Philosophy of Evil

[Stormbringer]

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

[RagingPurpleGiant]

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.

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.

[SluaghSluagh]

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.

[darkpriest]

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.

[morva]

Your font is dark ^^^^

[darkpriest]

Your font is dark ^^^^

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

[azurerogue]

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.)

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).

[darkpriest]

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).

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.

[Mort]

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.

[azurerogue]

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...

[SkillFocuspwn]

or 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!

[darkpriest]

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...

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

[The Boom King]

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.

[azurerogue]

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)!