| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Detect evil says "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.
Never caught this one before.
Does this mean that an evil creature intent on doing good registers as a good creature?
Sir Slaughter: If you spare my life go I shall go to the nearest orphanage and take care of children for the rest of my life!
Inquisitor: You know what fellow PCs? He suddenly registered as good! I think he actually means it!
Ladies and Gentlemen: The flaws of objective alignments.
|
This is why we don't have Paladins. Puttering down the highway at the legal speed limit, being passed by hundreds of honking passersby, flipping him off, his head would explode from all the evil thoughts being directed at his speed-limit-observing self. He'd probably think he accidentally drove through a portal to the Lower Planes...
Detect evil says "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.
Never caught this one before.
Does this mean that an evil creature intent on doing good registers as a good creature?
Sir Slaughter: If you spare my life go I shall go to the nearest orphanage and take care of children for the rest of my life!
Inquisitor: You know what fellow PCs? He suddenly registered as good! I think he actually means it!
If farmer Bob was of good alignment he is no longer if he is thinking and or killing people...Farmer Bob needs an alignment change. Actions speak louder than words...
So a lawful good paladin that kills something needs an alignment change and then a class change? It says clearly that a Lawful Good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. If my neighbor was guilty of raping my daughter i'd call him guilty.
You're exaggerating. The poster to which you're referring said "slept with". Quite a leap to go from "slept with" to "rape". Since the poster didn't expressly say rape, we can infer that there is the distinct and likely possibility that the sex was consensual. Farmer Bob might not like it, and his daughter might be locked in at night for months, but don't inflame the argument with hyperbole please.
|
If farmer Bob was of good alignment he is no longer if he is thinking and or killing people...Farmer Bob needs an alignment change. Actions speak louder than words...
Actions and thoughts are very different things. I'm pretty darn sure that the epitome of good (Read: LG Paladins) have been tempted with more than a few thoughts of very wrathful and evil actions especially if something happened to ones that they truly cared for. To act on those thoughts, however, can certainly condemn them.
I agree with how ravingdork has interpreted this rule.
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
|
|
You're exaggerating. The poster to which you're referring said "slept with". Quite a leap to go from "slept with" to "rape". Since the poster didn't expressly say rape, we can infer that there is the distinct and likely possibility that the sex was consensual. Farmer Bob might not like it, and his daughter might be locked in at night for months, but don't inflame the argument with hyperbole please.
So a lawful good paladin that kills something needs an alignment change and then a class change? It says clearly that a Lawful Good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. If my neighbor was guilty of raping my daughter i'd call him guilty.
It is also hyberbole to say that just thinking you want to kill someone means you are actually going to do it. I did miss that it was just sex and not rape, though in a midieval setting having sex out of wed lock could lawfully get you killed. Hell even in modern times it could get you killed in places like Iraq and the town would not care. This is one area where the old "True Evil" and "True Good" alignement rules might be applicable. Is what ever I am detecting from a Devil,Demon,Daemon,Negative plane? If yes then it is evil, if not then you would not get a detection.
So a lawful good paladin that kills something needs an alignment change and then a class change? It says clearly that a Lawful Good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. If my neighbor was guilty of raping my daughter i'd call him guilty.
And then you go, kill your neighbor, change you alignement and class, and the next day your daughter told you she was lying and that the neighbor never laid a hand on her...
If you were a real proper paladin you should have taken the neighbor to the proper authority. (And you should not have a daughter in the first place :p )
|
|
So a lawful good paladin that kills something needs an alignment change and then a class change? It says clearly that a Lawful Good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. If my neighbor was guilty of raping my daughter i'd call him guilty.And then you go, kill your neighbor, change you alignement and class, and the next day your daughter told you she was lying and that the neighbor never laid a hand on her...
If you were a real proper paladin you should have taken the neighbor to the proper authority. (And you should not have a daughter in the first place :p )
So you can detect evil, but not lies from your own daughter? Ya if thats the case I guess it would be time to reroll.
Why go that extreme...
Evil intent has many shades. If your dealing with a shopkeeper who thinks he squeeze a few extra gold out of you than what he knows that sword is worth... THat is an evil thought and would register under a detect evil.
This is why detect evil should be used loosely. Not everyone with 'evil intent' should be smited on sight. It's why even in THESE worlds there is still a judicial system.
As to the other side, would Sir Slaughter ACTUALLY want to do good? If he's just giving lip service to loophole his way from the inquisitor's gaze... I don't think it would register as good.
Sounds like the precrime definition in "Minority Report".
Paladin: "You lived a good life farmer guy but i know you will kill someone in the near future ... by the name of GOOD i will judge you."
|
|
Why go that extreme...
Evil intent has many shades. If your dealing with a shopkeeper who thinks he squeeze a few extra gold out of you than what he knows that sword is worth... THat is an evil thought and would register under a detect evil.
This is why detect evil should be used loosely. Not everyone with 'evil intent' should be smited on sight. It's why even in THESE worlds there is still a judicial system.
That was kind of my point, though in previous editions going all the way back to the 1st, there was Detect Evil/Good which only detected things that where like truly evil from another plane or influenced by such.
Then a higher level spell was Know Alignment, in which you would detect the alignment of a person/place or thing. Inquisitor's do get this ability in Pathfinder's at level 2. So in my games I use this older version of detections, though when I am playing in PFS, my inquisitor(whom by all rights is as close to evil you can get in society play) uses these false detections to justify his means.
Technically, Good/Law/Chaos don't mention anything about creatures detecting as [X]. Each spell says that it operates like Detect Evil, but detecting [alignment] spells, creatures, clerics, magic items, and that you can be overwhelmed by auras.
A Neutral character walking through Cheliax intending to die freeing slaves won't, by RAW, detect as Good.
So you can detect evil, but not lies from your own daughter? Ya if thats the case I guess it would be time to reroll.
Well, by RAW it's easier for a paladin to detect evil than to detect lie... You don't have Zone of Truth at level one... And if you don't put some point in sense motive your daughter bluff/Diplomacy might work very well... ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Detect evil says "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.
Never caught this one before.
Does this mean that an evil creature intent on doing good registers as a good creature?
Your argument relies on several assumptions there:
1) That a person who is intrinsically, in their basic character, 'good' as your text implies would consider murder as a suitable retribution for dishonouring their daughter.
2) That they will follow through with this intent in real actions and not be merciful at the last moment and just beat the cr@p out of their neighbour instead, or march them to the alter with a heavy crossbow.
3) That wanting to exact retribution actually counts as murder when in certain circumstances it may be considered justice (for example, the neighbour not bothering with niceties like asking your daughter's consent before hand (rape), having a record of doing so and causing grief in the area, etc).
As you could see, it would be easy to twist this into any paladin raising their sword promptly falling because killing=evil. Obviously killing != evil under all circumstances, and wanting to kill != evil intent under all circumstances.
Sir Slaughter: If you spare my life go I shall go to the nearest orphanage and take care of children for the rest of my life!
Inquisitor: You know what fellow PCs? He suddenly registered as good! I think he actually means it!
Again, you have made some intrinsic assumptions here:
1) That the evil person is doing so out of altruistic motives. If their motives were genuinely altruistic they would be doing this anyway and not offering when their lives are in danger.
2) They clearly are only offering to perform the deed to save their skins when caught out - in short, their motives are selfish. It makes no difference to Sir Slaughter if he gives time and money to his conqueror or to orphans - he's just offering it to the orphans because he knows it's more likely to get his life spared - he is selfishly trying to manipulate the party into sparing his life.
What you have underlined, however, is that motive is clearly important in questions of alignment:
- Farmer Bob is either angry and does not really intend to kill his neighbour (just beat him up a bit, or force him into a crossbow wedding), or else is intent on doing so to avenge a lot more than a misdemeanour and is acting to prevent further crimes - he is acting in his daughter's (and perhaps others') best interests. You have to be a pretty nice guy to register as good after all, hence he still wouldn't register as evil even though his intent may be rash or misguided.
- Sir Slaughter is only interested in saving his own skin, he doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the orphans, he's Evil, and that means he really has no (or very restricted) compassion at all - in fact, he is indulging in more evil by trying to deceive the PCs into thinking he is reformed when he isn't. He will still register as evil because while his stated intent may appear altruistic, they are motivated by pure selfishness. He'd probably slaughter or enslave the orphans as soon as the PC's backs are turned.
All that the spell does is make clear it isn't black and white, if paladin Rob detects evil it does not per definition give him reason to smite or it might even not work since 'vile' farmer Bob is in fact not evil though he might be at crossroads. 'Smiting' everyone that glows red on his detect evil radar might quickly get Paladin Rob into trouble.
'Smiting' everyone that glows red on his detect evil radar might quickly get Paladin Rob into trouble.
At least, in my game, a paladin doing this is asking for years in jail at the minimum ;)
Don't forget that Farmer Bob and Sir Slaughter need to have at least 5 Hit Dice before they can even show up on any Alignment-Radar(with the usual exceptions, like having the Aura class feature).
Don't forget that Farmer Bob and Sir Slaughter need to have at least 5 Hit Dice before they can even show up on any Alignment-Radar(with the usual exceptions, like having the Aura class feature).
I was just about to post the link to this very fact. Commoners and low level adventurers can have all the evil thoughts they like. They can murder someone and still will not detect as evil as they are not high enough in HD to give off an aura of evil.
That being established, Farmer bob's evil thoughts will not offend the paladin in anyway unless he voices them within earshot of said paladin.
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.
Just defending my family's honor!
Oh wow. Farmer Bob (6th-level commoner) who my inquisitor detected as good yesterday, now detects evil today because he is intent on murdering his neighbor who slept with his daughter.Just defending my family's honor!
Hogwash! You've been out to get me for seasons, ever since my oxen escaped and trampled your tomatoes. Why, just last season you undercut my crop of radishes by two copper a bushel! How can I compete with that?
By Erastil's watchful eye, you never would have approved of what me and your daughter have together! That night by the manure pit was special.
A Neutral character walking through Cheliax intending to die freeing slaves won't, by RAW, detect as Good.
Why is that?
Your argument relies on several assumptions...
What argument? I'm not arguing anything, merely asking a question. I'd have to have a stance to make an argument.
What argument? I'm not arguing anything, merely asking a question. I'd have to have a stance to make an argument.
Scenario would be a better word, then. It still makes some assumptions that are not very valid - if detect alignment detects intentions, then you need to analyse what those intentions are:
Farmer Bob - intends to defend his family honour/avenge his ravished daughter/see that justice is done. Are any of these actually evil intentions? No, not really, even if he does carry through on actually killing his neighbour, killing for the joy of killing is not his actual intention.
Sir Slaughter intends to manipulate the PCs into thinking he may have reformed, thus saving his own skin. Is this a good intention? No, even if he sticks to it he's not offering to do it because he cares for the orphans, he just wants to get out of receiving justice for his past crimes.
Flaws of an objective alignment system? What's objective about the alignment system in Pathfinder?
Different cultures on Earth view good and evil as vastly different things. Why shouldn't the same be said for cultures on Golorian?
Why couldn't a Paladin from Katapesh and an Paladin from Andoran who were both lawful-good be very different?
Picking up a slave from market in Katapesh is not much more different than picking up a camel. So why could a Paladin who is from Katapesh not purchase a slave for the purposes of using said person as a slave? Wherein a Paladin from Andoran who traveled to Katapesh would certainly have a different view of the slave trade from his culture purchasing a slave in the slave market?
From this perspective, different cultures breed different defintions of good and evil. To me I'd treat LG alignment ramifications different for these two characters based upon their culture.
Different cultures on Earth view good and evil as vastly different things. Why shouldn't the same be said for cultures on Golorian?
Because we don't have divinely powered champions backed by gods and goddess and other cosmic level forces who can actually work overt miracles? Kind hard to argue with an avatar of Iomedae or even a angelic servant about differing takes on Good and Evil. Or more commonly a devil in Asmodeus' employ.
Please, let's not drag real world ambiguity into a fantasy game's assumptions, most especially in a defined fantasy setting with clear divine powers.
So a lawful good paladin that kills something needs an alignment change and then a class change? It says clearly that a Lawful Good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. If my neighbor was guilty of raping my daughter i'd call him guilty.
Paladins are lawful good not lawful stupid. Also, it was a FARMER not a Paladin in quesiton. If you are a lawful person and then decide to murder someone, you are no longer lawful. Paladins would not kill you on site becasue a farmers SAID he had relations with my daughter. There would be justice i.e. trials etc then IF found guilty would get whatever punishment is dealt within the confines of their laws. Lawful people DONT kill others on a whim. Beating some one up and killing are two very different things. When a Paladin that willingly commits an evil act he/she is no longer a Paladin and has violated the code of conduct, page 64 core book.
Paladins are lawful good not lawful stupid. Also, it was a FARMER not a Paladin in quesiton. If you are a lawful person and then decide to murder someone, you are no longer lawful. Paladins would not kill you on site becasue a farmers SAID he had relations with my daughter. There would be justice i.e. trials etc then IF found guilty would get whatever punishment is dealt within the confines of their laws. Lawful people DONT kill others on a whim. Beating some one up and killing are two very different things. When a Paladin that willingly commits an evil act he/she is no longer a Paladin and has violated the code of conduct, page 64 core book.
So a lawful good paladin that kills something needs an alignment change and then a class change? It says clearly that a Lawful Good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. If my neighbor was guilty of raping my daughter i'd call him guilty.
Just wanted to point out that murder is an EVIL thing not an anti-LAW thing. There are places where murder IS being lawful.
A Neutral character walking through Cheliax intending to die freeing slaves won't, by RAW, detect as Good.
Yes, they will. A character going to those lengths to save someone else is Good.
Likewise, the merchant trying to bilk a rich adventurer out of a few more gold is at worst naughty, NOT evil.
I've always run detect evil with a bit of ambiguity in my home games. Few people possess an unalloyed good nature that's as "pure as the driven snow", and few are so hardened in sin that they radiate pure malice.
The world's a complicated place. A man might be generally wicked, cruel, and self-centered, but still possess some good traits. A real jerk may still love his family, sympathize with the poor and unfortunate, or sacrifice himself to preserve the lives of men under his command.
Based on that, I don't treat most people's evil (or good) as monolithic. In the depths of murderous wrath against his neighbor (justified or not), Farmer Bob detects as evil. On the other hand, murderous King Usurpius might not detect as evil while he's on his knees, earnestly praying to be forgiven of his sin. Even if he backslides soon afterward, he would have temporarily turned away from darkness.
A Neutral character walking through Cheliax intending to die freeing slaves won't, by RAW, detect as Good.Yes, they will. A character going to those lengths to save someone else is Good.
Likewise, the merchant trying to bilk a rich adventurer out of a few more gold is at worst naughty, NOT evil.
There are two problems with this.
One, as I have clearly stated, Detect Good is not the perfect mirror of Detect Evil. By RAW, Detect Good will detect Good creatures, Clerics, spells, and magic items. It will not detect somebody with Good intentions.
Two, your normal alignment isn't "whatever I'm doing at this moment." Your normal alignment is a word to describe a pattern of actions your character commits.
If you start the day saving a village from an orc horde, then you decide to wantonly kill an orphan, then you plant evidence to overthrow the local baron, then you take his place and rule justly for a week your base alignment doesn't switch wildly between Chaotic, Evil, Good,and Lawful. Your intentions might, but a game statistic that itself describes long-term patterns will not fluctuate with minute-by-minute actions.
Your position also suggests that a creature cannot have Evil intentions without being Evil. I don't see why, if a normally Good farmer can set out to murder somebody and detect as having Evil intentions (but not be Evil), a Neutral character can't set out to die freeing slaves (a Good intention) without being Good.
By RAW, Detect Good will detect Good creatures, Clerics, spells, and magic items. It will not detect somebody with Good intentions.
I refute that with quotes!
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
This spell functions like detect evil, except that it detects the auras of good creatures, clerics or paladins of good deities, good spells, and good magic items, and you are vulnerable to an overwhelming good aura if you are evil.
If it works like detect evil, it works like it in all ways except where noted.
EDIT: No one is saying your alignment switches wildly, just that it detects differently for as long as you bear serious intent.
Thinking or even wanting to murder someone isn't enough for a good person to detect evil. Intending to commit murder, however, is.
I agree that you should be right. I disagree that you are right.
And unless I'm mistaken, he said that somebody going to those lengths is Good, rather than simply detects as Good.
If you were a real proper paladin you should have taken the neighbor to the proper authority. (And you should not have a daughter in the first place :p )
I will try not to drag myself into another alingment thread but i have to ask, why shouldn't the paladin have a daughter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will try not to drag myself into another alingment thread but i have to ask, why shouldn't the paladin have a daughter?
Heh. Have you tried to be a model of purity and holiness while raising teenagers?
When younger, boys cause more moments of panic. But nothing non-magical tests the temper of adult sanity more than parenting a teenage girl. ;-)
Plus being a paladin AND a parent makes you a HUGE target for the GM.
There's no way a GM is NOT going to target your kids and use them as a means to your falling from grace.
A Neutral character walking through Cheliax intending to die freeing slaves won't, by RAW, detect as Good.Yes, they will. A character going to those lengths to save someone else is Good.
Likewise, the merchant trying to bilk a rich adventurer out of a few more gold is at worst naughty, NOT evil.
One, as I have clearly stated, Detect Good is not the perfect mirror of Detect Evil. By RAW, Detect Good will detect Good creatures, Clerics, spells, and magic items. It will not detect somebody with Good intentions.
-This isn't remotely a problem with my statement. The objection shows a complete, total and fundamental lack of understanding of the statement. The rules question of exactly how detect good mirrors detect evil are irrelevant to my point.
Two, your normal alignment isn't "whatever I'm doing at this moment." Your normal alignment is a word to describe a pattern of actions your character commits.
Alignment is a quantification of your deepest, innermost beliefs. While I'm sure with the imaginations of fantasy gamers we can come up with some scenarios where someone giving their life to free slaves is doing so for selfish reasons, the example is hand picked to represent a single, ultimate act of self sacrifice.
SOMETHING brought the would be John Brown to the point that he's willing to die for others. His decision is more than momentary. It may have been building for years, it may be a sudden realization, but his willingness to sacrifice himself for others indicates something about his personality. A conviction that deep is not as ephemeral as the morning mists.
If you start the day saving a village from an orc horde, then you decide to wantonly kill an orphan, then you plant evidence to overthrow the local baron, then you take his place and rule justly for a week your base alignment doesn't switch wildly between Chaotic, Evil, Good,and Lawful.
But you obviously didn't plan on dying to stop the orc horde. Someone like you're describing obviously saved the villiage for good PR, not for its own sake, and they weren't going to give their lives to do it.
I'm assuming here that a modicum of thought is given to the personality and motivation of the character. Real people, and believable fictional people, don't shift personality at the drop of a hat.
Your position also suggests that a creature cannot have Evil intentions without being Evil. I don't see why, if a normally Good farmer can set out to murder somebody and detect
Murder is a legal position, not a moral one. WHY farmer brown is about to get medieval matters here.
as having Evil intentions (but not be Evil), a Neutral character can't set out to die freeing slaves (a Good intention) without being Good.
Simple. Its far easier to fall down a hill than it is to climb one. It is very easy to loose yourself for a moment and fall, it is very hard to make a decision to die for others.
-This isn't remotely a problem with my statement. The objection shows a complete, total and fundamental lack of understanding of the statement. The rules question of exactly how detect good mirrors detect evil are irrelevant to my point.
My objections regarded two separate possibilities of intent. One was going to be irrelevant either way.
Still, you are correct in that the two examples (Evil-murder, Good-slaves) need to be reworded or substituted out if they're going to be used for discussion on how individual acts impact Alignment patterns. The fact is, I chose to throw out an act which is, in your own words, an ultimate act of Good -- when I'm trying to compare it against a single killing in the heat of the moment, and arguably provoked. These are far from equivalent, and it really is much easier to say that somebody who commits a great Good like that would actually be a Good person, compared to somebody who is provoked and commits an Evil act.
I suppose if the initial example had been 'Farmer Bob wakes up one morning and decides to butcher his dogs and make knives from their bones, for the purpose of torturing his neighbor in a ritual singing the praises of evil' ...
After some reflection, I mostly agree with you. I disagree that a person is always Good if they commit such a Good act, but they realistically would be much of the time, and if they are Good the majority of the time then it's fallacious to say that 'they aren't' compared to 'they aren't always'.
Running a game in the River Kingdoms is one such large example of this.
Just wanted to point out that murder is an EVIL thing not an anti-LAW thing. There are places where murder IS being lawful.
Yes but not all killing, RD, is murder - and that's where your hypothesis that evil will detect as good and good as evil falls down because you confuse the action with the intention.
Farmer Bob might be out to kill his neighbour, but kill!=murder. If Farmer Bob is fundamentally good, then it's likely that unless his neighbour did something pretty awful (ie justifiably deserving of death) then Bob won't go through with it. The example you site has justification to be angry, and good people can be angry and still detect as good.
Sir Slaughter is not intending to help orphans, he is intending to stay alive by promising to help orphans - in his case, not a good act. Ergo, he will not detect as good.
Just wanted to point out that murder is an EVIL thing not an anti-LAW thing. There are places where murder IS being lawful.Yes but not all killing, RD, is murder...
I never said that all killing was murder.
In hindsight, I don't think Sir Slaughter would detect as good in the proposed situation either (by all means come up with a different one), but Farmer Bob most definitely would register as evil if he was fully intending to murder Neighbor Ned.
Just wanted to point out that murder is an EVIL thing not an anti-LAW thing. There are places where murder IS being lawful.Yes but not all killing, RD, is murder...I never said that all killing was murder.
In hindsight, I don't think Sir Slaughter would detect as good in the proposed situation either (by all means come up with a different one), but Farmer Bob most definitely would register as evil if he was fully intending to murder Neighbor Ned.
Is he intending murder or is he intending retribution for affronted honour? Does he feel that Ned raped his daughter? Does he intend to kill him and enjoy doing so, or is he just out to beat the hell out of him and if he doesn't survive, no skin off Bob's nose?
These are all factors to be considered, and I have problems understanding how someone nice enough to register as good one day would flip so quickly to want to actually murder another person over a minor affront. It's possible, I will concede, but not very likely - about as likely as it being an actual shift in alignment, frankly. I can imagine, say, a lawful neutral person who feels their honour is besmirched going out to murder someone for it, but not a good person.
In Sir Slaughter's case, I can't imagine a circumstance where a homicidal maniac would have such a change of heart without it being an actual alignment changing event.
What you have to bear in mind is that motivations are built into the alignment system as is. A lawful evil Sir Slaughter may perform actions that are honourable (lawful) and not self-interested without them being motivated by altruism (good). For example, Sir Slaughter discovers that the son he spent the last five years searching for, and the only child of the only woman he ever truly loved who died giving birth while he was off slaughtering, was raised in said orphanage then he may well feel honour-bound to repay that act of altruism on their part by donating money and providing protection. It's edging toward good, but it isn't really there yet.
I think what I am trying to say is that people do not have behaviour so polarised as to register as an alignment without it being pretty deeply ingrained in their nature, and people who are mentally healthy do not act in ways fundamentally opposed to their nature.
Where I think your argument holds water is where you have people who are not strongly aligned being pushed into strong activity by circumstances. Farmer Bill, who is known around town as a bit self-important, might avenge his 'honour' by killing Ned, and this would register as evil against his backdrop alignment of neutral. Sir Killed-now-and-again who has always followed orders might be able to act compassionately and do the right thing occasionally.
Is he intending murder or is he intending retribution for affronted honour? Does he feel that Ned raped his daughter? Does he intend to kill him and enjoy doing so, or is he just out to beat the hell out of him and if he doesn't survive, no skin off Bob's nose?
I don't see where it makes much of a difference at all...
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Whether he never liked that miller boy... Didn't beleive he was good enough for his girl... had warned them to break it off or whatever... OR if he thinks a terrible wrong was committed and is out for blood Charles Bronson style... He's still out to kill the boy.
That's not to say there is no justified killing, but personal vengence does NOT fall into that catagory. Regardless of 'why' he felt the need to kill this kid... or even beat him to a bloody pulp and 'wonder' if he lives... is irrelevant. it'd still show up as evil intent.
Come the morning when he realizes what he did, he could be horrified by his evil act, or even regretful for his evil intentions... but that doesn't mean it wasn't an evil thought.
These are all factors to be considered, and I have problems understanding how someone nice enough to register as good one day would flip so quickly to want to actually murder another person over a minor affront. It's possible, I will concede, but not very likely - about as likely as it being an actual shift in alignment, frankly. I can imagine, say, a lawful neutral person who feels their honour is besmirched going out to murder someone for it, but not a good person.
I can think of a few examples just off the top of my head. I believe there are certain 'switches' that everyone has that could turn them into a killer instantly. My own personal ones are rape and violence against loved ones, women and children... Anyone ever TOUCHES my 4yr old nephew... and we'll see how fast i go vigilante ;) theres a whole film Genre on the concept.
Honestly, I had someone Cut a hole in my convertible top to get my ipod out... $1200 damage for a $70 ipod... Been 2 years, STILL haven't saved the money to get that fixed... I've given thanks to God MANY times that I didn't catch the kid in the act...
So yeah... If Farmer bob comes home one day and finds out that low-life miller kid took advantage of his daughter... He could have MANY evil thoughts going through his mind that would ping to the Paladin...
Still, the Paladin isn't allowed to act against 'thoughts'. Until he kicks in the boy's door with the axe, the correct play is to take Farmer bob aside, get him a few drinks and talk him down.
I don't really know if there's any hard rules on what is required for a deed to be good - is intent and motivation a part of it, by RAW, or is it more consequencial; if what you do is a good action, it doesn't really matter why you do it?
If it's the latter, which I've always assumed, Sir Slaughter might very well show up as good if he's of lawful nature and will actually commit to his vow. If he's just trying to slip out to get another chance at killing the PC's and conquer the world, of course not, but if he sees it has his only option to surviving, and his sense of honor demands that he fulfill vows, he could very well actually take care of the children (though a written contract of exactly what constitutes "care" is needed :|). If that's the case, I could very well see him as registering as good and I don't think that's a bad thing.
I think detecting intentions is far better than detecting alignment on people. I like shades of gray and prefer actions and thoughts being good and evil to people being good and evil.
Is he intending murder or is he intending retribution for affronted honour? Does he feel that Ned raped his daughter? Does he intend to kill him and enjoy doing so, or is he just out to beat the hell out of him and if he doesn't survive, no skin off Bob's nose?I don't see where it makes much of a difference at all...
So ... a man who premeditates a murder and kills in cold blood is no different to a guy who accidentally kills someone in a drunken brawl is effectively what you are saying here. There is a big difference between the two, a fact most courts recognise.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.Whether he never liked that miller boy... Didn't beleive he was good enough for his girl... had warned them to break it off or whatever... OR if he thinks a terrible wrong was committed and is out for blood Charles Bronson style... He's still out to kill the boy.
That's not to say there is no justified killing, but personal vengence does NOT fall into that catagory. Regardless of 'why' he felt the need to kill this kid... or even beat him to a bloody pulp and 'wonder' if he lives... is irrelevant. it'd still show up as evil intent.
I see where you are coming from, but again like RD you are making assumptions about the circumstances, and the circumstances make all the difference. You are also making assumptions about intent - as your own example highlights below:
I can think of a few examples just off the top of my head. I believe there are certain 'switches' that everyone has that could turn them into a killer...
These are all factors to be considered, and I have problems understanding how someone nice enough to register as good one day would flip so quickly to want to actually murder another person over a minor affront. It's possible, I will concede, but not very likely - about as likely as it being an actual shift in alignment, frankly. I can imagine, say, a lawful neutral person who feels their honour is besmirched going out to murder someone for it, but not a good person.
So ... you would be prepared to commit murder over a $70 iPod ... OK, now don't take this the wrong way, but if you genuinely feel that you would have killed him dead, there and then, you need therapy, and you need it badly in order to control your psychotic outbursts.
If someone did that to me, sure I would be annoyed. I might even say "I'm gonna kill him!" but ... I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't even get violent unless I caught him red-handed, and then only to restrain him. I'd WANT to kill him, but I wouldn't act on that intention and I think about 99.9% of the population of the Western World would be the same. We'd grab him, call the police, take back what was ours, but actually murder the kid? No.
This is where the examples just don't cut it: Fred might want to kill Ned, but will he actually go through with it? If he's good enough to register as 'good' then I seriously doubt it. Being angry is not the same as being evil.
So ... you would be prepared to commit murder over a $70 iPod ... OK, now don't take this the wrong way, but if you genuinely feel that you would have killed him dead, there and then, you need therapy, and you need it badly in order to control your psychotic outbursts.
He didn't say "for the $70 iPod", but rather "for the $1200 damage to his convertible". I would also have been pretty angry at that. I agree with the rest, though :)
So ... you would be prepared to commit murder over a $70 iPod ... OK, now don't take this the wrong way, but if you genuinely feel that you would have killed him dead, there and then, you need therapy, and you need it badly in order to control your psychotic outbursts.He didn't say "for the $70 iPod", but rather "for the $1200 damage to his convertible". I would also have been pretty angry at that. I agree with the rest, though :)
My bad, yes there is the damage to the roof to consider, but then that should be covered by insurance.
This is where the examples just don't cut it: Fred might want to kill Ned, but will he actually go through with it? If he's good enough to register as 'good' then I seriously doubt it. Being angry is not the same as being evil.
Yes, farmer Bob is going to MURDER (as in kill, snuff out, rub off, etc.) Neighbor Ned.
If I said he was only thinking about it, I would have said as much, if he was only thinking about beating him up, I would have said as much; no, Farmer Bob is making premeditated plans, and he intends to carry them out in full.
And yet, he is good. Will he be after he commits the deed? Doesn't matter, point is, is that he is registering as evil long before he actually follows through. Why? Because he has intent to commit murder.
Not hard to understand, nothing here to confuse, no assumptions are being made. Simply following the rules.