Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightDisciple

Is he unique, or do other dragons do so? Might be something of an exception that proves the rule.

---

That's not what that phrase means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kish

That's not what that phrase means.

---

While correct, language is simply a means to facilitate communications. So as long as everyone understands each other, there isn't a need for precision. In this case, the phrase is misused enough that I believe everyone understands the meaning attempting to be conveyed.

@ Menteith:

Yes, you've summed up my position rather nicely, and I do see where you're coming from as well. I see a problem with your statement that BoED and BoVD cannot both be correct because of the possibility of the redemption of evil dragons though. The portion of BoED you're drawing from is plainly saying that most creatures that have the "always evil" alignment line -are- irredeemable in virtually all cases. It's flat telling you that you'd be better off killing a red dragon than trying to talk it into a conversion. This expands upon the BoVD's points about why killing these creatures isn't evil, it does not contradict it.

I do agree that you and I will probably not see eye to eye on this subject. I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion though.

However I did find a source on why your balor town benefactor is harming his town with his mere presence. BoVD pg 35 under lingering affects of evil. Under the heading "a lasting evil" the long-term presence of an evil outsider is listed as a cause. Listed affects include, an absence of plant life (farmers crops anyone?) and neuroses, nightmares, and other psychological disorders in people. Those seem pretty harmful to me.

@ Malachite: There is no logical contradiction between a creature with the [Evil] descriptor being made up of the stuff of pure evil and still having free will. How you think doesn't affect what you're made of.

If I believed with all my heart that I was made of ice, it still wouldn't be true. I wouldn't melt in the sun. I wouldn't stick to metal just because it was damp.
Allow me to use your own metaphor, "Iron can't be water." That's true in a sense. However Iron can behave like water if it's reduced to a liquid state by heat. To take the metaphor even further, iron can be water, if enough subatomic breakdown and molecular rearrangement is done.

By the same token, a fiend can shed it's evil subtype. There are rituals described in SS that describe how. Sure it's risky, but so is getting a kidney transplant. It beats being on dialisys for the rest of your life, and not having the evil subtype should be worth the risk, especially since you'd otherwise have to live with being a valid target for smite evil for the rest of eternity.

@ Anyone who would like to post any further hypotheticals:

Here's something to think about. No matter what the character (usually a paladin in these cases) does, the consequences of his actions aren't known with certainty until they actually occur. To punish the character for those consequences before they come to pass is punishing that character for a mere possibility, that he or she may be able to prevent. In the two hypotheticals I've already addressed, the only consequences that are certain, at the time those fiends are killed, are that the succubus won't kill anymore men in the town she was opperating in, and the balor will explode. Anything else is only possible or probable until it actually happens, and no character should be punished for a mere possibility.

Kelb_Panthera, after considering it, you are correct. By RAW, Book of Vile Darkness is a primary source with regard to alignment, and I'm not going to find an argument that will change that. With that said, I would still urge individuals to handle alignment issues more carefully than the strict RAW. Good discussion, KP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Menteith

Kelb_Panthera, after considering it, you are correct. By RAW, Book of Vile Darkness is a primary source with regard to alignment, and I'm not going to find an argument that will change that. With that said, I would still urge individuals to handle alignment issues more carefully than the strict RAW. Good discussion, KP.

---

Thank you, Menteith, for one of the most entertaining discussions I've had on this forum to date.

To anyone else who's enjoyed this debate, I agree with Menteith's statement that if you're going to take alignment any kind of seriously in your game, you should have a discussion with your group about how it will be handled. The RAW is pretty controversial, as we've amply demonstrated by now.

Have a nice day. :smallsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

The portion of BoED you're drawing from is plainly saying that most creatures that have the "always evil" alignment line -are- irredeemable in virtually all cases. It's flat telling you that you'd be better off killing a red dragon than trying to talk it into a conversion. This expands upon the BoVD's points about why killing these creatures isn't evil, it does not contradict it.

---

"There is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"
or
"only a naive fool would try to convert them"

might justify not trying to redeem a defeated "Always Evil-race opponent"- but it wouldn't justify killing one in itself. There needs to be a better reason, like

"it's committed acts that warrant the death penalty"
or
"it's in the process of harming innocents and the only way to stop it is to kill it"


Especially when there are cases of success, or the creature having changed its ways of its own accord.

When a good-aligned fiend, or chromatic dragon, is killed using the BoVD reasoning, one of the immediate consequences is "a being has been killed unjustly"- not for its actions, but its race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hamishspence

"There is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"
or
"only a naive fool would try to convert them"

might justify not trying to redeem a defeated "Always Evil-race opponent"- but it wouldn't justify killing one in itself. There needs to be a better reason, like

"it's committed acts that warrant the death penalty"
or
"it's in the process of harming innocents and the only way to stop it is to kill it"


Especially when there are cases of success, or the creature having changed its ways of its own accord.

When a good-aligned fiend, or chromatic dragon, is killed using the BoVD reasoning, one of the immediate consequences is "a being has been killed unjustly"- not for its actions, but its race.

---

I've recently cited a source for how the fiend is causing harm with no more than his presence, even if it is not his intent. In-fact, it's the same post of mine that you're quoting. I never said that you should auto-kill a dragon or any other "always evil" creatures, just [evil] subtype outsiders.

The paragraph in BoED that suggests that some "always evil" creatures can be redeemed is a paragraph that's describing why it's better not to take that chance, and it uses chromatic dragons as a potential example.

Fiends are more than just "always evil" though. They're harmful to the material plane regardless of their alignment. To allow even the very nicest demon or devil to live, is to allow harm to come to innocents. That's explicitly an evil act.

The same is not true of chromatic dragons, or any other "always evil" creature that doesn't carry the subtype.

If you find a good red dragon, congratulate him on his reform and give him treasure.

Personally, I think that "Always Evil" ought to mean that something is:
1) Always evil, and
2) Acceptable to kill on sight.

And if either of those are unacceptable (or nonsensical), then the designation "Always Evil" should not exist.

Unfortunately the creators of D&D thought otherwise, and so we've got the mess we've got.


As for how to resolve the problem (other than by houseruling either that fiends are not literally made of Evil, or fiends cannot ever be non-evil), I would say:

If a fiend behaves as a "good" being (and is doing so genuinely, rather than as part of an evil plot) and does no evil then it is morally good, and killing it simply for being a fiend is evil.

If despite that, the fiend still has an "Evil" subtype (and pings as Evil for the purposes Detect Alignment etc), then that can only be possible if the "objective alignment" exists independently of behaviour and intentions.

In which case it potentially could be simultaneously Good and Evil to kill the fiend out of hand.

In which case a paladin would still fall for doing so, because they commited an Evil act. (Just as a paladin that saved someone from a mugger (Good) by torturing the mugger to death (Evil) would fall.

Perhaps pulling all of my points together into a single post will make this a little clearer.

Point the first: The only statement I am making is that killing fiends out of hand is always a good act. Killing other "always evil" creatures may or may not be good, based on circumstance. Note that torturing any creature, for any reason, is evil.

Point the second: Creatures with the evil subtype are treated as evil regardless of their actual alignment as per MM pg309-310.

Point the third: An evil outsider's presence on the material plane causes harm to living creatures in the area regardless of its intent as per BoVD pg 35.

Point the fourth: While BoED does suggest that a rare few creatures listed as "always evil" are redeemable, it does not say that fiends are ever one of these rare cases. It also says that trying to redeem any such creatures, regardless of whether they're fiends or not is a fool's errand. This can be found on pg8.

Point the fifth: BoVD explicitly states that killing a fiend is always good. This is supported by both BoVD itself and BoED, because both say destroying an evil creature that brings harm to others is a good act, and allowing such a creature to live is an evil act. Creatures with the evil subtype are A) always treated as evil and B) bring harm to others by their mere presence. Therefore killing them is, explicitly, always a good act by RAW.

Final point: Any creature with the evil subtype, that truly wishes to become a good creature, can be rid of that subtype as outlined toward the end of SS. (if someone can help me out with a page number I'd be appreciative and edit this post to list it. My copy of SS was inadvertantly destroyed.)

If you're not using any of these sources then things become much grayer because there is no raw on the matter. In that case, things come down to DM adjudication, and your group needs to have a discussion on alignment, if alignment is going to be a significant part of your game.

Does this make my position any clearer?

EDIT, additional points to address the fluff for this raw crunch:

It's explained in MoTP and a few other sources that an outsider is made of the stuff of his home plane.

All of the lower planes are made up of evil in material form, though some are blended with an ethos given physical form.

Therefore, a fiend, described as an outsider with the evil subtype native to a lower plane, is literally made of evil.

As I explained in a previous post, how you think does not determine what you're made of. If I believe myself to be ice, and you believe you're fire, neither of us will be harmed by the others mere touch.

By the same token, no matter how a fiend's outlook on morality has changed, he's still made of evil given physical form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

BoVD explicitly states that killing a fiend is always good.

---

Let me Surgical Strike your entire Argument:

Book of Vile Darkness IS NOT a 3.5 rulebook.
Savage Species IS NOT a 3.5 Rulebook. also, if you already bought it, just download it.

Even if we take the "Kill fiends because they are Here." as part of the Paladin code, that simply means if the outsider does not have the Native Subtype, then the paladin should stick a blade through their head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toapat

Let me Surgical Strike your entire Argument:

Book of Vile Darkness IS NOT a 3.5 rulebook.
Savage Species IS NOT a 3.5 Rulebook. also, if you already bought it, just download it.

Even if we take the "Kill fiends because they are Here." as part of the Paladin code, that simply means if the outsider does not have the Native Subtype, then the paladin should stick a blade through their head.

---

While they aren't 3.5, they are 3.0. And as we all know, any unupdated 3.0 book can be used within a 3.5 game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toapat

Let me Surgical Strike your entire Argument:

Book of Vile Darkness IS NOT a 3.5 rulebook.
Savage Species IS NOT a 3.5 Rulebook. also, if you already bought it, just download it.

Even if we take the "Kill fiends because they are Here." as part of the Paladin code, that simply means if the outsider does not have the Native Subtype, then the paladin should stick a blade through their head.

---

Random NPC beat me to the punch on why you're wrong about the 3.0 v 3.5 issue.

As for the rest of your post, I suspect there's a typo in there somewhere, because you seem to disagree with me, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Though I'm pointing it out as a general rule, rather than something specific to the paladin.

Edit: I intend to buy another copy of SS in the near future. I don't download any of the supplements, because A) I don't like the "feel" of digital books, and B) I can't anyway, since my only internet access is through my wii.

Even going by the ristupulous rules you're quoting, that only theoretically makes it ok to kill a fiend if they are or have been on the Prime Material for a significant enough time to fall under that rule on page 35.

Otherwise, killing a fiend simply because it is a fiend falls under murder, because the justifications that excuse killing evil creatures under the description of Murder as an evil act on page 7 explicitly depend upon 'because it still stops the creature's predations upon the innocent.'

Therefore, killing a fiend on any plane other than the Prime Material without having individual evidence that this particular fiend is actually committing evil is murder. Even killing a fiend on the Prime Material may be murder, if the fiend has not been on the prime material for a significant enough time to cause lasting harm as per page 35 of BoVD. Even if you claim killing one is a good act, it's still murder and therefore also always evil.

Furthermore, none of this actually depends on the fiend being of any alignment other than its natural alignment. A fiend could theoretically be evil due to its beliefs, but never actually do anything evil, and therefore killing it would still always fall under murder, because killing it cannot be excused by stopping its predations, since it wasn't doing any predations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

Even going by the ristupulous rules you're quoting, that only theoretically makes it ok to kill a fiend if they are or have been on the Prime Material for a significant enough time to fall under that rule on page 35.

Otherwise, killing a fiend simply because it is a fiend falls under murder, because the justifications that excuse killing evil creatures under the description of Murder as an evil act on page 7 explicitly depend upon 'because it still stops the creature's predations upon the innocent.'

Therefore, killing a fiend on any plane other than the Prime Material without having individual evidence that this particular fiend is actually committing evil is murder. Even killing a fiend on the Prime Material may be murder, if the fiend has not been on the prime material for a significant enough time to cause lasting harm as per page 35 of BoVD. Even if you claim killing one is a good act, it's still murder and therefore also always evil.

Furthermore, none of this actually depends on the fiend being of any alignment other than its natural alignment. A fiend could theoretically be evil due to its beliefs, but never actually do anything evil, and therefore killing it would still always fall under murder, because killing it cannot be excused by stopping its predations, since it wasn't doing any predations.

---

See the thing is, just by existing they are preying on the innocent. Furthermore, the BoVD defines murder as a killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose. If a paladin has a nefarious purpose for killing anything they probably should have fallen long before the issue of whether or not killing fiends is evil comes into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Random NPC

See the thing is, just by existing they are preying on the innocent. Furthermore, the BoVD defines murder as a killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose. If a paladin has a nefarious purpose for killing anything they probably should have fallen long before the issue of whether or not killing fiends is evil comes into play.

---

I see nothing that suggests that by a fiend existing, they are preying on the innocent. On page 35 it says that the long term presence of an evil outsider on the material plane can cause lingering evil. It says nothing about the short term presence of one, nor about the short or long term presence of one on any plane but the prime material. It also doesn't really define what long term presence means, precisely, but it can clearly be read to mean a period at the very least consisting of weeks, most likely consisting of years.

So, unless there's a cite that supports the mere existence of a fiend causing harm or otherwise preying on the innocent, their race is not justification for murder in and of itself, it can only be justification if their death would prevent further harm, or predations on the innocent. If neither of these can be substantially shown to occur should the fiend not be killed, then killing it is an act of pure racial hatred and prejudice, which clearly falls under a nefarious purpose and is therefore murder.

Before I continue, I want to make sure I understand you position. I believe your position is that, at the very least on their home plane, they can be neutral enough to not justify being killed. That is, although they may be evil, they might never have done anything to justify being killed.

Right, although not just on their home plane - on any plane other than the Prime Material, since the 'lingering evil' on page 35 is the only reference I am aware of that suggests that fiends cause harm by their very existence, and that specifically calls out the material plane only.

In that case, the only justification I can think of is that since they are made of pure evil, killing them would remove it from the multiverse.

Sidenote: I do agree that a morally ambiguous devil is the better way to go, and that any paladin that kills them with no better reason than their race should fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Random NPC

In that case, the only justification I can think of is that since they are made of pure evil, killing them is would remove it from the multiverse.

Sidenote: I do agree that a morally ambiguous devil is the better way to go, and that any paladin that kills them with no better reason than their race should fall.

---

This thread has inspired me to try and force my party to choose between defending a good [Evil] creature with Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence, or giving it up to Celestial [Good] creatures who would utterly destroy it. Pitting [Good] against actual good is going to turn out to be interesting, I think....

Further justification of the lingering evil rule is a little trickier to cite since there is no single source that expands upon it. However, several sources that deal with the outer planes have said that whole worlds and even layers of different outer planes have migrated to one of the other planes when enough of a particular alignment was present on those planes. The lowest layer of mechanus, for example, used to be part of arcadia according to MoTP, and DoTU says that Lloth has dragged whole worlds into the demon web pits by gaining a strong enough following on those worlds.

The fact that a fiend -can- cause a lingering evil with its presence indicates that there is something about its presence that has a corrupting influence on the world its on. Even if the fiend is not actively doing evil, and does not linger long enough to cause a lasting evil in one place, his presence is still bringing that world, whether it's a material plane world or not, closer to being drawn into one of the lower planes. Simply by being there, he's making it easier for others of his kind, who have darker minds, to remove the influence of good and destroy or conquer that world.

As for fiends on the lower planes, if they are good then they're disrupting that plane as well, to leave would cause harm to another plane, while to remain would mean harm to their home realm. Destroying a good fiend on a lower plane is a mercy, and necessary to keep that fiend from losing hope and returning to evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hamishspence

"There is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"
or
"only a naive fool would try to convert them"

might justify not trying to redeem a defeated "Always Evil-race opponent"- but it wouldn't justify killing one in itself. There needs to be a better reason, like

"it's committed acts that warrant the death penalty"
or
"it's in the process of harming innocents and the only way to stop it is to kill it"

---

I wanted to add to the two justifications "it is likely to go on to harm innocents(or regular folk if you don't believe in innocents)."

In the case of a red dragon, while it may not be burning the nearby village to the ground right now, there's no guarantee the good guys will be able to stop it when it is, if they are even in the area. While ideally it could be brought before a court the moment it commits a crime, D&D adventures tend to take place in the wild, beyond the long arm of the law itself. Out here on the raggedy edge, leaving a likely threat alive because you got to it before it got to you is Lawful Stupid.

By this token, I would not be averse to letting a paladin character go so far as to take part in an effort of a kingdom to kill all chromatic dragons in a nearby range of mountains on the justification of several villages at the base of the mountains being destroyed in recent months. Genocide? Maybe. I'd certainly be a little more queasy about it if the paladin were doing it to avenge his family, or because he hates dragons, or for renown. But if his motivation is to defend the innocent lives of his nation or to obey his just king, then he's got the green light from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rorrik

I wanted to add to the two justifications "it is likely to go on to harm innocents(or regular folk if you don't believe in innocents)."

In the case of a red dragon, while it may not be burning the nearby village to the ground right now, there's no guarantee the good guys will be able to stop it when it is, if they are even in the area. While ideally it could be brought before a court the moment it commits a crime, D&D adventures tend to take place in the wild, beyond the long arm of the law itself. Out here on the raggedy edge, leaving a likely threat alive because you got to it before it got to you is Lawful Stupid.

By this token, I would not be averse to letting a paladin character go so far as to take part in an effort of a kingdom to kill all chromatic dragons in a nearby range of mountains on the justification of several villages at the base of the mountains being destroyed in recent months. Genocide? Maybe. I'd certainly be a little more queasy about it if the paladin were doing it to avenge his family, or because he hates dragons, or for renown. But if his motivation is to defend the innocent lives of his nation or to obey his just king, then he's got the green light from me.

---

The very passage those justifications come from say plainly, that killing an "always evil" creature just because it's there or because you want its treasure, while they certainly aren't good acts, are not generally considered evil. It only becomces a question of whether or not the act is evil, when the creature in question is definitely of a good alignment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

The very passage those justifications come from say plainly, that killing an "always evil" creature just because it's there or because you want its treasure, while they certainly aren't good acts, are not generally considered evil. It only becomces a question of whether or not the act is evil, when the creature in question is definitely of a good alignment.

---

Let me explain what i meant:

The only time in which murdering a fiend for being on the prime material Plane is not an Evil act, is when the act of murdering non-native Outsiders is a non-evil act, because the setting sees outsiders as interfering with the natural order by being there. Otherwise, Murdering the Succubus orphan matron who works day and noight to feed the kids is an evil act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Further justification of the lingering evil rule is a little trickier to cite since there is no single source that expands upon it. However, several sources that deal with the outer planes have said that whole worlds and even layers of different outer planes have migrated to one of the other planes when enough of a particular alignment was present on those planes. The lowest layer of mechanus, for example, used to be part of arcadia according to MoTP, and DoTU says that Lloth has dragged whole worlds into the demon web pits by gaining a strong enough following on those worlds.

The fact that a fiend -can- cause a lingering evil with its presence indicates that there is something about its presence that has a corrupting influence on the world its on. Even if the fiend is not actively doing evil, and does not linger long enough to cause a lasting evil in one place, his presence is still bringing that world, whether it's a material plane world or not, closer to being drawn into one of the lower planes. Simply by being there, he's making it easier for others of his kind, who have darker minds, to remove the influence of good and destroy or conquer that world.

As for fiends on the lower planes, if they are good then they're disrupting that plane as well, to leave would cause harm to another plane, while to remain would mean harm to their home realm. Destroying a good fiend on a lower plane is a mercy, and necessary to keep that fiend from losing hope and returning to evil.

---

If we're going to discuss these utterly ridiculous rules in the first place, we have to stick by the exact letter of the rule, and the rule says evil outsiders cause lingering evil only on the Material plane. By the way, it says 'evil outsiders'. It doesn't say things with the [Evil] subtype. Any outsider with an evil alignment, regardless of its subtype, plane of origin, or whether it acts on its evil alignment, apparently causes lingering evil, according to that rule. And it makes no exceptions for outsiders of the native subtype. If we're using that rule as an excuse for murder, then it means that murdering every single outsider of any subtype that pings on detect evil and is on the prime material plane for a 'long-term', whatever that is, is justified, including tieflings, genasi, etc.

The rest of the stuff mentioned here has no rules by which to judge it on, and therefore can't come into a nitpicky discussion based solely on a stupid set of rules. There are no actual rules for sections of one plane sliding into another - it happens, but there are no rules on it, therefore there's no way to actually account for it in such a nitpicky discussion. It exists purely in the realm of DM fiat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rorrik

I wanted to add to the two justifications "it is likely to go on to harm innocents(or regular folk if you don't believe in innocents)."

In the case of a red dragon, while it may not be burning the nearby village to the ground right now, there's no guarantee the good guys will be able to stop it when it is, if they are even in the area. While ideally it could be brought before a court the moment it commits a crime, D&D adventures tend to take place in the wild, beyond the long arm of the law itself. Out here on the raggedy edge, leaving a likely threat alive because you got to it before it got to you is Lawful Stupid.

By this token, I would not be averse to letting a paladin character go so far as to take part in an effort of a kingdom to kill all chromatic dragons in a nearby range of mountains on the justification of several villages at the base of the mountains being destroyed in recent months. Genocide? Maybe. I'd certainly be a little more queasy about it if the paladin were doing it to avenge his family, or because he hates dragons, or for renown. But if his motivation is to defend the innocent lives of his nation or to obey his just king, then he's got the green light from me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

The very passage those justifications come from say plainly, that killing an "always evil" creature just because it's there or because you want its treasure, while they certainly aren't good acts, are not generally considered evil. It only becomces a question of whether or not the act is evil, when the creature in question is definitely of a good alignment.

---

This is only given with the justification of 'because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.' If the creature has made no such predations, there is nothing to stop, therefore it wasn't justified and it is murder. Just because you think someone is likely to cause harm doesn't make it true, and if it's not true, then the murder is not justified and therefore evil. So, you could be trying to stop someone from harming others, but you're acting on wrong information. Still murder, just as if I overhear you plotting to kill someone, murder you to prevent it, and it turns out you were talking about doing something in a game, I still committed murder.

Quote:

---

This is only given with the justification of 'because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.' If the creature has made no such predations, there is nothing to stop, therefore it wasn't justified and it is murder. Just because you think someone is likely to cause harm doesn't make it true, and if it's not true, then the murder is not justified and therefore evil. So, you could be trying to stop someone from harming others, but you're acting on wrong information. Still murder, just as if I overhear you plotting to kill someone, murder you to prevent it, and it turns out you were talking about doing something in a game, I still committed murder.

---

Your hypothetical is all good and well when there are law enforcement entities powerful enough to handle the would-be-murderer in a controlled fashion. The reality of these fantasy games is that there is no law enforcement and waiting for the plotter to make his move will result almost certainly in the target's death.
There's a reason people's paranoia drove them to burn accused witches, they were afraid and believed they represented a present danger they couldn't risk letting continue. The difference here is it's not a witch, it's a dragon of a sort history has demonstrated is a clear and present danger to the nearby village. It's a pretty safe bet it's a danger and a greater danger at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toapat

Let me explain what i meant:

The only time in which murdering a fiend for being on the prime material Plane is not an Evil act, is when the act of murdering non-native Outsiders is a non-evil act, because the setting sees outsiders as interfering with the natural order by being there. Otherwise, Murdering the Succubus orphan matron who works day and noight to feed the kids is an evil act.

---

So..... when the cited sources for rules on the matter aren't in play? If that's your meaning then I can't really argue with it because you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

If we're going to discuss these utterly ridiculous rules in the first place, we have to stick by the exact letter of the rule, and the rule says evil outsiders cause lingering evil only on the Material plane. By the way, it says 'evil outsiders'. It doesn't say things with the [Evil] subtype. Any outsider with an evil alignment, regardless of its subtype, plane of origin, or whether it acts on its evil alignment, apparently causes lingering evil, according to that rule. And it makes no exceptions for outsiders of the native subtype. If we're using that rule as an excuse for murder, then it means that murdering every single outsider of any subtype that pings on detect evil and is on the prime material plane for a 'long-term', whatever that is, is justified, including tieflings, genasi, etc.

The rest of the stuff mentioned here has no rules by which to judge it on, and therefore can't come into a nitpicky discussion based solely on a stupid set of rules. There are no actual rules for sections of one plane sliding into another - it happens, but there are no rules on it, therefore there's no way to actually account for it in such a nitpicky discussion. It exists purely in the realm of DM fiat.



This is only given with the justification of 'because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.' If the creature has made no such predations, there is nothing to stop, therefore it wasn't justified and it is murder. Just because you think someone is likely to cause harm doesn't make it true, and if it's not true, then the murder is not justified and therefore evil. So, you could be trying to stop someone from harming others, but you're acting on wrong information. Still murder, just as if I overhear you plotting to kill someone, murder you to prevent it, and it turns out you were talking about doing something in a game, I still committed murder.

---

You can't use logical extensions of rules to justify your argument, and then throw out the ones that go against it. Only the DM can say if a creature that is "always evil" has never committed an evil act. How is that any less fiat than, "the presence of an evil subtype creature is harmful to the material plane?" Even if he does, how would the character that's attacking it know that? Because the creature told him? If anything the fiends causing material plane problems is less fiat than any one of them being completely innocent.

Hell, if you wanna stick strictly to the rules and throw logic out entirely, how's this? BoED says killing a creature with no justification is evil. This is a general rule. BoVD says that killing fiends is always good. This is a specific rule that's not excepted by any other more specific rule. Specific trumps general.

I wasn't arguing against the 'always good' part, but I was arguing that it is also murder and therefore also evil. An act can certainly be both good and evil - for instance, stopping someone from harming someone else (good) by casting a corrupt spell (evil). The act is both good and evil. Now, arguing on a nitpicky level of the rules I can't say that killing a fiend isn't always good, because it's stated so directly. However, killing a fiend is good, but killing one without justification is also evil at the same time. The fact that it's good doesn't negate the fact that it's evil.

The only logical extension I can see I may have made is that killing someone based on racism falls under the 'or the like' clause of being nefarious. All the other things are precisely what the rules say, without any extending whatsoever; specifically, that killing without justifying it because it stops predations on the innocent is evil, and that the long-term presence of a fiend causes lingering evil only on the material plane. So, killing a fiend can be justified if they have a long-term presence on the material plane, but not so on any other plane.

As to the degree of evil vs. the degree of good, I can't say at all. I would argue that murder is more evil than killing a fiend is good, but the book doesn't actually say, so I don't include that in my argument. All I note is that killing a fiend without proper justification is murder, and therefore at least slightly evil, even if it is also good.

Pg 7 of BoVD doesn't say that killing without justification is not evil because it prevents future depredations. It says that killing an "always evil" creature with what would otherwise be evil justification isn't evil because it will stop the creature from preying on the innocent.

There's no such thing as killing without justification. If you're sticking a pointy bit of metal into another creature you have some reason.

If your reason for stabbing a fiend is, "it's a fiend, and fiends are evil." It's not an evil act, even if you're wrong in this particular instance.

Upon review I can't say that killing a fiend is never evil, but the justifications for why killing a fiend might be evil aren't justifications a good creature would use.

The justification I now realize I've been defaulting to is, "because it's a fiend, and fiends cause harm with their very presence." This particular justification does not make killing the fiend evil. In certain extremely rare cases it may not be a very good justification, but it's still not enough to make the act evil. I do, however, think I've done a rather admirable job of validating my justification.

Can we agree then that the rule is, "Killing a fiend is always a good act, but it's also an evil act if you kill the fiend for hatred, vengeance, or pleasure."

The thing is, your basis that fiends cause harm by their very presence is wrong, except on the material plane. There, and only there, do fiends cause harm by their very presence.

Killing a fiend is always good, but it's also evil if that particular fiend doesn't prey on the innocent, and there is nothing inherent to their nature that requires that to be so, as long as they avoid long-term presence on the material plane.

Now, if you kill fiends because fiends are evil, you're gonna be right almost every time. You may spend lifetimes killing them without ever murdering, because you might not run into one that doesn't prey on the innocent. But, in the ridiculously rare event that you happen to run into such a fiend, and kill it, because 'fiends are evil', you've committed murder. So, if a paladin did that, he'd fall. Because murder is evil, and paladins fall when they willingly commit any evil act, no matter how balanced it is. The paladin could probably get an atonement, and it likely wouldn't be too huge a deal. Maybe he'd have to get a True Resurrection for the fiend he killed to make up for it. But it'd still have been an evil act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

The thing is, your basis that fiends cause harm by their very presence is wrong, except on the material plane. There, and only there, do fiends cause harm by their very presence.

Killing a fiend is always good, but it's also evil if that particular fiend doesn't prey on the innocent, and there is nothing inherent to their nature that requires that to be so, as long as they avoid long-term presence on the material plane.

Now, if you kill fiends because fiends are evil, you're gonna be right almost every time. You may spend lifetimes killing them without ever murdering, because you might not run into one that doesn't prey on the innocent. But, in the ridiculously rare event that you happen to run into such a fiend, and kill it, because 'fiends are evil', you've committed murder. So, if a paladin did that, he'd fall. Because murder is evil, and paladins fall when they willingly commit any evil act, no matter how balanced it is. The paladin could probably get an atonement, and it likely wouldn't be too huge a deal. Maybe he'd have to get a True Resurrection for the fiend he killed to make up for it. But it'd still have been an evil act.

---

One of the further points of this is, each of planes on the "Outer Plane" is both infinite, and has an infinite number of denizines. even if your "Always Evil" means only 1/(2^5832) of them are not chaotic evil, that still leaves us with a slightly less insignificant INFINITE number of good aligned fiends.

not only that, but it is often cited that "Always Alignment" unless specifically Neutral Hungry or Unaligned, means 95% of the populous is that alignment.