up to no good."

I want a "what do you do?" moment in this encounter and thoughts on the consequences just to test the alignment system in D&D and the notion of this one guy's paladin.

Two things:
First, any paladin (indeed, every paladin) should know what would be the right thing to do - or at least what is allowed and not allowed - in such common circumstances. This requires that the PLAYER and DM be on the same page with how alignments work and are defined in the DM's campaign. For paladins specifically this is vital knowledge that CANNOT legitimately be omitted by a DM for a player. Alignments do not exist in the campaign for the DM to play whack-a-mole with PC's, when in lacking specifics from the DM they attempt to guess at correct action and are punished for failing to guess CORRECTLY what the DM's interpretations might be on the matter.

Second, to present an encounter like this, to set up some kind of "test of character", is to present the PLAYER with a roleplaying opportunity or challenge. It is not a failure of the player to choose NOT to accept the opportunity - to NOT choose to have his PC fail to uphold his ideals and proceed to engage in roleplaying such a flaw or error in judgement at this particular time. It is not a failure of the player to NOT desire exploring darker aspects of his character. There's nothing wrong with a paladin character NEVER EVER being remotely tempted to do something he shouldn't and spending the entire campaign safe and secure in his oaths. There IS something wrong with a DM assuming that just because a paladin CAN fall from grace that the DM should seek to ENGINEER that possibility - unless it is established upon the creation of the character that the DM believes anything to the contrary. It makes as much sense for a DM to try to trick or force a paladin to fall from grace as it does for him to do anything similar to a monk, barbarian, druid, or ranger. ANY character with an alignment restriction is NEVER EVER an agreed green light for the DM to casually throw that characters continued advancement in that class into question.

This is not to say that this is at all your intent. I'm just saying that while you may be greatly interested in TESTING alignment rules and character concepts, the player in question may simply want to continue to enjoy PLAYING the character as-is and seek his/her roleplaying challenges elsewhere in the game.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Can a hermit be evil if he's never exposed to people? Must you "commit" an action to be "evil"? Certainly just thinking selfish or destructive things isn't evil is it?

Give the hermit a goatee. Also make him bald with a scar over one eye. Pet kitty (fluffy or hairless) is optional. Voila. He's evil.

To really prove the point, have the hermit tear off one of those "Do Not Remove" tags from a mattress in front of the paladin.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Can a hermit be evil if he's never exposed to people? Must you "commit" an action to be "evil"? Certainly just thinking selfish or destructive things isn't evil is it?

It's a bit of a grey area in D&D, to be sure. Intent has a bearing on alignment but it seems that action is the "trigger."

So, no, a hermit who thinks evil thoughts and never commits an evil act cannot be evil.

He is well on the path, however, since an evil intent is required for an evil act. So he might not be evil yet, but he's just looking for an excuse to do it.

The reason I ask is that I'd like to have an encounter where the paladin is encouraged to "detect evil" and finds several peasants minding their own business, who've never committed a crime, who aren't hostile to the paladin or his religion, but who are evil.

Crimes aren't inherently evil, of course. But perhaps being a peasant is...they could all have D&D-style Evil societies, where they need to do things like bully and murder on a daily basis just to live as part of the society. They could be planetouched or the like, with diluted bloodlines that hint at evil ancestry. They could worship an evil deity, perform blood sacrifices to nurture the fields, etc. All of these would require actions that would be evil in the D&D sense of the term.

I want a "what do you do?" moment in this encounter and thoughts on the consequences just to test the alignment system in D&D and the notion of this one guy's paladin.

Well, typically, he would be Good for exterminating these Evil creatures. If they're evil, they did something to cement that choice, so the paladin would be just in destroying them. Of course, such an action might not be Lawful (because it could cause chaos and disruption to just go around murdering villagers), it certainly wouldn't be ideal (because persuading someone to be Good is always preferable for a Good character than just killing them for being evil), and it might violate the paladin's code (killing untrained commoners is pretty much dishonorable combat's poster child), but it would probably be Good.

That is, an action can be Good and still be non-Lawful, inadvisable, and in violation of a paladin's code. Any paladin who believes that all Evil should be killed (rather than stopped or ended or destroyed) is truly thinking Evil thoughts themselves, lacking the respect for life that is a hallmark of Good. Such a paladin is ripe for a fall.

It's one of those times during which a Paladin's call to exterminate evil should probably occur in their hearts and minds with the sword of Wisdom rather than in their chests and heads with the sword of Strength.

My own method of messing with detect evil usually involves creatures like tieflings -- creatures who detect invariably as an alignment that they may or may not have. It doesn't matter what alignment they really are, they will be seen by magic as evil.

It's one of the many examples of why magical alignment detection is not reliably translated into actions.

 

[Warren Okuma]

It's a bit of a grey area in D&D, to be sure. Intent has a bearing on alignment but it seems that action is the "trigger."

Yeah, that's how I read the rules as well.

Well, typically, he would be Good for exterminating these Evil creatures. If they're evil, they did something to cement that choice, so the paladin would be just in destroying them. Of course, such an action might not be Lawful (because it could cause chaos and disruption to just go around murdering villagers), it certainly wouldn't be ideal (because persuading someone to be Good is always preferable for a Good character than just killing them for being evil), and it might violate the paladin's code (killing untrained commoners is pretty much dishonorable combat's poster child).

Or by letting evil fester might be considered to be aiding and abetting evil.

but it would probably be Good.

Agreed.

That is, an action can be Good and still be non-Lawful, inadvisable, and in violation of a paladin's code. Any paladin who believes that all Evil should be killed (rather than stopped or ended or destroyed) is truly thinking Evil thoughts themselves, lacking the respect for life that is a hallmark of Good. Such a paladin is ripe for a fall.

Yup. He should be thinking "kill evil before they kill or corrupt more people" and should give them one chance to repent. Letting unrepentant evil flourish is like aiding evil and yet another way to fall.

It's one of those times during which a Paladin's call to exterminate evil should probably occur in their hearts and minds with the sword of Wisdom rather than in their chests and heads with the sword of Strength.

Aye, they are given diplomacy, detect evil, and martial weapon proficiency. Use it.

My own method of messing with detect evil usually involves creatures like tieflings -- creatures who detect invariably as an alignment that they may or may not have. It doesn't matter what alignment they really are, they will be seen by magic as evil.

Of course.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

To have an alignment of "evil" one must do evil. Simple, straightforward and no navel-gazing involved. A character's alignment is a description generated as an average of the acts they perform. To be "evil" they must do things which are evil and do those things more than they do anything redeeming.

This is entirely separate from the [EVIL] descriptor. Which is more like physics for the game world. Things with the [EVIL] subtype are comprised to some extent of the physical expression of evil which the alignment is but a pale shadow of.

Personally I figure the mix in a population should be 80% neutral, 10% good, 10% evil roughly. Because the assumed morality of the game's alignment system would consider many of the piddling little things many people call good or evil in the real world as neutral. And as an alignment good or evil require a significant deviation from the very wide neutral category.

EDIT: It's a Ping on the MY GOD HATES YOU radar. To a paladin something lighting up on the Detect Evil should be like getting no return on an incoming aircraft's IFF in a warzone. The Chorus of Infinite Righteousness just tapped him on the shoulder and said "The wrath of the heavens commands retribution."

 

[kigmatzomat]

EDIT: It's a Ping on the MY GOD HATES YOU radar. To a paladin something lighting up on the Detect Evil should be like getting no return on an incoming aircraft's IFF in a warzone. The Chorus of Infinite Righteousness just tapped him on the shoulder and said "The wrath of the heavens commands retribution."

That's a mite harsh. No option for redemption? No salvation? Just "the heavens command retribution"?

I prefer the murkiness of evil being nature, rather than deed. It forces paladins to acknowledge that evil can exist in the heart but still be overcome by free will. Redemption must be encouraged but a paladin knows, deep down down in the cockles or even the sub-cockles, when a person has yet to fully renounce evil. It makes it very difficult to be around someone when you know that person would do evil if given even the slightest motivation and a decent chance of success.