Paladins

Mart van de Wege wrote:

> Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>Evil is about actions, not intent.
>
>
> The rules disagree with you.
>
> Evil is about attitude. If you think it is okay to enslave or kill
> sentient beings for your own purposes, you're Evil; even if you don't
> actually do the enslaving and killing right now.
>
> Mart
>
>

In your campaign perhaps, but not mine.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

"Rick Pikul" <rwpikul RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:22:58 -0800, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 10:59 am, Kaos <k... RemoveThis @xplornet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Barring effects such as "Detect <alignment.>"  
>>
>> Detect Evil does't work on ordinary people, except under extraordinary
>> circumstances. Merely being evil isn't enough.
>
> Incorrect, detect <alignment> spells detect any creature with the
> appropriate alignment. That's what the first line in the Aura Power table
> is for.

This is Shawn Wilson you're talking to. The world's only stopped clock
that starts running twice a day to avoid being right.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

In article <gjbf6r$to9$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
> if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
> they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not intent.

Of course evil is about intent. It's far simpler to go on actions
alone, but intent absolutely counts. If it doesn't, all the evil
geniuses will be assembling hideous plans of ultimate evil constructed
of individual acts of good.

See also, "the road to hell".

- Allen

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:25:10 -0500, Tetsubo wrote:

> Rick Pikul wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:22:58 -0800, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 29, 10:59 am, Kaos <k....DeleteThis@xplornet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Barring effects such as "Detect <alignment.>"
>>>
>>>Detect Evil does't work on ordinary people, except under extraordinary
>>>circumstances. Merely being evil isn't enough.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect, detect <alignment> spells detect any creature with the
>> appropriate alignment. That's what the first line in the Aura Power table
>> is for.
>>
>> The "extraordinary circumstances" are for cases where a creature either
>> detects at a stronger level, (e.g. Clerics, Paladins and Blackguards), or
>> detects as <alignment> while not having that alignment. (e.g. Detect Evil
>> will always return a positive result on Undead, Clerics of evil gods and
>> creatures with the Evil Subtype regardless of alignment.)
>>
>
> And I'll argue to the ends of the earth that mindless undead aren't
> evil. Not any more evil than an animated chair.

I actually agree with you, however the RAW are the RAW.

IMC, I do have it that Undead all _detect_ as evil with an in-setting
justification that Negative Energy 'looks' like evil to detection magic,
(and Positive Energy 'looks' like good). This is true even for
intelligent Undead that are not evil, (like my LN Lich-Lord who's empire
of the dead is actually a nice neighbor to have[1]).

> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
> if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
> they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not intent.

I agree, at least when it comes to doing something about it beyond talking.

Also, Detect Evil isn't actually that useful for looking at random people
because it tells you nothing about how evil a person is.[2]


[1] He does want to rule the world, but his plans are rather long term and
non-coercive.

[2] A 12th level character who could turn neutral by giving a beggar a
single copper has a brighter aura of evil than the 8th level character who
makes Vlad Tepes look like an angel.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Allen Wessels wrote:

> In article <gjbf6r$to9$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
>>if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
>>they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not intent.
>
>
> Of course evil is about intent. It's far simpler to go on actions
> alone, but intent absolutely counts. If it doesn't, all the evil
> geniuses will be assembling hideous plans of ultimate evil constructed
> of individual acts of good.
>
> See also, "the road to hell".
>
> - Allen

A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he commits
those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all the plans
he wants. As soon as he begins to act on them however, the Paladins of
the world get to stomp him.

We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
person for those evil thoughts.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:

> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Evil is about actions, not intent.
>>
>>
>> The rules disagree with you.
>>
>> Evil is about attitude. If you think it is okay to enslave or kill
>> sentient beings for your own purposes, you're Evil; even if you don't
>> actually do the enslaving and killing right now.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
>
> In your campaign perhaps, but not mine.

Well, the amount of house rules you allow in your campaign is up to
you, of course.

But the above is the starting point: the rules.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Mart van de Wege wrote:

> Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Evil is about actions, not intent.
>>>
>>>
>>>The rules disagree with you.
>>>
>>>Evil is about attitude. If you think it is okay to enslave or kill
>>>sentient beings for your own purposes, you're Evil; even if you don't
>>>actually do the enslaving and killing right now.
>>>
>>>Mart
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In your campaign perhaps, but not mine.
>
>
> Well, the amount of house rules you allow in your campaign is up to
> you, of course.
>
> But the above is the starting point: the rules.
>
> Mart
>

What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never. How
could you define such a person as evil?

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

Tetsubo wrote:
>
>
>         What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
> How could you define such a person as evil?


It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.


John

On Dec 29, 8:04 am, "bigcozyb...@gmail.com" <bigcozyb... DeleteThis @gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:23 am, "Mark Blunden"
>
> <markDASHbATskyDOT... DeleteThis @address.invalid> wrote:
> > Do you want to play a paladin because you like playing a character with the
> > paladin's set of ideals and principles? Or do you want to play a character
> > who possesses the paladin's class features, or something similar, regardless
> > of principles?
>
> Kinda both really.  I like the ideal warrior with the ability sets of
> being able to be a secondary healer if needed by the group.

Just carry a bag of holding with a big and varied rack of healing
potions.

--
Walt

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:25:10 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net>
wrote:

> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
>if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
>they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not intent.
>Tetsubo


A Paladin certainly CAN justifiably react to getting a ping on DETECT
EVIL - it's just that there are limits on how MUCH of a reaction there
can reasonably be. The Paladin would not be justified in attacking
that person or trying to arrest that person out of hand - but simply
deciding "I will not go out adventuring with that person" is quite
reasonable. You don't have to wait until you catch them in the act of
doing something evil to decide you don't want to trust your mission
and/or your life to them. It's more than just justified, it's
mandatory. It mentions this right in the paladin writeup, under
Associates, that "...a paladin will never knowingly associate with
evil characters..."

Granted, the OP mentioned that the other player tended to just have
PCs with neutral alignments (though with evil tendencies). That won't
trip the alarm on DETECT EVIL. But most likely that would just delay
the problem until the middle of the dungeon. The part where the
paladin will not associate with evil characters "nor... with someone
who consistently offends her moral code." If the paladin would be
forced into issuing an ultimatum like "Either that character goes, or
I go", that will not make for happy roleplaying. Far better to not
have such characters adventure together in the first place.

On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tetsubo  wrote:
>
> >         What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
> > How  could you define such a person as evil?
>
> It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
> person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
> but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
> would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
> Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.

My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
all, but they can certainly still be evil.

--
Walt

Firelock wrote:

> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>>How could you define such a person as evil?
>>
>>It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>
>
> My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
> these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
> now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
> all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>
> --
> Walt

If they can communicate, they can act. Not directly I admit. But by
influencing others. Hannibal Lechter was able to get a fellow inmate to
suicide through words alone. But if that person never acts on those evil
thoughts in any way, not evil.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

"Shawn" wrote:
> "LL" wrote in message
> > Tetsubo wrote:
>
> >>     Because life is grey, not black & white. Even in my campaigns.
>
> > That's what Neutral is for...
>
> Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic,

Feature, not a bug.

> and as DM you have license to change these details.

As with anything else in the game.

> We are playing 4.0 now, and really alignments there seem to
> be meaningless, and so I generally ignore them.

From what little I have seen I would tend to agree.

> But in 3.5 I allowed my alignment system to be relative,

Which imo is just asking for trouble.

> and hence paladins could smite other
> paladins of different gods

Holy warriors of different gods is a good idea.

>(kind of similar to how medieval muslims and
> christians both thought they were following the right way and the other was
> wrong)

You know, both LE and CE think they are "following the right way".
Heck, two LG groups can both think they are Right and the other Wrong,
Good groups will just respond differently to differences than the Evil
groups would.


John