What must one do to be "evil" alignment?

[delericho]

If you're looking for something that would be a moral quandry, you would probably have to look at lawful evil, since you wouldn't be able to arrest them for their eeevvviilllss.

It's worth bearing in mind that in most societies the PCs won't be affiliated with the local law enforcement. As such, they may well not be empowered to arrest any wrongdoer for their crimes. Doing so may well be considered vigilante justice, and frowned on or outright outlawed by the powers-that-be.

Indeed, the society may well have declared the use of any divination magic on another person to be an invasion of privacy, and hence illegal. In which case, the Paladin may find himself in trouble with the law for his actions and has problems with his Code for not "respecting legitimate authority". (Heck, if I were a politician in a D&D world that in any way resembles reality, knowing the kinds of choices that I may well have to make and the moral consequences thereof, I would almost certainly push for exactly that sort of law, precisely to protect myself from a detect-and-smite Paladin... even without any intention to actually go ahead and commit Evil.)

Plus, in a society where the rule of law applies, the notion of the Batman may well be of no help to the police. It's entirely possible that they know who the criminals are, but can't bring them down due to lack of evidence. In this case, the Batman beating up the criminals and handing them over does nothing the police couldn't already do, but in fact taints any evidence that is gathered, such that a competent lawyer could have it thrown out of court effortlessly. However, how far you want to go along this line of thinking is debatable - I suspect most players would rather play in a game where the Batman is a viable choice, rather than a blight to the local police.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

My own personal definition is:

Inflicting suffering on others for selfish reasons.

These reasons might be sadism, personal profit, or to see if he could get away with it. However, the motivation must be to benefit himself, and not others.

This definition seems to cover most bases. The only exception would be some times of insanity, where the perpetrator just cannot understand that what he is doing is wrong. Religious fanatics, for example - they might not kill others for selfish reasons but because they think that it is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, by inflicting such harm on others they are certainly doing evil.

 

[UnsocialEntity]

It's worth bearing in mind that in most societies the PCs won't be affiliated with the local law enforcement. As such, they may well not be empowered to arrest any wrongdoer for their crimes. Doing so may well be considered vigilante justice, and frowned on or outright outlawed by the powers-that-be.

Indeed, the society may well have declared the use of any divination magic on another person to be an invasion of privacy, and hence illegal. In which case, the Paladin may find himself in trouble with the law for his actions and has problems with his Code for not "respecting legitimate authority". (Heck, if I were a politician in a D&D world that in any way resembles reality, knowing the kinds of choices that I may well have to make and the moral consequences thereof, I would almost certainly push for exactly that sort of law, precisely to protect myself from a detect-and-smite Paladin... even without any intention to actually go ahead and commit Evil.)

Plus, in a society where the rule of law applies, the notion of the Batman may well be of no help to the police. It's entirely possible that they know who the criminals are, but can't bring them down due to lack of evidence. In this case, the Batman beating up the criminals and handing them over does nothing the police couldn't already do, but in fact taints any evidence that is gathered, such that a competent lawyer could have it thrown out of court effortlessly. However, how far you want to go along this line of thinking is debatable - I suspect most players would rather play in a game where the Batman is a viable choice, rather than a blight to the local police.

To be honest, I was thinking more along the lines of investigating and reporting it to the guard. Most adventurers don't have the power to arrest people, just like you stated. I guess I could have been more explicit, but like I said in the post, I was keeping it general instead of campaign specific.

Err, really all i'm trying to say is yes, I agree with you. Heh.

As a sidenote, I've always considered "detect" spells to be similiar to urine tests. Rather rude, unless you have a good reason for it.

 

[delericho]

These reasons might be sadism, personal profit, or to see if he could get away with it. However, the motivation must be to benefit himself, and not others.

What about the tyrant who inflicts monstrous cruelty on one segment of his society because he truly believes that doing so will benefit most of his subjects, and the society as a whole? Surely such a person is still Evil, and yet he's genuinely motivated by benefit to others?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

What about the tyrant who inflicts monstrous cruelty on one segment of his society because he truly believes that doing so will benefit most of his subjects, and the society as a whole? Surely such a person is still Evil, and yet he's genuinely motivated by benefit to others?

I think that's safely covered by the "insanity" subclause.

 

[delericho]

I think that's safely covered by the "insanity" subclause.

Possibly, but I'm a little concerned that simply labelling them as insane may be dismissive. Indeed, one might select that course of action in the full knowledge that it's Evil, but having taken the considered view that the ends justify the means.

 

[DragonLancer]

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?

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.

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.

IMO, you can have a farmer who has lived all his life in the same village, has good friends and family, has never commited an evil act, but still has an evil alignment. Maybe something happened to him in his childhood or teen years that has left him bitter or scarred in someway. Just because he doesn't perform human sacrifice or worship Orcus, doesn't mean he can't be evil alignment.

As to your question there, if the paladin has no reason to suspect the guy of anything what can he do? He can investigate the farmer at the local village and ask around, but without evidence that the farmer has commited evil acts or is a monster in disguise theres not a lot he can do IMO.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Possibly, but I'm a little concerned that simply labelling them as insane may be dismissive. Indeed, one might select that course of action in the full knowledge that it's Evil, but having taken the considered view that the ends justify the means.

Let's pick an example. The Aztecs believed that if they didn't regularly sacrifice human hearts to the gods, the sun wouldn't go up. Now, killing people by carving out their hearts probably counts as an evil act.

If this belief is not true, then sacrificing humans is evil via the insanity clause. If it is true - for example, if the gods appeared and told everyone that - then sacrificing the humans is not evil, it's a necessity deriving from the situation.

Likewise, generals who send their soldiers to their deaths because doing so will protect their homeland are not evil, despite the suffering they are causing. In the end, they are doing what's neccessary.


Thinking about this, I believe evil people can be divided into two categories:

- The Rational Actor: Someone who knows full well what suffering his actions will cause, but doesn't care for selfish reasons.

- The Irrational Actor: Someone who causes suffering but either does not realize it or weights it against imaginary benefits.

 

[irdeggman]

You've got to remember that in 3.5 it is not "detect evil intent" it is "detect evil".

The spell detects evil auras, which are based on alignment and type only (well clerics of an evil god are special).

But it has nothing to do with what the character "intends to do" at the moment.

You need to decide what alignment the character has before hand and then proceed from there.

If the characters are evil by alignment then they will detect with an evil aura strength based on their hit dice. Another way to look at it is - will smite evil work on them? If so then they are "evil" if not then they are not. Your call as a DM what their alignment is, but once chosen then there are game mechanics that depend on it.

In 2nd ed the line was much blurrier because it revolved around "intent".

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

I think it's fine to explore moral ambiguity as long as the DM and the players are on the same page. If the players think you are using the spell in a standard way and you aren't, then you have a miscommunication that is bound to lead to problems. It's fine to change the rules or interpret them differently, but only as long as everyone is aware of what the interpretation is. I am also wary of people wanting to mess with paladins. If the player is down with exploring moral ambiguity, that's great. If not, this isn't going to be fun for anyone involved an the player is likely to feel that he is being punished for his class choice.