I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?
Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?
Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
1. No you can't smite him. Being evil alone is not enough, just as being good is not enough to get you any type of merit. You must act on your principles.
2. Stealing on its own is not evil. It is chaotic. What you steal, why you steal, and so on would have to be known. The known effect of the stealing is also a factor. As an example if I steal medicine from someone, and I know they need it to live that would count as evil.
3. Yes, if he killed when he could have safely just brought them in, assuming the local authorities gave him that option. If he was in a situation where he had to kill the bad guys, and just chopped them up after the fact then I don't think he would be bothered, even if the act is barbaric(not the class) in nature.
PS:I can only speak for my own games.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Remember that in Pathfinder, alignment (both of persons and of actions) has TWO axes: Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic.
As far as the alignment system is concerned, an action's status as legal or illegal has little (if anything) to do with whether it's good or evil - rather, it affects whether it's lawful or chaotic.
As for your examples:
Example 1 - I would call this farmer evil, personally. However, unless he's mid-level or decides to become a cleric or similar, he's not going to register on the paladin's evil-o-meter, so Pally will need a different reason to attack him besides him just being evil.
Example 2 - This is where it becomes most important to distinguish between the two axes of alignment. There's nothing described in your example (individual retellings may vary) that would even register on the Good/Evil axis; it's all Law/Chaos.
Example 3 - Not much different from the farmer, really.
That's what I've got to contribute. YMMV, of course.
...Example 2 - This is where it becomes most important to distinguish between the two axes of alignment. There's nothing described in your example (individual retellings may vary) that would even register on the Good/Evil axis; it's all Law/Chaos...
That is actually the way I have alway handled it.
I included that because of some of the reponses I've seen in other threads. I get the impression alot of people would consider this evil. But maybe I'm wrong.
|
Person 1 the farmer and person 3 the fighter are clearly evil. But they are not commiting evil acts. My understanding may be more 3rd edition than Pathfinder, but I recall that just because someone is evil does not mean they detect as evil. Only those with auras such as clerics and outsiders automatically detect as an alighnment. Others detect as evil when they intend to do evil or are actively doing evil.
Thus a Paladin would not know the farmer and fighter are evil. I guess my understanding is that for most mortals intent and action are what count. If you are not intending to do evil or actively doing evil then you are just the jerk living next door. His neighbors probably all know he is a jerk but he does not detect as evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...Example 2 - This is where it becomes most important to distinguish between the two axes of alignment. There's nothing described in your example (individual retellings may vary) that would even register on the Good/Evil axis; it's all Law/Chaos...That is actually the way I have alway handled it.
I included that because of some of the reponses I've seen in other threads. I get the impression alot of people would consider this evil. But maybe I'm wrong.
Well, some people have a really hard time with the idea of the two axes being unrelated. Not surprising, given the cultural pressure to equate laws with good (or evil, in the case of a corrupt organization). Western society doesn't operate on a two-axis alignment system. :P
I think alignment is a hotly debated topic, and this is going to get interesting. In my games, I allow alignment to remain subjective due to having mapped out how the universe works in a bit more detail than I expect people to think about. This is because of the inevitable question of "What if you could have proved to you that someone you deeply care about is evil?" Lawful evil manipulators would have no place in society unless the general populace was fine with having them remain in power knowing that they are evil.
But, enough armchair sociology. Let's talk ethics.
Example 1: I'd argue that Jimmy isn't actually evil until he acts on those desires, as hackneyed as they may be. After all, when you start to actually injure others with your actions is when the alignment system determines you are "evil".
Example 2: See, I'm of the opinion that yes, stealing is wrong. However, redistributing wealth seems like something that lands squarely in the chaos section. It's changing society while doing both harm and good, but not for altogether selfish reasons. However, as he is opposing the collection of taxes, I would argue that it is an attempt to make change, and therefore chaotic.
Fun fact: In OD&D you were Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful. Chaos was many times synonymous with evil, and Law with good. However, it was noted that too much law could stagnate people while too much chaos would result in pointless destruction. So, thieves were chaotic and priests tended towards law, and a lot of monsters were chaotic.
Example 3: I'd argue that yes, Barq was evil, but he might also have a strong case for neutrality, as he only attacked and humiliated/killed bad people. If a paladin was sent to hunt him down because "he liked his job too much", I might question the sanity of the organization.
So, more on this. Read the alignment sections carefully. Evil is all about self-fulfillment at the expense of others. In essence, if you kill someone or commit some other just as bad crime to benefit yourself, you are considered evil. This is mainly a societal view. We can determine that this is about 90% motive. You can commit genocide on the orcs if they were set to wipe out a peaceful monastery and you might consider that good. You could also steal all of their weaponry to accomplish the same with no direct bloodshed. If you define an action as evil, then committing either of those acts in defense of another is evil and calls into question the believability of heroism in your setting since it requires people to perform evil.
If you consider performing an act for self-satisfaction at the expense of others evil, then consider who exactly is manipulating others in society right now, causing conflict and pain among their social groups for amusement and revels in their heightened social position, rendering them effectively unpunishable by the law.
That's right. Small children.
And since a paladin co-operation with an evil creature is cause for him to fall, rescuing children could cause a paladin to fall using such logic.
It's great for a humorous game, but in a serious game you might get people actually doing some of the dramatic things I see them threatening on this forum, table-flipping, walking out, and other such amusing actions.
tl;dr If your alignment system makes a paladin fall for rescuing children, you're doing it wrong.
|
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?
Yes, he evil. No, the paladin is not justified to kill him. He's living within societies accepted structure.
Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?
No, he not evil. He is, however, breaking the law. A paladin may attempt to bring him to justice. Justice does not necessarily mean death. A trial an punishment according to the law would be preferable.
It is possible for the good hearted bandit to be killed, but would certainly not be a primary goal, after all, he's just trying to help those he sees as disadvantaged. The only difference is, unlike the paladin, he's not working within the societies legal structure.
Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
To kill a law abiding member of society, especially one enforcing that societies laws is not a good or lawful act. The paladin may realize what he is and watch him like a hawk, but will not be able to arbitrarily kill him. If he crosses the line, however, the paladin is going to be all over him, within the bounds of the law of course. Outright killing without following due process of law is still a violation of the paladins lawful alignment.
Within the structure of a civilized area, the paladin is NOT judge, jury, and executioner. Only on the battlefield or in uncivilized areas does a paladin have any claim to such.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And since a paladin co-operation with an evil creature is cause for him to fall
Quick nitpick: it's not. Not in Pathfinder, anyway. I hear it used to be different in DnD, but associating with evil characters does not cause a Pathfinder paladin to fall.
And since a paladin co-operation with an evil creature is cause for him to fallQuick nitpick: it's not. Not in Pathfinder, anyway. I hear it used to be different in DnD, but associating with evil characters does not cause a Pathfinder paladin to fall.
True dat. One bit I failed to re-check in my analysis.
However:
a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
If you save a child's life, and they use their new lease on life to "evil or chaotic ends", a hackneyed DM might make you fall due to that. Or at least, I would in a humorous game where I wanted to use the system as a punchline. It's a lot less of a prominent example after the revision though, thank you.
|
|
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
I'll answer this part first, since this is where I feel many alignment threads fall apart. A character's attitude, in my mind, has very little to do with alignment. Attitude represents a character flaw... some aspect of the character that, while it conflicts with his actions (and can change them, given enough time), is simply a representation of his own desires. A Paladin who thinks the poor are unworthy of his aid, that the strong should fend for themselves and the weak should die... but still follows the code of a paladin (i.e., defending the weak and helping the needy), is STILL a paladin. Being a jerk doesn't cause a person to be evil... ACTIONS cause a person to be evil.
However, this only applies to player characters, at least in most circumstances. I've always seen D&D as black & white as Star Wars. Evil has presence, is an opposing force, and can be physically fought against. Creatures can be born evil, though these are usually extreme cases, or (in the case of some monsters) an inherent aspect of their nature. In my mind, Ogre psychology has developed in such a twisted manner that Ogres, even baby ones, are scarred beyond salvation and must be removed from the world. Does that sound dark? Yes. Is that inhuman, even evil? YES. However, in a fantasy world where it's possible to be brought into the world evil, this kind of problem pops up. All of a sudden, ending evil in the world becomes a matter of looking under the alignment box in a stat block, which is much easier (if disturbing for some people).
Additionally, the way a DM runs alignment has a huge effect on the legitimacy of everything I've said. Yeah, YMMV is a lame cop-out, but in this case, it's true. Now, all that having been said, keep that in mind in my responses to your queries.
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?
Jimmy Joe Bob is not evil. I would say he's neutral. Notice: JJB doesn't actually stomp on kittens, but if one got randomly slain, he'd delight in that. JJB is penultimately selfish, but is not actively causing evil. He may DESIRE to do evil, (and if at some point that desire overrides his cowardice, we'll have a problem) but until then he's simply a jerk.
Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?
This is a classic example of Chaotic Good. If the Sheriff is good, then it's Chaotic Neutral. Yes, stealing is wrong, but he's balancing it out by giving it to the people in need. Sure, he could probably find a better way to do this without breaking the law, and if the Sheriff were really GOOD he'd probably be more than happy to redistribute some of the wealth himself (via homelessness programs, etc.), but it's not evil.
Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
A Paladin would not be justified by killing Barq. While he may take a sadistic glee in killing people, Barq is not doing anything evil by removing scum from the world. However... If by humiliating people you are referring to torture, then the ball game changes. If he's cruelly torturing people, then he should be brought to justice. Rain down that righteous wrath! That's a little extreme (I'd probably just get him imprisoned for it, smiting him down if he resisted), but it'd be justified. However, once again, he's removing evil from the world. It really depends on the severity of humiliation and how he slew his "victims." Cackling maniacally while you chop an evildoer into tiny bits isn't evil... it's insane. Torturing a rapist, while it may feel justified, is evil, and he should be punished accordingly.
A lot of people get confused about the difference between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. Basically, it is the difference between *Ethics* and *Morality*. They are NOT the same thing. Ethics is the Law/Chaos axis, Morality is the Good/Evil axis.
Example: Ethics means following the rules of your society--which you can do while also being Evil. There was a shameful time in the history of our country when it was Lawful to own slaves--but it was *never* moral.
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
As other posters have said, there is a conflation in your example of Law = Good, Chaos = Evil. Additionally, there's the all important Detect rule for alignments: you don't detect as an alignment until you have reached at least level 5 of most classes, or level 1 of a class that has an aura of [alignment].
Ex 1: The farmer is most likely Neutral Evil. The farmer has shown no particular proclivity towards Law or Chaos, but has strong sentiments towards Evil. The great likelihood is that the farmer will not detect as Evil.
Ex 2: RH is likely either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, but leaning towards Chaotic Good. If the purpose of redistribution of wealth is to benefit (at least, mostly) the poor population, there is a significant tilt towards Good. Stealing is, by nature, a Chaotic (read: antithetical to Law) action.
Ex 3: Barq is, as you stated in your example, Lawful Evil, respecting the importance of Law and order, but reveling in Evil acts and behaviors.
WHAT IS EVIL IN YOUR CAMPAIGN?
Often times, we are evil!
And when I say evil ... I mean EVIL.
I don't actually use "Evil" in my campaigns. At first I was just going to drop the alignment altogether, but I've found something that works for me and my group. Instead of Good and Evil on the alignment, I use Altruistic and Selfish. Law and Chaos is also defined differently with Law representing being bound by a code versus Chaos which letting the end justifying the means.
In my campaigns, alignment is not directly detectable. However as far Paladins, Clerics, and Outsiders go, I use Holy and Taint to describe them and their Auras. In this way, I can have an altruistic demon who reeks of taint or a neutral aasimar who's still gives off a faint holy glow.
|
|
Additionally, there's the all important Detect rule for alignments: you don't detect as an alignment until you have reached at least level 5 of most classes, or level 1 of a class that has an aura of [alignment].
I actually just mentioned this in another thread, but the Paladin's Detect Evil is not the same as the Detect Evil spell. It has a separate function that allows you to determine whether or not the target is evil, regardless of the target's level.
Looking at it 1 and 3 are both rather nasty people, but in my world neither would probably rate an alingment, at least not one strong enough to be detected by the paladin. (I usually restrict powerful alignments to supernatural creatures like outsiders or undead, or certain classes where it seems appropriate) The ultra good paladin may "feel" something when he looks at 1 and 3, but under most circumstances would not be doing "good" if decided to take some kind of direct action against them. More likly he would feel nothing but contempt for #1, and dislike for #3. #2 may not seem himself as evil at all, even if the sherrif is good, and the money rightfuly belonged to the nobels, since he is justifying as helping the poor.
Now an iquisitor might be another story, since they are a little on the judgmental side :)
I actually just mentioned this in another thread, but the Paladin's Detect Evil is not the same as the Detect Evil spell. It has a separate function that allows you to determine whether or not the target is evil, regardless of the target's level.
Additionally, there's the all important Detect rule for alignments: you don't detect as an alignment until you have reached at least level 5 of most classes, or level 1 of a class that has an aura of [alignment].
I'm not convinced, upon reading your link, that the ability does what you're claiming it does. The rider clause on it still relies on the strength of the aura. If you look at the table in the spell, you see that 5 or lower (4 or lower in the PRD) has no aura.
I feel that action and intent both compile to result in a character's alignment. Action has more of an effect, but intent still matters.
Example 1: Jimmy Joe Bob. He's evil, via intent. But how evil? Well, hes a coward, by definition he avoids confrontation and challenges. So he hasn't gained much personal XP, and that means he is unlikely to be the required level to actually have an evil aura. Pally smite is still rather undefined, but since it works even if the Pally isn't sure the target is evil, and it auto-doesn't work if the target is actually not evil, then I would say it is something more than just the Paladin getting his righteous wrath on. There is a discretionary power built into the ability, and that would note that Jimmy is evil and thus he would suffer the effects.
Example 2: Robin Hood vrs Not-Evil Sherrif. Not explicitly evil, if he behaves as normal Robin Hood does (doesn't kill his robbery targets, etc). Theft is a disruption of social order, which is chaotic, but it has no bearing on good or evil. Paladin is justified in apprehending him for his crimes, especially if he is not putting the spoils to good ends (such as with Normal Robin Hood). Ending him though? Not unless he resists arrest and leaves no other choice.
Example 3: Barq. Obviously evil, with the orderly mentality that suggests Lawful. But not a criminal, if he was sanctioned for his duties. Might get an official reprimand here and there, but until he hits 5-6th level and gets an aura, the paladin doesn't have much to go on besides knowing he'll get to say "I told you so" to Barq's superior one day.
For the life of me, I've never understood why alignment threads cause so much consternation. But then I've long noted the C-L axis along with the G-E one. That and I always try to refer to Lawful as "Orderly", to avoid the "Obey the LAW" stupidity that inevitably creeps along.
...If by humiliating people you are referring to torture, then the ball game changes. If he's cruelly torturing people, then he should be brought to justice. Rain down that righteous wrath! That's a little extreme (I'd probably just get him imprisoned for it, smiting him down if he resisted), but it'd be justified...
As a matter of fact, he did torture people. But it was to gain info not JUST for fun. But remember, torture to gain info used to be a fairly accepted practice.
...until he hits 5-6th level and gets an aura, the paladin doesn't have much to go on besides knowing he'll get to say "I told you so" to Barq's superior one day...
I did forget to mention that I played Barq up to around 15th level back in the 3.0 era.
|
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?
Example 1 is pretty much my Ranger at the beginning of RotRL, whom I quickly realized was mostly Biff Tannen (the bad guy in the Back to the Future trilogy). And I pegged him as True Neutral, even though he is a closet Chaotic Evil.
Events during the AP are slowly beginning to make him into a Lawful, but likely still non-Good person, but this is all due to character choices for flavor and unexpected events.An amusing side-note : when I am not sure about my character's alignment, I use some of the alignment tests on the internet. One of them classified him as True Neutral and a second one as Chaotic Evil.
Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?
The description is not enough to classify RH on the Good/Evil axis, though he is clearly Chaotic in his casual disregard for the laws. He could be Good if he stole hoarded money from the Evil rich to give to the poor, or he could be Evil if he stole from innocent rich people (if there is such a thing in your world) or he could be Neutral if he did not care about anything but humiliating the legal system.
Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
Does not commit crimes (thus not punishable on legal grounds), but does evil repeatedly and stays unrepentant = is evil. I would expect a Paladin in my game to try to make him change his ways, then try to get him condemned by the legal system, then if no other recourse remains, kill Barq even if said killing is a crime (ie, Chaotic) which will not cause the Paladin to fall (as one act is not usually enough in my game to change your alignment).
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
In the context of the D&D/PF black and white morality system, your "evilness" is something that is concrete and measurable. A character has either an evil alignment or a non-evil alignment.
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.
So if a character has evil general personal and moral attitudes, it is evil. . . even if it has committed no wrong or crime. This is different than a criminal justice system based on guilt or innocence. If the GM decides a character has an evil alignment, that character is effectively evil (for purposes of game effects).
Example 1:
Bob would most likely have an evil alignment. In most situations/places in the game world, having an evil alignment is not a crime. The paladin would typically be committing a crime by smiting someone who isn't guilty of a crime (that is, harming an innocent -- which is typically an evil act). However, it is conceivable that a campaign world could exist where a detect evil spell could be a trial. That would be a scary place indeed (and atypical of most campaign settings).
Example 2:
He may or may not be evil. Just given the information you have is a pretty tiny window into the character's moral and personal attitudes. A person's alignment can't be defined *necessarily* by one action. Criminality crosses both the law/chaos axis and good/evil axis. Again, the paladin is justified in taking actions that are non-evil, respect legitimate authority, honorable, assist those in need, and punish those who harm and threaten innocents. If Robin Hood is harming innocents, he may indeed be a target of the paladin's smite as long as the paladin respects legitimate authority and honors the society's justice system.
Example 3:
Once again, it depends on the campaign setting. A paladin must respect the laws of the land. Typically you can't just run out and smite anything that registers as evil. Having an evil alignment is typically not a crime.
in my games ...
Example 1: Definitely not evil. In fact, if he was a patient and malevolent man who "pretended" to be good as a route to evil, by giving to charity or saving kittens, he would actually be good until he did something bad. Imagine if he died before he sprung his evil trap... he only ever did good!
Example 2: Chaotic. That's what being a criminal is all about is defying law. If he became an agent that filled the world with suffering, he'd be evil. If his redistribution of wealth brought more happiness into the world, he'd be good.
Example 3: Yes. Not out of nowhere (murder in the streets is a CE act, even if they get a chance to fight back), but he'd push for a duel, or attempt to bring him to justice through legitimate means.
In D&D, alignment is entirely based on action, not on intent or sentiment. If you read the Atonement spell, it pretty much lays it down in black & white there by saying "If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you." - so a Paladin, Cleric, or Druid can fall from grace by accident, or even by force. A Cleric of Good, with no deity, can be enchanted (via Suggestion or other spell) to commit a deed which causes loss of faith/power. Much like how you can forcefeed a rabbi a porkchop, and they are still tainted.
When put this way, it can create some interesting characters. You can have a Paladin with a hateful and cruel heart, who constantly struggles against his inner demons on his quest to become a better person.
When put this way, demons can be effectively cursed to always perform evil, spreading destruction, hatred, suffering and death, no matter how they actually feel. You can even have a very loving demon, genuinely trying to be helpful, yet damned by his nature to lash out for any reason at all, transforming every benevolent act into one of slaughter. The opposite can be said for some archons - they can be hateful and filled with malice, but their conscience is so overpowering that they have no chance of doing anything wrong.
When put this way, a character can make a few "hard decisions for the greater good" and be rejected by his holy sword... much like a fable you would hear about King Arthur or something. He would have to find redemption to regain favor with the holy blade.
...Typically you can't just run out and smite anything that registers as evil. Having an evil alignment is typically not a crime....
That is part of where I was heading with this. A lot of players (and some GM's) on other threads seem to feel that detect evil DOES justify an instant death sentence, so the paladin should kill him. Even if killing him is against the law the paladin should do it.
In D&D, alignment is entirely based on action, not on intent or sentiment.
No, clearly it isn't:
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.
A creature's actions are not represented by its alignment. A creature's actions *TYPICALLY* correspond to their moral and personal attitudes. A good example is a good person driven mad with revenge. This person may be generally good, but their thirst for vengeance may make them take evil actions.
If a person really and truly wants to murder everyone but can't (due to being a coward, fearing the law, or not having the will/ability to do it), he's still typical of the moral and personal attitudes of characters with an evil alignment.
...Typically you can't just run out and smite anything that registers as evil. Having an evil alignment is typically not a crime....That is part of where I was heading with this. A lot of players (and some GM's) on other threads seem to feel that detect evil DOES justify an instant death sentence, so the paladin should kill him. Even if killing him is against the law the paladin should do it.
Well, unfortunately, campaign settings do exist where this is a possibility. I was in a game once where you were screened for evil before you entered a temple. If you were evil, they would arrest you and put you in a dungeon. In that sense, having an evil alignment is literally a crime.
In D&D, alignment is entirely based on action, not on intent or sentiment.No, clearly it isn't:
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.
I know what the books says, but find it incomplete. Very possible (in-game) examples can stomp all over the wording to create very absurd results.
For example: An evil wizard invents a days-long Phantasm spell. The target of the spell sees all creatures of a certain type as creatures of another type, and also alters their behavior as seen by the target. The wizard casts this on a fighter, making all humanoid children look like small, ravenous demons who are engaging in vile acts of violence and carnal cruelty. The wizard then drags the fighter, via Shadow Walk, to a city which has (since after the recent war) many orphaned children, and then escapes via teleport. Said fighter, thinking he is in a city ravaged by horrid little demons, begins his crusade of slaughter.
According to the RAW you post, this fighter's alignment would be unblemished. He could even use a holy sword to slaughter orphans without an issue.
I, however, would have this fighter become tainted by evil, by accident. However, he would be able to redeem himself via atonement or by many good deeds - redemption.
For example: A CG rogue happens upon a stack of wands of Animate Dead, takes them to a battlefield, and uses them to raise an army of zombies to help repel an orcish horde that's assaulting a city of goodguys. For hours he casts, and casts again, necromantic spells of the [evil] descriptor, adding hundreds of evil creatures to the world. They slaughter the orcs, so things start off great, but after the victory they wander mindlessly and feast on the helpless people of the region, killing ten times the number of innocents as they did Orcs before finally getting cleaned up by the local army.
Again, the piece of RAW you quoted wouldn't change his alignment.
But I see good intentions ending in misery, horror and death. This rogue would unwittingly become evil (both from casting lots of evil spells and performing evil acts). Like the fighter above, redemption is definitely a possibility.
I'm not saying what is, I'm saying what works, consistently, and allows also for a solid narrative that's well in line with myths, fables and the like; the source material from which D&D and (thus) PF have sprung.
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
I leave Evil as undefined in my campaigns. The player decides what their character considers evil. Instead of Good/Evil I use Altruistic/Selfish. So what is Evil in my campaign depends on the character's actions and if and how they justify their actions.
While I don't mark Evil as anything on your character sheet in my campaigns, it's not as if there aren't characters that can be identified as such. There are characters who are bent on destroying others, and characters who are selfish and disregard others in their attempt to benefit themselves. Paladins in my world can't detect selfishness, only taint from demons or clerics who give off the aura. Thus none of the below would give off an aura. The reason for this is because you could have a thief who steals from others to make himself wealthy and screw other people over through poverty giving off a stronger aura than a commoner who likes to strangle kittens for fun if the thief is more experienced with the way the rules are written.
In a sense, Paladins can be considered evil for committing genocide of orcs from the perspective of the Orcs while still remaining Lawful and Altruistic. In the Paladin's perspective, he is wiping out the threat of monsters on the kingdom's lands. Doing things purely for personal gain and ignoring the code are things that will make a Paladin fall.
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?
In my campaign, he would be just Neutral, he doesn't go through any great strides to benefit himself nor does he help others, he doesn't disobey the law, though he would if he thought he could get away with it. While he may be closet evil, there is no justice or reason for killing someone for being an unexposed sociopath.
Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?
One thing for certain is that Robin Hood is chaotic. The problem is that without really much context, he's just a bandit robbing other people. The poor could possibly be poor for a good reason and they just may be his buddies. If he is really distributing the wealth to others he may be altruistic, or he might just be neutral. In fact without context, we don't know if he just pilfers or kills first and then pilfers. If you only say that there's a bandit robbing the caravans, 'heroes' automatically assume the worst.
It's quite possible that a random Paladin may come across this situation and off the bandit thinking that he's just protecting the caravans from dangerous bandits. OMG, you just killed Robin Hood! Was Robin Hood evil? No. Should the Paladin fall? Not in my campaign, as the Paladin was working with too many unknown circumstances. Unless of course, the Paladin already knew and decided to just slay Robin Hood instead of working things out, in that case Paladin would probably fall. Either way, slaying the townspeople's hero will result in negative reactions from all of them and may garner some slander.
If there are truly problems between the rich and the poor, the Paladin should find a way to work things out in an orderly and organized fashion. While it's better to try to understand a situation before intervening, sometimes you are only given rudimentary knowledge and are forced to act on it.
Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
While Barq may be twisted and evil to the core, he is still being beneficial to society and is sanctioned by law. Barq is finding a way to entertain his wicked cravings without committing crimes.
Why would any Paladin be justified in killing Barq? How would it help society to kill Barq? What reasoning is there for killing Barq? For doing things that you'd never do? If you're slaying Barq and it does nothing to benefit society, than it's for personal reasons and a violation of the code.
These are exceptional cases and must be handled diligently; with no input from a higher authority (ie. a deity) there's really no reason to off cases #1 and #3, OTOH if they explain that it's for the greater good then the Paladin is justified.
My campaigns are grey. Good and Evil are subjective. Sometimes Good people fight with each other. Sometimes Evil people help out Good people. Good or Evil may be what you are, but people only react to what you do, not what you are (unless they're prejudiced).
Said fighter, thinking he is in a city ravaged by horrid little demons, begins his crusade of slaughter.
According to the RAW you post, this fighter's alignment would be unblemished.
The fighter's alignment would absolutely be unblemished. Why would someone become evil for doing something they thought wasn't evil? They clearly weren't thinking like an evil character.
For example: A CG rogue happens upon a stack of wands of Animate Dead, takes them to a battlefield, and uses them to raise an army of zombies to help repel an orcish horde that's assaulting a city of goodguys. For hours he casts, and casts again, necromantic spells of the [evil] descriptor, adding hundreds of evil creatures to the world. They slaughter the orcs, so things start off great, but after the victory they wander mindlessly and feast on the helpless people of the region, killing ten times the number of innocents as they did Orcs before finally getting cleaned up by the local army.
Again, the piece of RAW you quoted wouldn't change his alignment.
Right, it shouldn't. He had good intentions and he was trying to defend/save innocent creatures. D&D's alignment system doesn't operate based on western Christian ideology (where evil actions send you to hell, regardless of whether they are good intentions -- "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"). In D&D, your alignment is simply what you think. What you do is generally based on what you think. . . but not always.
The fighter's alignment would absolutely be unblemished. Why would someone become evil for doing something they thought wasn't evil? They clearly weren't thinking like an evil character. ...
Right, it shouldn't. [The zombie-raising rogue] had good intentions and he was trying to defend/save innocent creatures. ...
In D&D, your alignment is simply what you think. What you do is generally based on what you think. . . but not always.
So a utopian idealist who orders the execution of millions of citizens for what he sees as the common good is LG,
and a malevolent hateful person who is too cowardly and self conscious to do anything but help neighbors and behave like a saint belongs in the Abyss,and a CE person can change alignments simply by being inspired to be good, even if he doesn't actually do anything.
Gotcha.
|
|
The rider clause functions like the actual spell, yes, but the initial statement is:
I'm not convinced, upon reading your link, that the ability does what you're claiming it does. The rider clause on it still relies on the strength of the aura. If you look at the table in the spell, you see that 5 or lower (4 or lower in the PRD) has no aura.
A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil...
You also gain a knowledge of the creature's evil aura, which may very well be nonexistent (though the information could prove useful in determining the creature's strength), but that doesn't change that the ability, as written, allows you to determine whether or not a single item or individual is evil.
So a utopian idealist who orders the execution of millions of citizens for what he sees as the common good is LG, and a malevolent hateful person who is too cowardly and self conscious to do anything but help neighbors and behave like a saint belongs in the Abyss. Gotcha.
Good and evil are clearly defined in D&D (thus "black and white" morality). Calling something "good" when it isn't defined as good ("Bob likes to kill innocent people, thus he thinks it's good -- and he therefore is good.") won't work. You can't call a spade a heart, even if you think it's a heart.
A malevolent person wouldn't typically help neighbors and behave like a saint. . . although given a wacky enough character and enough effort with the back story I suppose it's possible. It's relatively easy to make a good character do evil actions and an inherently evil character do a bunch of good actions.
In the context of an arbitrary system with no foundation, there's no such thing as reasonable or absurd.
In the context of a system which is based on RL, it's not applicable, because the 3x3 alignment system doesn't apply to RL.
In the context of the source material which inspires fantasy gaming (myths, legends, biblical, etc.) corner cases conflict to the point of absurdity.
What I see is that the (quoted) RAW describes an arbitrary system with no foundation, despite the source material for fantasy gaming. Thus I'm going to stick by what I said when asked the question "What is Evil in your campaign?" (not "what does the RAW say?")
|
My litmus for evil has always been, "causes the suffering of others, and enjoys it". Thus a Paladin gleefully slaughtering 'innocent' orcs would likely fall in my world.
I have another post on this out there in forum land, but I find it usually helps to add a decimal point to the 3x3 matrix, and then round to the nearest full point.
Example '1' above is Neutral, as played. Why? Because if he were actually evil, he'd have acted on it by now. His cowardice is a crutch. There are ways to do evil without getting caught. Since he has explicitly 'never' acted on these desires, he's a wannabe, but not actually evil.
Example '2' is Chaotic, and others have covered that rather well. Agree with the 'if he were good it would not need much redistribution' angle, though. Someone's perspective would need to be wrong for that situation to work, and from the deity-eye-view the truth is always known.
Example '3' is probably evil, but it is definitely close. Again, the law access isn't relevant. He was sanctioned, so I'd assume that he's acting out of line enough to warrant/exhibit an evil alignment. But the examples there are sort of soft. This is that resolution thing I'm talking about. If 'EVIL' is a full 3 points, he's only at a '1' or so on the scale. Particularly if he's discriminating in his abuse. Is he only unkind to males, for example?
The rider clause functions like the actual spell, yes, but the initial statement is:
I'm not convinced, upon reading your link, that the ability does what you're claiming it does. The rider clause on it still relies on the strength of the aura. If you look at the table in the spell, you see that 5 or lower (4 or lower in the PRD) has no aura.A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil...You also gain a knowledge of the creature's evil aura, which may very well be nonexistent (though the information could prove useful in determining the creature's strength), but that doesn't change that the ability, as written, allows you to determine whether or not a single item or individual is evil.
I was going to disagree on grammatical grounds, but then I took a moment and thought to myself: "Wait, why would the designers intentionally make the Paladin have an ability that's worthless on the vast majority of threats that they will encounter in a campaign?"
I think RAI is sufficiently with you to selectively ignore the quibble I had and say that you win the RAW argument.
|
I got thinking about this again from (suprise) paladin threads I've seen lately.
Is evil attitude and desire, only actions, or does it matter if it is a crime?
Example 1:
Jimmy Joe Bob is a big hater, hates everyone. Can't stand the sound of kids laughing. He cackles in glee anytime misfortune befalls his neighbors. He hopes the guy that got hanged was innocent just so the officials would get bad karma. He wishes he had a coat made of kitten and puppy fur. However, he is an even bigger a coward. He has never done anything to anyone because he's afraid he would get caught and get in trouble. If he was sure he could get away with it then sure, he'd wipe out the village and smile while doing it. But he hasn't done anything to anyone. Is Jimmy Joe Bob evil? Would the paladin be justified to end him?Example 2:
The classic Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor. At least a good portion of it.Most people say he is good because he opposed the evil sherrif. But what if the sherrif was not evil. Just some rich people and some poor people with RH redistributing some of the wealth. He is commiting crimes. Is he evil? Is the paladin justified to end him?Even more problematic.
Example 3:
I once played a LE fighter named Barq. Barq enjoyed humiliating people and chopping them into little pieces. However, he was intelligent LE. Realized he was not sneaky and would not get away with it. So he only took jobs with the local authorities to rescue people and stop obvious bad guys. He may have used a bit more force than was actually necessary and he certainly had a good time while doing it. But he was officially sanctioned. Barq was evil and even commited evil acts. But he didn't commit any crimes. Would a paladin in your game be justified in ending Barq?
Depends on how you play your paladin. Gygax defined the paladin's alignment as Extreemly lawful and Extreemly Good: basically harmless and Lawful. The modern Paladin seems more designed to suit those who think Its OK to slaughter anyone we think is evil - or has simply gotten in our way.
That paladin would reserve 'killing' for things that were way outside the 'circle'. Paladins never take a life under any condition. That means they fight Undead and maybe demons - depending on where your definition of 'Life' ends.
It's a little hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone good enough to be a paladin. Despite what people think, going from LE to LG does not just mean "think the opposite of what you'd normally do but be lawful about it."
Example 1: Yes he's evil. So? What's he gonna do, torture moths? Not worth a paladin's time but probably worth it for the paladin to make sure he doesn't breed.
Example 2: Chaotic Good. Even if the sheriff is non-evil. The alignment chart is broad enough to allow conflicts between neutral and good or neutral and chaotic, not just between extremes. If the laws of the land are excessive taxation to the point of starvation then the paladin could even work with Robin Hood to change society for the betterment of the common people.
Example 3: A very intelligent man. Wait... No, he's still a very intelligent man. Just because someone is evil doesn't mean the paladin has carte blanche to go around stabbing people. A paladin wouldn't invade the Temple of the Golden Erinyes just because they're devils, they run a damned orphanage! Literally damned but still an orphanage where poor little human orphans get good food and warm beds and instruction on how to read and write. It beats leaving the little kids to be tortured and eaten by orcs and you can't argue with that.
Paladins need to recognize that not all evil is the same. Some things are more evil than others just as some things are more good than others. Killing a child to stop a war would not make a paladin fall IMO. But it would make him very depressed.
At least that's this rakshasa's viewpoint. But what do I know, I'm eeeeeevil...
...If 'EVIL' is a full 3 points, he's only at a '1' or so on the scale. Particularly if he's discriminating in his abuse. Is he only unkind to males, for example?
his only 'discrimination in his abuse' was whether or not he could legitimately shoe horn the target/victim into the currently sanctioned mission so that he could 'get away with it' again.
Was actually a very fun character to play. The GM even had the authorities having to decide if he really was the lesser-of-2-evils in each case they were considering giving to him. Barq would only get a job offer when they were really desperate or others had already failed. Some of the officials were trying to catch him going beyond what was authorized.