EFUPW Forums

The Philosophy of Evil - If I stray here from server policy, dm's please correct me.
------------------------------------------------------------

Evil in d&d means you char has committed an ongoing series of terrible acts.  It does not mean you are a bully, greedy, murdered once in rage, are a second story man, etc.  It might mean these things, but it means you did them gladly and would do them again without much/any reservation and regardless of who else loses in the process.

Evil d&d characters scare their friends almost as much as they scare their enemies.  All player chars are adventurers, which means they can and will kill if they need to.  Truly depraved people that can and will kill scare everyone.

Playing a paladin ends up seeing so many evil folk currently on the server you start to think you're in one of the lower plains.  If your char is evil and mr paladin sees it he's going to fearlessly let the non evil ones around you know a rabid wolf is in their midst; it's his sworn duty to oppose you.  If your neutral char isn't worried when mr paladin calls out another as evil, he would not be worried either if a known serial killer were acting as his chauffeur.

Are you just stating this? Or are you expecting to have like an open discussion? Because I don't quiet understand what the point of this is?

Well, the whole point of a forum is generally for discussion of things. My own views on FR evil are along the same lines as Giselle's. In real life, we all have our own senses of right and wrong, but in FR, good and evil are very real and tangible forces.

Being a badass mercenary who would knock your teeth out for looking at him wrong is not evil. He would most likely be chaotic neutral. Then you have the same instance, of making eye contact with some other badass in a bar. This one would gladly slit your throat, take your shit, and smile about it. People that show no remorse for heinous crimes such as needless murder, rape, the truly unforgivable crimes, are evil.

    Of course, those are just two examples, and there are many, many forms of evil. But being evil generally means you're quite depraved, and murdering someone for the slightest reason is entirely justified in your characters mind. Simply having a lust for power and a taste for the more material things in life, even at the cost to others, does not necessarily make one evil.

Of course, my word isn't law, and I'm sure the more eloquent members of the forum will certainly have much better informed, and written viewpoints than my own, so please, feel free to post your own thoughts on evil, and how we feel it should be played out.

From what i can tell, doing evil in D&D is doing evil for the sake of it. No cause for the evil, no need for the evil therefore no justification. Futhermore it is the action that is evil, not the intent, same goes with all alignments.

I think if we have a mass influx of evil characters who cackle madly while killing just about everything that moves while twirling their moustache in a sinister manner, things will get pretty boring.
 
However, it is as Drakill says; it's the action that is evil. Not the intent. Same goes for good or whatever.
 
I've had lots of characters do good things for their own evil purposes, and the DMs still gave me good points for it, (even after I notified them.)
 
While I understand your argument, I think I disagree that all evil characters have to enjoy their evil acts 100% of the time. Otherwise they come out as two-dimensional.
 
Let me give an example of evil-doers that we know and love:
 
Hannibal Lecter
 
Darth Vader
 
Glad0s
 
Andrew Ryan
 
Captain Barbosa
 
Davy Jones
 
Thousands more I can't think of,
 
ETC.
 
Each of these characters commit evil deeds and are all very evil, but almost all are disillusioned with the belief that their acts are justified for a greater good.
 
Let the DMs make the unspeakably evil characters!

I disagree. While a serial killer would no doubt be evil, so is a bandit or pirate who kills and steals.

Just because a character has an evil alignment doesn't mean that they should be secretly plotting the death and subsequent corpse-defilement of all of their comrades.

To me, evil is sociopathy. That is to say that an evil (sociopathic) character will care very little for the value of life. This does not imply "rabid wolf" or even "scary." It means that they will unerringly act for their own benefit, and only for the benefit of others when it helps themselves.

Once again, we as players should always try and respect what other players are doing, keeping in mind that we don't have full knowledge of their characters and their motivations.

This debate has been done to death in all the years of efu. Nothing is ever acomplished in these kind of threads.

Seanzie: As fizzt said, a discussion on a discussion board.

Others:
The core I was aiming for was this; if your character is evil in this realm, they are, regardless of inner conflict, or outward veneer, a foul creature.

Not has exceedingly kinky sexual fantasies, or runs drugs to addicts, or has the hunting attitude of elmer fudd, but has the moral equivalent of the smell of rotting eggs.  A paladin smells this rot (it in character stuns him if its bad enough), and anyone with the lore skill equivalent of a 6th grader knows in character that the paladin both can see the foulness of the truly awful and that it's a hell of a good idea to stay away from people paladin's label as truly bad.

I'd like to see the divide between good/neutral and evil much clearer established; evil chars are hated and feared by most neutrals, and worked with carefully by those who would dare.  Have seen many non-evil chars on the server with high lore skill arguing with a paladin that what he thought was evil was just his hallucination.  The FR version of "This serial killer looks fine to me; what's your problem mr high and mighty?"

Personally, I find it's far more run, and less frustrating, to focus on your own roleplay and how your character reacts to situations, than it is to worry about whether or not other characters have your stamp of approval on how they respond. It's impossible to divine why another character does what they do since you're not playing that other character. So it's simply best to accept their response in an in-character fashion, and keep roleplaying. Telling other people how their characters should be reacting to things never turns out well, and is completely counter-productive.

My personal favorite type of evil is evil who is trying to accomplish some greater good, but is ultimately cruel and ruthless as he goes about trying to accomplish it. But anyway, regardless of which alignment you are, try to come up with a reason as to WHY your character is that alignment. If you have no reason, go with true neutral, and let IC events shift you one way or another, if at all. This, I feel, is especially important for evil characters, and I think most will agree with me, many of the evil characters these days should really be Chaotic Neutral, because they don't act evil, ever, aside from occasionally being an asshole.

Anyway, yeah, alignment may only be a guideline, but it's an important one, think hard about where your character belongs on that spectrum, and why he is there.

QuoteThe FR version of "This serial killer looks fine to me; what's your problem mr high and mighty?"

Yes, that's essentially it. I would love if people treated people called out as evil by a paladin with more suspicion, at least. Paladins are hailed as noble heroes, and it's well known that they are honest. Most of our characters likely grew up hearing stories of paladins saving kingdoms and slaying dragons, and how they could tell who among us was a servant of darkness and stuff like that.

What Ghost is saying nicely is that the best way to influence other characters' behavior is through the actions of your own.

In my view, it's simple...Evil people care about themselves before others. In every situation, they look at how they can best benefit from the situation. Whether it's a Lord who twists the words of a treaty to fit his needs. (LE) or someone who kills a 'teammate' for his items. To the evil person, they're own power, honor and glory is paramount. To say, every evil person is a sociopath is, imho, a bit extreme. They are simply willing to do, or let, bad things happen to others in order for them to benefit.
 
My two cents.
 
SB

It is definitely worth considering, when deciding your alignment at character roll-up, "Would a Paladin be justified for despising and opposing me at every turn?"

Evil is all these things and more, tbh it can range from the common cut-throat murdering for coin to the crimelord indirectly murdering hundreds by running the drugs trade.  Yes the crimelord doesn't actually butcher and steal but he profits from an organisation that is doing evil deeds.  Imo an idealist who uses evil methods to obtain a good end is still evil, in that case it's really does the end justify the means etc.

I think my own opinion on this matter is that if you will regularly derive benefit from the loss of others, you're probably evil!

There are certainly degrees of evil. An evil character might be one who has done terrible acts (murder, sacrifice, animating the dead, summoning demons, enslavement, regular banditry). Something that is evil might also be innately evil (a freshly animated corpse, a goblin hunter).

For a player, it's probably best to choose the evil alignment at the start if you intend on getting involved with evil acts (ruthlessly murdering, animating the dead, involvement in an evil faith, a life of heartless crime, etc.). We don't have enough dm coverage or interest to adjust alignment at every step along the way.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html (//%22http://easydamus.com/alignment.html%22)

This is a very nice read regarding alignments.

I do have a question now, so on my recent PC I have joined the Militia and plan on doing evil things, in a lawful way, I chose LE and don't have the backstory to back it up. But I wonder if I planed on doing evil things, and might have started to do so, DM's will be fine  with it and not see it as playing the wrong alignment?

Ah, nevermind, seems I should have looked at Talir's link first because that gave me all the information I needed, thanks!

Key word in this discussion is virtue.
 
An evil person consciously makes the choice to eschew virtue.

Is slavery evil? It strikes me as more Lawful, being normal and accepted in most areas.

Er, I'm pretty sure it's evil.

Quote from: Kotenku;209578It is definitely worth considering, when deciding your alignment at character roll-up, "Would a Paladin be justified for despising and opposing me at every turn?"

Another very good question to ask yourself when rolling up a new evil PC is, "What evil acts has this character committed in the past?"

Did your PC murder someone? Have you bargained with devils / demons? Do you dabble in necromancy or some other dark art? Answering these kinds of questions at character creation can really help round out a good character concept.

Slavery isn't necessarily evil in and of itself, but the mistreatment and cruelty usually involved in such a practice tends to make those who engage in it evil. Forcibly enslaving someone (i.e. raiding for slaves) else is also an evil act.

For instance, the Duchy's indentured servitude is something most Tormtar should respect, as Torm's dogma says "Salvation may be found through service."

I think most of the problems here stem from nobody knowing what server policy is on alignment. I tend to treat alignment the way it's presented in the NWN character creation descriptions, and alignment as determined by intent. The intent bit is influenced by tabletop D&D books, which tend to treat alignment change due to actions as more of a punishment, implying that changing alignment can be done when one's worldview has changed, with or without actions to demonstrate it.

But as most people can't seem to agree on it, I just play wishy-washy and/or blindly devoted people. It kind of cuts off the 'shades of grey' section when nobody can agree on how it's played.

Well, the interpretation is really only for players on character creation. Once you're done with that, don't view any alignment change as a punishment, but just as a change. Just go with it, do what feels right for your character.

D&D morality is retarded and makes no sence. The more evil creatures you kill, the more good you become. Seriously, if an evil man would ask the paladin to get the thief who stole his pouch, and the paladin used detect evil and stabbed him in the face, he'd be cheered as a virtous man and a hero of good. And get a holy avenger. And that just screws with my mind in levels you cannot imagine.

Seriously, going arround slaughtering inocent goblins for fun is a GOOD thing, but if you go and mug a random person because your child is starving makes you an evil person. But only if you are a human or demihuman, else you are born evil (or born good) and no matter what you do, what you try, if you're an orc, you're EVIL and if you suddently become good, it's because you're part of a major plot involving a romantic-rebel feel. Furthermore actions are what marks your alignment, as i said before, so if you are helping the children so you can earn the trust of the town's mayor and when he trusts you you can enslave him and make him worship cyric, you still become more good. On the other hand if you raise a corspe to use it to defend the orphans from hungry wolves, you're evil. No matter how much the orphans disagree, you're evil.

At least from what i've seen, however my knowledge of D&D is reduced to NWN.

What i'm trying to say is... it makes no sence, try not to make sence of it and simply try to enjoy it.

Do what comes naturally and when in doubt, True Neutral is always a good pick if you really don't know yet.

True neutral is a horrible alignment to be honest.

Evil has many senses, Killing a child to save a thousand. While for the greater good, is still evil but it is methodical and logical evil. Killing a thousand children for shits and giggles, is cold undeniable brutality and chaos.

LE NE CE separates the evils in this way, though it really is all situational.

Evil can also be the byproduct of upbringing, a child raised with values in honor and discipline but selfishness and greed is what creation of evil, but not directly evil itself. If that makes any sense.

Acording to Talir's link, i'm true neutral. ¬¬
Screw you equinox.

D&D morality is stupid and retarded to those who don't understand it. It's a lot simpler and reasonable than most think. Someone who goes and kills goblins for fun is more likely to be Chaotic Neutral than Lawful Good, and may be evil if he is particularly cruel about it. The paladin who stabbed the thief in the face should lose his powers and drop down to Lawful Neutral, as paladins should be merciful when the situation calls on it. Someone who steals to feed his family should get chaotic points, but not evil points. Stealing is a chaotic action, not evil. The reason why you steal makes it good or evil. Breaking into some evil noble's home to steal food for starving commoners, or even your family, is a chaotic but also good act. Orcs tend to be evil, but aren't always so. Ultimately even they are individuals, and "Drizzts" do exist among all races, so good tieflings and evil aasimar do exist, though magical, divine and mundane forces are at work which try to keep them set along a certain path.

Also, animation is an act of evil, but no matter what paladins say not everyone who animates the dead is evil. Clerics of Velsharoon are not uncommonly Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Evil. Someone who enslaves a man and brainwashes him into worshipping Cyric is evil, no ifs, ands or buts about it, I don't care how many orphans he saved. As such represents working toward a very evil goal over a long period of time.

Do your best to pick an alignment fitting for your character, if you're not sure what alignment a certain concept should be, ask a DM, or another player who you think could make a good judgement. After that, go with your concept, and if you disagree with a way your alignment starts heading, speak with the DM's about it, but ultimately you shouldn't worry about your alignment after character creation, and just do what feels right.

This thread and discussion has definitely been educational, and I feel the majority of us could benefit from some guidelines on alignment being posted and stickied somewhere. I'd generally write something up, but my eloquence is lacking compared to the way some of you can write, so I leave it to you, good sirs.

Quote from: Equinox;209651True neutral is a horrible alignment to be honest.

True Neutral is the second most awesome alignment, second only to Chaotic Neutral. True Neutral characters are free to pursue their own personal goals unhindered by the tendencies which govern most people. They aren't necessarily "defend the Balance" types, that's just one of many possible options.

Those goals mostly include GSF: PHK.

Also, on Talir's link, which I found to be very nice, I'm a level 2 chaotic good elven cleric. My stats are 11 STR, 17 DEX, 12 CON, 15 INT, 15 WIS, 12 CHA... Hrm... that's 39 points altogether. HACKS! O.O

Anyway, most common folk are True Neutral. It's not a bad alignment (not talking ethically/morally bad... >.> ), it just means someone doesn't really feel strongly one way or another on matters of good/evil/law/chaos, usually. Rarely, a true neutral person will scorn all such things, and be devoted to it philosophically, but that's pretty rare.

Quote from: 9lives;209669Those goals mostly include GSF: PHK.

Wouldn't nearly any conceivable use of that spell result in an alignment change? I'm having a hard time imagining when scaring someone to death by filling their mind with unspeakable horrors is anything other than an evil act.

What if you do it to make him reveal information that will save the colonists from starving? Does that add good points, or evil points?

There's always huge debates over this stuff, but from a mechanical standpoint it really only matters to paladins, clerics, monks, and any other classes who lose their abilities if they deviate from a prescribed alignment range. Alignment doesn't dictate your actions, your actions (and reasons behind said actions at times) dictate your alignment, so it's far better to play your PC's personality and let the chips fall where they may.

Alignments are general life philosophies and if your character isn't generally playing theirs, that means you are playing some second character through the first's body.  Which is a truly hilarious problem if you choose evil and act neutral and then encounter a paladin.

You can't ask other players playing classes or personalities with hardcoded responses to your alignment to ignore your alignment, or understand your complete 'artistic license'.

Quote from: Giselle123;209762Alignments are general life philosophies and if your character isn't generally playing theirs, that means you are playing some second character through the first's body.  Which is a truly hilarious problem if you choose evil and act neutral and then encounter a paladin.

You can't ask other players playing classes or personalities with hardcoded responses to your alignment to ignore your alignment, or understand your complete 'artistic license'.

A neutral action has no effect on alignment. An evil person taking many neutral actions will never change from evil to neutral. Only good and evil points actually effect the scales. A neutral person is someone who has not gained enough good or evil points to shift either way. Or has gained enough good points to negate his evil points and vice versa.

Alignment is not set in stone for any one character. If you're alignment says EVIL you are evil. You have not done enough good to even become neutral.

Acting good while evil, may gain you some good points, but if you still read as evil, you are still evil until you have fully attoned (gained enough good points to become neutral.)

if a paladin detects you as evil. You are evil. I really cannot understand why people seem to think there is more to it than this and try to make a really simple basic system overly complex with thier opinions and justifications.

EVIL = BAD
NEUTRAL = NOT BAD OR GOOD
GOOD = GOOD

If you do many good things while aligned as evil GASP you become neutral eventually.

If you do many evil things as good SHOCK you become neutral eventually.

If you continue to do good or evil you shift to the appropriete alignment.

If you are evil a paladin will oppose you.

When you create a character you -choose the most appropriete alignment- here's a simple guide on choosing a starting alignment, which in no way effects how you play your character AFTER choosing the alignment:

In your characters history count the number of evil acts he has already commited in his life. Now count the number of good acts he has commited. Substract the good from the evil. If the number you get is 0 you are neutral. If the number is -1 or lower you are good. If the number is 1 or higher you are evil.

Simple.

Done, dusted.

/Rant

Again I'll say these type of threads rarely result in anything but the same stuff being repeated for the 5646546468546 time.

Edit: Oh and there are no grey areas in D&D only Good, Evil and Neutral acts. Law, Neutrality and Chaos also factor in. But those are prefixed onto the actions alignment.

I thought there were grey areas; hence the whole 100-0 scale. Some people are 100 evil and pillage and murder for fun, and some are 75 evil and do it to get by.
 
I think Intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores really matter too for what kind of good or evil you are; a 6 cha, 8 int, 100 evil guy would probably reek of evil, and be so obvious they would be struck down in a day in the ziggurat, but a 17 cha, 14 int, 100 evil guy could probably convince people that he was only doing evil to get by, or at least hide it better.

Doing something evil unwittingly still earns you points towards evil in D&D. Even if you didn't mean it you still need to atone for what you have done.

Example accedentally conjuring a demon would gain you evil points, killing said demon and trying to mend the damage it caused would earn you the same amount of good points as you lost. Where as abandoning the cause and leaving the demon to run amok would shift you even further towards evil.

There is no ambigious good and evil in D&D there is only what is a GOOD action, what is an evil action and what is neither. They fit into those boxes to keep things simple.

Your character's stats have no effect on how his alignment changes. A 3  int ogre is evil, even if he deosn't understand that stomping babies  into dirt is wrong and just likes to see the funny little things go  squish.

It's only when you try to look at it from the perspective of real life that it becomes overly complex and hard to understand.

Frankly evil is evil, There is no getting around it.. Good is good at the end of the day if you pick evil for an alignment you are claiming that you feel that you will do what ever it takes to get by. you don't care who you hurt to do it. you only char about yourself and the law means very little. you only follow the law if it suits you. that's more or less evil. you can be a crazy and do crazy things you can be calculating.. there are some villans who's entire goal is to take over the world for no reason other then tey wanted too.. There are some who are evil because they are pissed that there was no cure for there loved one and they want to take it out on the world.. and then there are some who are in charge of a mofia family or cartel who has people under them do the dirty work while they get paid big for being the mastermind.. all evil all for different reasons all to different degrees.

I suppose, I was more talking about how evil acts can be done though, or the amount of evil one can be, instead of just "evil, neutral, good", it's more "Most evil, more evil, kinda evil...", and then the whole ability scores throw in a twist to why the evil is being done, or the lack of twist.
 
Considering DMs are the only ones that can shift the scales, though, evil might be a little grey is they don't all agree on what is D&D evil; other wise yeah, you're right. Plots are usually more complex than just smashing babies, though, so it makes it a little difficult some times. ^_^
 
 There's also how evil acts are, with the number system. Donating 10 gold to a library is a little good, but won't offset burning down said library, or smashing babies for that matter; hence the whole numbering system, I think.

There's no moral relativity in D&D/FR.

MY DROW PRINCESS CHARACTER IS AN ASSASSIN FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

I think an important point, regarding Paladins, is that Detect Evil is not supposed to show you exactly who/what is evil without several rounds of concentration (18 seconds).  Presumably this form of concentration would be visible to anyone paying attention (an intent stare with a hint of magic to it - maybe only with spellcraft checks, then?).  If an evil character sees a Paladin focusing and perhaps beginning to localize auras with their ability they would most likely high tail it out of there before the Paladin could identify them fully.  More importantly, most Paladins should have a strict enough moral code to not then risk falsely accusing the wrong individual in the event they could not absolutely identify the source of an evil aura.

Regarding the actual debate regarding the nature of Evil in D&D...

I'd be careful pushing the "your character is evil, so you are awful" argument too far.  Chaotic good characters can do bad things, at times, in pursuit of a good end - even in the long term.  Similarly, a lawful evil character may not commit one single evil act while on the Archipelago because their overall nature that defines them as evil does not dictate that they act in an evil fashion in a new place.

Evil does not mean stupid.  An evil character could be ruthless, unconcerned with others, and manipulative but if she is never put in a situation where that matters then there would be no reason to suspect her of being evil.  My hypothetical evil character, if forced to flee the city, may be willing to leave a friend for dead, silently kill two guards on the way out, and rob a caravan to get money to pay for passage out of the area - but if she is never forced to flee she could live peacefully with others without problems.  Being evil does NOT mean being committed to doing evil - it can sometimes mean an intentional willingness to do evil if it makes sense...  but evil characters can perform neutral acts just like good characters can.

EDIT: I will admit, it is much harder to justify a CE character who never commits an evil act than it is a LE or NE character.

i hate alignments

Quote from: The Boom King;209561I think if we have a mass influx of evil characters who cackle madly while killing just about everything that moves while twirling their moustache in a sinister manner, things will get pretty boring.
...

TOTALLY NOT AGREE!

this would be so awesome.

Quote from: Calavera;213487TOTALLY NOT AGREE!
 
this would be so awesome.

Next PC idea, an insane villain who twirls his mustache and speaks audibly about his plans, right infront of people, to comedic effect.

Quote from: GoblinSapper;213491Next PC idea, an insane villain who twirls his mustache and speaks audibly about his plans, right infront of people, to comedic effect.

You're going to play a Stygian PC?
 
Seriously though, this topic was long derailed and dead; participating in thread necromancy is legal in the dominion but that dosen't make it a good idea.

Thread Necromancy is Evil.

So is +1.

+1.

Since it liiiives, here are my two cents, just because I can.
 
About Good and Evil:
 
Good is altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Evil is hurting, killing or oppressing others. Good characters might make personal sacrifices for others. Evil characters would sacrifice others for their own gain.
 
LE, NE and CE:
 
If your character commits evil deeds for the sake of a code or twisted personal beliefs he adheres to strongly, he tends towards Lawful Evil.
 
If your character commits evil deeds for the main purpose of benefitting himself over society, he tends towards Neutral Evil.
 
If your character commits evil deeds for the sake of destruction and evil itself, he tends towards Chaotic Evil.
 
About Detect Evil:
 
1. While, for game purposes, there is a definition of evil that is not morally relative, In-Character this mechanic is not necessarily obvious. I would expect the general populace would be far more likely to view things in shades of grey, particularly in a polytheistic society that worships evil as well as good deities as a necessary part of the pantheon. For these reasons, if I were a paladin, realistically, I'd be cautious about spouting out "This guy is evil!" on seeing some stranger as seems to be the norm. I'd expect that to mostly get funny looks along the lines of "oh great, another crazy cat lady."
 
2. Going to source PnP, the detect evil ability is less foolproof than in EfUA. Very evil events can 'impress' things around it with a lingering evil aura. Entire areas can have evil auras. People's auras can be altered magically. Objects people carry can be imbued with evil auras or alter the wearer's aura. And so forth. Regretful (or as someone here stated, unintentional) actions that are well in the past may leave the aura on a character who will never again do an evil deed in their life.
 
About your Good-Evil points:
 
Just an over-simplified way to keep track. Don't worry about it too much, play your character to the best of your ability. :)

For simplicity's sake, try calling it "Them" and "Us".

Idenitifying evil traits in a character in D&D

Step 1: Check character sheet for the word Evil

Following these simple steps will help you identify whether or not your character has commited an evil act and whether or not a paladin in this setting can quest with you.

The whole paladin debate sneaking in is sort of meh! Howland has said pretty clearly he wants paladins to be a certain way in his setting. In D&D dm's have always had thier own custom homebrew rules and efu is no different! So no matter what your source books, your bible or your mother tells you. It's going to work the way its worked so well for so long!

My favorite part of the rules is that a Paladin can not KNOWINGLY quest with evil characters...  but Detect Evil is an active, not passive, ability.  So, both IC and OOC, if a Paladin wants to be friends with more people he can simply choose not to activate the ability.  That way, unless his party members / friends commit evil acts in front of him (who would DO that?), he can be friends with EVERYONE!  Yay!

Refusing to detect evil in order to hang out with evil people doesn't really sound like a very paladinly thing to do. Purity of his soul > Number of evil friends.

Pretty obviously if you just don't detect evil to make friends with baddies you're going to lose your Paladin abilities. Laziness is not an excuse!

1. Not using your paladin DE ability is no excuse.
 
2. The topic post of this thread discussed paladins, so I was addressing the original post. Nothing got "sneaked in." Either way, it touches on evil in the FR.
 
3. I'm not saying you should not abide by what the DMs say about how to RP paladins here, and as far as I can tell nothing I wrote contradicts these guidelines. Paladins should work against evil, and not help them, not party with them, etc.
 
What I am trying to get at is the attitude one would realistically expect from the population in FR and EfU, and how a paladin's reaction to evil would be shaped by this. The attitude is not necessarily one of good vs evil - consider this:
 
The population, even good-aligned people, worships evil deities on a regular basis. They are polytheistic and more pragmatic than us. You worship different gods because that works. They are all equally real, and all infinitely more powerful than a mortal when in their domain.
 
A paladin who trumpets about the priest of Malar being evil is likely just going to get wierd looks from the villagers, before they sit down at their table to eat their venison and thank Malar for a successful hunt. They already know Malar does some awful things, and so most likely do his priests, but the effect of this behaviour is just going to make the paladin look eccentric and hinder him instead of the evil priest.
 
It might make sense to behave this way from a christian perspective, but in my opinion it's not a very FR attitude, and paladins should be aware of it. It would be far better to relate your anti-evil work to specific deeds and motives rather than the generic "he is Evil." People in the FR care less about "he is Evil," than "this works" or "he is our enemy because ___", or they would not be worshipping incredibly evil gods.

My point wasn't to ignore the DE ability, but I don't think most reasonable intelligent beings would spend their free time using a supernatural ability to check out every person they encounter.  If someone is acting in a socially acceptable way what reason would a Paladin have to use the ability?

Quote from: MrGrendel;2136511. Not using your paladin DE ability is no excuse.
 
2. The topic post of this thread discussed paladins, so I was addressing the original post. Nothing got "sneaked in." Either way, it touches on evil in the FR.
 
3. I'm not saying you should not abide by what the DMs say about how to RP paladins here, and as far as I can tell nothing I wrote contradicts these guidelines. Paladins should work against evil, and not help them, not party with them, etc.
 
What I am trying to get at is the attitude one would realistically expect from the population in FR and EfU, and how a paladin's reaction to evil would be shaped by this. The attitude is not necessarily one of good vs evil - consider this:
 
The population, even good-aligned people, worships evil deities on a regular basis. They are polytheistic and more pragmatic than us. You worship different gods because that works. They are all equally real, and all infinitely more powerful than a mortal when in their domain.
 
A paladin who trumpets about the priest of Malar being evil is likely just going to get wierd looks from the villagers, before they sit down at their table to eat their venison and thank Malar for a successful hunt. They already know Malar does some awful things, and so most likely do his priests, but the effect of this behaviour is just going to make the paladin look eccentric and hinder him instead of the evil priest.
 
It might make sense to behave this way from a christian perspective, but in my opinion it's not a very FR attitude, and paladins should be aware of it. It would be far better to relate your anti-evil work to specific deeds and motives rather than the generic "he is Evil." People in the FR care less about "he is Evil," than "this works" or "he is our enemy because ___", or they would not be worshipping incredibly evil gods.

I agree, Paladins should be held with something to a degree of awe and fear. Many people love paladins for what they represent, but hate them for not doing what they expect a bastion of good to do - or worse, for doing it. Paladins are on the outside, enduring things so the common folk don't have to.
 
And evil dieties being regularly invoked is true. Beshaba is constantly invoked at important events if for no other reason then to placate her wrath.

I think the other thing that people forget is that Paladins are often seen such as Knights. They are of a higher class than normal folk. They are protectors, true, but they are also above the average man. People fear and respect every church, but often in game, it doesn't happen. Honor is earned, not just assumed for every person out there. Duels are for honorable people, not thugs (at least not between Knights and Thugs, code of honor among thieves, etc.)
 
If you look at the social status and punishments for the time, I think everyone will see the double standard that gets played out.
 
People expect good to function by rules of honor and glory set in the early 1100's - 1500's, but then act as if their social standing is from the years 1950-2000.
 
It is difficult to play good in for what amounts to medivel times when there is no respect of social standing or fear of deities. In ancient days, a Priest of Any god standing on the top of the ziggurat exclaming their faith and ruin of the people there would insite either total panic, or immediate stoning. IG, they are often only ridiculed.
 
As modern movies and tv have shown, Good has had to 'darken' itself to deal with the new era of evil. The old standards just don't work and are often used to evils advantage.
 
 
All this comes down to, imo, that Paladins are held to a GIANT disadavantage if forced to completely and utter stamp out all evil. On this server, that gives them a shelf life of about a month at most.
 
If Paladins are to be the Knights of Honor and glory, defenders of the righteous, then they need that respect and status to go with it. Without it, they're blow hards who no one listens too.
 
Also, religion plays no part in government here, which makes the basis for religious characters difficult. Most here are roaming prophets and little more.
 
In the end, I just feel that it is what it is what it is. If there are no standing rules for honor and dishonor, or no punishments or lasting effects of being dishonorable, then much of the good vs evil / law vs chaos issue just sort of fades away.  I'm in no way complaining, I really do enjoy EFU. I just think the double standard makes it harder and less fun to play good PCs.
 
 
My two cents (Give one ot our government for taxes),
 
SB

QuoteIf Paladins are to be the Knights of Honor and glory, defenders of the righteous, then they need that respect and status to go with it. Without it, they're blow hards who no one listens too.

Also, religion plays no part in government here, which makes the basis for religious characters difficult. Most here are roaming prophets and little more.

In the end, I just feel that it is what it is what it is. If there are no standing rules for honor and dishonor, or no punishments or lasting effects of being dishonorable, then much of the good vs evil / law vs chaos issue just sort of fades away. I'm in no way complaining, I really do enjoy EFU. I just think the double standard makes it harder and less fun to play good PCs.

Sounds like a whole bunch of problems that should be handled completely IC. If your paladin doesn't like people disrespecting paladins; Earn their respect.
 
If your Cleric doesn't like that the government isn't run by the church; topple the government and establish a theocracy.
 
If your knight doesn't like that there are no laws regarding respect and honor; solve the food crisis and ask the Duke to create some.

Paladins ought to stamp out Evil, that is the goal.  However, too often I feel that is equated with 'villain smitery' (har, did I just coin a new term?).  As Stormbringer points out, Paladins are supposed to embody an ideal that is higher, and a big part of that is setting the example.  

Evil folk are all over the place, and that could include your ill-natured farmer or your local bully.  The thing is, the presence of even these minor evils all around has the effect of breeding evil in others, simply as a matter of survival.  It is the charge of the paladin to inspire the good in these common, neutral-inclined hearts, to keep them from sliding down the path into evil, and hopefully inspire a higher ideal of goodness.  A lot of this has nothing to do with relentless smiting and killing of folk with the evil descriptor, and when paladins go too far in that direction, they really just come across as another gang faction, which tends to hurt the image.

I like to think that the difference between an area like the Moonsea and that of Cormyr or the Dalelands is simply not enough paladins. ; )

All of that is pretty generalized, however; so far, my own interactions with paladins on this server have been pretty grand, really.

I happen to agree with those that perceive good and evil as pure and real forces actively affecting the world and being clearly defined as white and black at least in DnD.
 
Why? Well to be frank, because there are domains of evil and good as well as planes that are purely good or purely evil. What one has to remember that there is a difference between an ‘evil’ character and character that commits evil and the difference is quite significant. In fact an evil character might not even perceive itself as evil and DnD lore contains characters that were acting evil constantly even though they had their own goal that from their perspective would have a good outcome.
 
Being evil means being in grasp of evil gods, actively and consequently displaying traits that are governed and reflected by evil gods with little to no display of traits being governed and reflected by neutral or good gods.
 
Being evil IMO requires specific conditions that are hardly met by any lvl 2 character (we should remember that we all start as such, lvl 2 means little to no experience aside of learning your basic profession). To be evil for me it would mean:
- Actively and consequently committing evil acts FROM THE START and not when you’ll gain some levels and decide that “ok, now it’s fairly safe to be a badass evil character”. If you do not act evil that means that you are neutral and you’d best ask for alignment shift. (meaning, you try to gut someone for money AT LVL 2, you try to sacrifice someone in religious ritual AT LVL 2, etc.)
- Having an evil deity patron of whose you strictly follow the dogma
- Being a priest of an evil god (obvious)
- Having willingly contacts with evil summons and evil planes (for example creating portals to such and making deals with inhabitants of such)
- Have absolutely no regard for someone else’s well being and most important life when you are pursuing your goals.
- And more of examples of evil god’s dogmas…
 
Those that commit evil act on occasion are most likely neutral characters because they most likely commit good acts on occasion as well.
 
If you will have a very strict definition of what an evil character/being is then suddenly the paladin’s ability of detect evil has much more sense.
 
Now to the topic of paladin (as it seems it’s a hot topic everywhere ;) ). A paladin is a paramount display of goodness and strict rules. Paladins speak with their actions and they do not preach in a way like clerics do. They just call the name of their god, they are proud to speak of whom they serve, but hardly they will preach with words. It is their actions that should inspire others, it is their actions that should make them respected by those of good will or feared by those who have something heavy on their conscience or don’t have it at all.
 
Paladins are sent there where their strong arm and resolve are required.
 
There are different types of paladins. Some might be zealous crusaders who will strike at any evil which they’ll detect. Some are born leaders that show others how their way of life and their dogma can serve for the good of the people he wishes to protect, free, or sway away from temptations of evil. Some are quest knights, who search the world in pursuit of holy relics of their church and god, and in the process helping those who they’ll meet, etc.
 
The most problematic is the one that is the crusader type, but you need not to forget that there are some restrictions on detect evil. Paladin cannot detect evil on which he does not have in his line of sight (a cone). If the evil is too strong, he’ll be stunned and suffer, as the gaze of his god revealed too much of a power for his mind and soul to bear.
 
There is also a difference in paladin’s reaction to someone committing evil deed. If he’ll see that the evil act was committed by an ‘evil’ character, he’ll draw weapon and challenge the evil with all power of his own body and his god’s might. If he’ll not detect evil, he’ll give to options, to surrender and face judgment for his act and hope for redemption or face his wrath.
 
All in all the matter of good and evil definition is left with DMs, but I personally perceive both good and evil as alignments to achieve and retain as it is hard to be purely good and purely evil (generally it is a bit easier is to be purely good as that kind of attitude is easier to accept by others). Personally if I am creating any other class than a divine class I make it a neutral one and let the RP and IG development to drive it either towards good or evil.

Your font is dark ^^^^

Quote from: morva;213886Your font is dark ^^^^

I am a darkpriest, no? :P fixed ;)

Quote from: darkpriest;213885Being evil IMO requires specific conditions that are hardly met by any lvl 2 character (we should remember that we all start as such, lvl 2 means little to no experience aside of learning your basic profession). To be evil for me it would mean:
- Actively and consequently committing evil acts FROM THE START and not when you’ll gain some levels and decide that “ok, now it’s fairly safe to be a badass evil character”. If you do not act evil that means that you are neutral and you’d best ask for alignment shift. (meaning, you try to gut someone for money AT LVL 2, you try to sacrifice someone in religious ritual AT LVL 2, etc.)

I very much disagree.  If you view the world as having evil and good as legitimate forces (as in PnP) that are concrete concepts, not abstractions, then it doesn't always matter how you act.  Evil does NOT mean stupid.  If I'm a newly recruited mercenary of some sort (fighter) who used to be abused by the town guard and beaten up by local ruffians as well, that doesn't mean I immediately go and try to kill them.  If I'm a cleric who is supposed to make living sacrifice to a god, do I do it in the middle of the Ziggurat when I've just been initiated into the church?  Absolutely not.  If we played evil the way you suggested it, we'd all be dead within days of creating our characters.

Evil is about personality, not actions.  You can be evil and not commit evil (though if you NEVER do anything evil, it becomes questionable).

Quote from: azurerogue;213897I very much disagree. If you view the world as having evil and good as legitimate forces (as in PnP) that are concrete concepts, not abstractions, then it doesn't always matter how you act. Evil does NOT mean stupid. If I'm a newly recruited mercenary of some sort (fighter) who used to be abused by the town guard and beaten up by local ruffians as well, that doesn't mean I immediately go and try to kill them. If I'm a cleric who is supposed to make living sacrifice to a god, do I do it in the middle of the Ziggurat when I've just been initiated into the church? Absolutely not. If we played evil the way you suggested it, we'd all be dead within days of creating our characters.
 
Evil is about personality, not actions. You can be evil and not commit evil (though if you NEVER do anything evil, it becomes questionable).

I've never said that you are to be STUPID evil... heh you can try to stab someone in some back alley, you can join the chuch and be an active part of a ritual, you can find a way to pay someone to kill the one who beat you up or promise something in return. But personality itself does not make you evil if you've never before commited an evil act nor you are willing to do so till you will gain more levels and feel safer OOCly. Even if you speak of personality it means that you should have acted -evil- as level should mostly give you just other means. If you do not want to act evil, then maybe just pick a neutral allignemnt and then through your PCs development reach the desired 'evil' alignment? It will also save you the problem of being killed on sight on lower levels by a paladin who will happen to detect evil as it will be a fully IC action to do so by him, same as if the higher level blackguard would detect a lower level paladin. Each choice should have consequences same as there are consequences in RL. *shrugs* But that's just my point of view on this topic and not all have to have the same one.

Where it becomes risky is when doing 'evil' things benefits you as a player more than your character.

It's a thin line, indeed. To play evil characters, you often have to be merciful, just, not spiteful toward others as a player, otherwise you're likely to fall into griefing others or acting out of convenience to be the BESTEST/STRONGEST/RICHEST.

And yes, if your character is evil, he should do evil acts on a regular basis (the earlier the better!) or have some purpose, self-serving or ultimately malicious plan, aside from (i want to kill people later when I'm high level).

There are people from many age groups on that server, and too often does the evil alignment equates the self-convenience route. Same deal with chaotic neutral, really. Same deal with paladins trying to justify avoiding their responsabilities. Ultimately, these responsabilities (from a class, alignment, background) will lead to a more immersive, fun, hostility-free environment despite people portraying crusaders, barbarians, necromancers and other scumbags.

If you need to write posts after posts of rationalization to justify avoiding those responsabilities under x and x condition "What if he worked with someone evil to save x millions of goodly people.. etc.", I dont think it's the right track of mind to have.

Setting yourself limitations beyond the class/alignment/statistics is a step beyond and ultimately leads to more interesting or well developed characters, which is usually what you wish to create if you play EFU. It could be, for example, that you set beforehand that your character is incredibly naive, this innocence gives him a certain charm, but you set yourself to accepting to fall into the traps that anyone he meets may set for him. Then, you look where that takes him along the road. Whether he is used to disarm a trap by his 'friends' or if he ends up joining the army of the would-be tyrant because he was convinced it is the right thing to do.

I suppose, but I play a LE character who hasn't done anything particularly evil.  She's not a psychopath or sociopath.  She has no interest in murder, thievery, etc.  She's more interested in the systematic oppression and use of those without the inner fortitude to control themselves and make a place in society.  She'd gladly enslave half of the colonists and give them some direction rather than let them live out their pitiful lives accomplishing nothing...  but since she's new, she's poor, and she's currently rather weak there is no point publicly announcing any of this.  

Clever schemes don't require me to wear a scarlet-letter style branding of my alignment through IC actions...

Quote from: Mort;213901or have some purpose, self-serving or ultimately malicious plan, aside from (i want to kill people later when I'm high level).

You're covered!

Quote from: azurerogue;213912I suppose, but I play a LE character who hasn't done anything particularly evil. She's not a psychopath or sociopath. She has no interest in murder, thievery, etc. She's more interested in the systematic oppression and use of those without the inner fortitude to control themselves and make a place in society. She'd gladly enslave half of the colonists and give them some direction rather than let them live out their pitiful lives accomplishing nothing... but since she's new, she's poor, and she's currently rather weak there is no point publicly announcing any of this.
 
Clever schemes don't require me to wear a scarlet-letter style branding of my alignment through IC actions...

Why not to join for example the Church of Tyrant or Stygian Armada? there you can be perfectly LE even on low levels as I doubt that anyone that is not already in conflict with such organizations would not fear you from the RP perspective.. you have powerful back then and can ascend in ranks of organization that is a ruling and oppresing force... just one of possibilities

Drakill's got it right again I think, and Howland touched it a bit too- good and evil are very weird in the D&D world. Sometimes you're just born evil. Sometimes acts are evil no matter what. I'll give an example: I wanted to play a necromancer who is essentially a nice guy with just a little bit of autism. He's super-intelligent, and intesly curious about the world around him. He's by no means evil in spirit- in fact the only reason he's evil is because he believes it's perfectly alright to animate corpses if the deceased corpses agreed to it beforehand. Raising corpses is evil. Period. That's why he's evil. He'd be Lawful Good otherwise.

That sounds like a delightfully awkward character to play.  Reminds me of my Level 14 Wizard (on another server) who REALLY wanted to be a knight.  Without any fighter or other than wizard levels he took armor proficiency heavy, weapon proficiency martial, and shield proficiency.  He refused to accept his role as a wizard (even though I leveled him as such)!