Evil character wielding an holy weapon for a Good purpose

[Arkhios]

There is a Holy Weapon and an Unholy Weapon, and I'm pretty sure "an Holy" falls closer to the latter as a combination of words, not swords.

Yours truly,
Paladin of the Sacred Oath of Grammar


(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Samael Morgenst]

I corrected the title, albeit it is considered extremely rude to publicly correct a foreigner's grammar, there are private messages for this.

[Arkhios]

I corrected the title, albeit it is considered extremely rude to publicly correct a foreigner's grammar, there are private messages for this.

Is it, though? English isn't native to me either. My apologies if you took that as an insult. It was a tongue-in-cheek quip, nothing serious.

[Chronos]

Aside: There's a hypothetical scenario I'm fond of. A town received a prophecy that they would someday be destroyed and overrun by undead, and so the townsfolk pooled their resources to obtain a weapon that could be used against that prophesied horde: A holy undead-bane (insert any other relevant properties here) mace that they kept prominently in the town square, so that, in need, any hero willing to stand forth could be armed to fight against the darkness.

Until one day, an evil person grabbed the mace out of curiosity, and so gained a negative level, and unfortunately the evil person was first level, and anyone with as many negative levels as levels instantly dies. And when someone dies as a result of negative levels, unless the effect that conferred the negative levels says otherwise, they then rise as a wight...

[icefractal]

Lol, true. I mean, I think most GMs would spot-rule that Holy weapons don't create undead, but that is technically how it works. And it seems plenty fitting for Unholy weapons to do that, making "leave Unholy swords around disguised as emergency Holy swords" something a particularly rich villain might do.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And ANY living creature that dies due to negative levels returns as a wight.

So all those pigs that got hit by the Fell Drain fireball? They're now the other wight meat.

[SangoProduction]

So. I think the core issue that came up a couple times: Is this guy even Evil? He's certainly immoral. But he's not self-centered enough to let a bunch of orphans die, choosing instead to fight to defend them, with the known potential of death. And in fact, despite not being his normal disposition, nor a situation that he'd presumably actively put himself into, or seek out (again, presumably), these are not the actions that someone who has truly earned the Evil alignment would do.

So, if he's not properly Evil, then he wouldn't get the penalties of being Evil.


But let's *make* him a properly Evil character that simply got into the situation. He was taking a shower in the orphanage, when it got surrounded by zombies. He's not got his own weapons, and no one else is willing to stay behind. If no one stays behind, everyone dies one way or another. Seeing no other options, he takes the holy blade, and walks into the horde to face his demise and perhaps give them a chance to escape.

...Although clearly not done out of the goodness of his heart, it is a major personal sacrifice, including that of his own life, potentially. And it's done with the knowledge that his demise would give the others room to leave.

I don't know how that wouldn't be an act of redemption for all but the most vile of characters.


Now, a substantially more evil character would perhaps be hamstringing the orphans and hope that the zombies feast on them long enough to get out. Except that they don't have their weapons on them. Best they'd be able to do is to do it with the holy blade. Which would be rather ironic.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So. I think the core issue that came up a couple times: Is this guy even Evil? He's certainly immoral. But he's not self-centered enough to let a bunch of orphans die, choosing instead to fight to defend them, with the known potential of death. And in fact, despite not being his normal disposition, nor a situation that he'd presumably actively put himself into, or seek out (again, presumably), these are not the actions that someone who has truly earned the Evil alignment would do.

So, if he's not properly Evil, then he wouldn't get the penalties of being Evil.


But let's *make* him a properly Evil character that simply got into the situation. He was taking a shower in the orphanage, when it got surrounded by zombies. He's not got his own weapons, and no one else is willing to stay behind. If no one stays behind, everyone dies one way or another. Seeing no other options, he takes the holy blade, and walks into the horde to face his demise and perhaps give them a chance to escape.

...Although clearly not done out of the goodness of his heart, it is a major personal sacrifice, including that of his own life, potentially. And it's done with the knowledge that his demise would give the others room to leave.

I don't know how that wouldn't be an act of redemption for all but the most vile of characters.


Now, a substantially more evil character would perhaps be hamstringing the orphans and hope that the zombies feast on them long enough to get out. Except that they don't have their weapons on them. Best they'd be able to do is to do it with the holy blade. Which would be rather ironic.

My character that I outlined earlier would have defended the orphanage, despite being very firmly Evil, so it's entirely possible for an Evil person to perform such an action. He would have been mocking the monsters and tearing them apart while laughing maniacally, but he would've done it, and specifically to save the kids, to boot.

Though he was a primary psionic manifester/skillmonkey, so one of his TN astral constructs would've used it instead, but still.

[Darg]

I don't know how that wouldn't be an act of redemption for all but the most vile of characters.

It's not redemption unless they are doing it out of a genuine desire to be good. Just performing a good act doesn't make someone not evil.

And ANY living creature that dies due to negative levels returns as a wight.

So all those pigs that got hit by the Fell Drain fireball? They're now the other wight meat.

The text is so vague that if I get enervated to death by an elf wizard, I'm allowed to rise as an elf the next night. Want a permanent race change? Get negative leveled to death by a creature of the race you want to be.

[Samael Morgenst]

So. I think the core issue that came up a couple times: Is this guy even Evil? He's certainly immoral. But he's not self-centered enough to let a bunch of orphans die, choosing instead to fight to defend them, with the known potential of death. And in fact, despite not being his normal disposition, nor a situation that he'd presumably actively put himself into, or seek out (again, presumably), these are not the actions that someone who has truly earned the Evil alignment would do.

Well, the person I described would MABYE not be considered evil by normal , real world standards, just vice ridden. But according to a strict interpretation of d&d 3.5 rules, yes, he's evil aligned. Not Vile evil, but still below the morality bar.

[Rynjin]

I tentatively agree that Olidammara is capable of expunging Evil from your soul, since he is not himself Evil. (Some will insist that to really get rid of Evil, you need the power of Good, just as you cannot rid yourself of Chaos except with the power of Law.)


But although Olidammara is not Good, he is no fool either. Also, he is not particularly generous (unless he's in that kind of mood), and he is not overly interested in making Evil people non-Evil (or Good people non-Good). Besides, Olidammara has a reputation to maintain as a semi-honorable scoundrel. If he did too many favors for Chaotic-Evil mercenaries – and then they went on to betray him later – then he would start to look both biased and foolish, which would undermine the success of his future trickery – and he is canny enough to be well aware of this pitfall. Olidammara has to balance out his favors for Evil supplicants with some favors for Good supplicants in order to keep his scams going, and he may regard this as too much of a headache. Instead of involving himself in too many Atonements one way or the other*, I think Olidammara prefers just to get drunk** and have fun.

Olidammara's clerics, for their part, will probably just let some Divination spell decide what Olidammara's will is. The trickster god's will may well change from day to day (or even from hour to hour), but he probably won't appreciate being asked repeatedly for the same favor by the same person over and over again, because, you know, he's got parties to attend.

___________________
*By "one way or the other," I mean with respect to Good or Evil. If some Lawful person came to Olidammara begging him to make them Chaotic, he would be very interested.

**I agree with people who say that drinking alcohol – in moderation, sure! – is not Evil by itself, though it would be harder to argue that it was compatible with Lawfulness (unless you raise the moderation up to eleven). As evidence for this, I offer you the dwarven god Hanseath, god of "carousing and barbarians," who is Chaotic-Neutral, not Evil.

You basically just need to convince Olidammara it'd be funny and he'll do pretty much anything for you though, on the flipside.

[Crake]

But according to a strict interpretation of d&d 3.5 rules, yes, he's evil aligned. Not Vile evil, but still below the morality bar.

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

That's what the dnd 3.5 rules have to say about evil.

Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

And that's what it has to say about chaos.

The character you described is reckless, does what he feels like, is irresponsible with regards to his vices, but does not hurt, oppress, or kill others, nor does he debase or destroy innocent life in any manner.

"According to a strict interpretation of d&d 3.5 rules", he is chaotic, but not evil.

Again, don't conflate the fact that there is a drugs section in the BoVD with the notion that drugs themselves are evil. There are drugs listed in there that definitely have evil origins, but the BoVD never explicitly calls drugs as a whole evil.

Hell, drug's aren't even chaotic, they are simply a tool, and as with all tools, it depends on how you use them. Having some alcohol after a long day's work to calm down and relax - neutral. Getting stonefaced drunk, coming home and beating your wife - evil. Smoking the devilweed when it's outlawed in your region because screw the police - chaotic. I can't really think of any good uses of drugs, bar maybe using it to ease the suffering of someone in chronic pain maybe.

The only circumstances I can think of where giving in to your vices would be evil is if a) you act violently toward innocent people when intoxicated, but not while sober (if you act violently toward people while sober, then the drugs aren't affecting the status quo after all, so the drug use itself doesn't really carry any moral weight to it), or b) your spiralling addiction is ruining the lives of those around you, not just your own, and thus comes under the "hurting other people" clause of evil.

[hamishspence]

He "brawls" which could easily involve picking fights with innocent people when drunk and hurting them, even if he doesn't kill them.

[wilphe]

Just a thought, but hitting the character with a negative level is actually punishing him for doing a good deed and discouraging him from being a better person.

Indeed.

I would not have him suffer a negative level for using it. In fact the opposite, I would have him feel that Doing Good Feels Good, for the duration of the combat.

Now if he wants to keep using it afterwards, well let us tell you the Good News About Our Lord and Saviour Pelor

Please read this pamphlet on "Atonement and You"

[Kish]

By the SRD's alignment descriptions, this guy is clearly not Evil. As already quoted:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Not one word of that fits him. So by core he's clearly Neutral at worst. Non-core sources, particularly dark and vile ones, which say stupid stuff can bite me.

(If Samael wants to rephrase "gets into drunken brawls" into something involving sadistic brutality, that might change, but they seem to have been pretty focused on "substance abuser and thus evil.")

[Samael Morgenst]

He "brawls" which could easily involve picking fights with innocent people when drunk and hurting them, even if he doesn't kill them.

Only robust men, he never hit a woman (well, a civilian woman - amazonian fighters and barbarian female halforcs are a lecit exception) or an elder, or a youngling. And he don't kick unconscious foes when they're down.

But yes, getting drunk according to that Dragon Magazine issue about Temptation Point is still considered a minor evil act, as it is brawling, and when they become radicated habits they slowly lead to the (weakly) Evil alignment.

Not enough to *ping* a detect evil spell mabye, for sure no Evil aura, but the alignment is still that.

(If Samael wants to rephrase "gets into drunken brawls" into something involving sadistic brutality, that might change, but they seem to have been pretty focused on "substance abuser and thus evil.")

Well, Evil do not means necessarily to be sadistical, murderous monsters. I guess that most often it involves a moral weakness, a degree of selfishness and self indulgence that lead to harmful behavior. At least I read the game that way. I can be excessive.

[icefractal]

Whether the character as described in the OP was evil, the question is still valid - there are plenty of undeniably evil characters who would still choose to protect the other people in this situation.

To me, it would depend on if he successfully got the attention of a deity. The sword itself, assuming we're talking about a normal non-intelligent weapon, can't really choose whether to have that effect or not. It's like if a group of fire elementals had a sword that was made of solid fire, so that anyone touching it took fire damage. One day, they're under attack from water elementals and a friendly conjurer who's summoned them before shows up to help their defense. Even if he's working on behalf of fire-aligned creatures, he'd still get burnt by handling the sword.

But if he did get a deity's attention? Then sure, seems likely he'd get at least a temporary reprieve from the negative effects of the sword. If the deity was of the harsher ethos, he might only have the penalties delayed rather than removed, so after the threat is defeated (if it is), he suffers the negative levels for an equal amount of time as he held the sword.

Of course this also depends on the setting - if a good-aligned deity becomes aware of the situation, then why not just smite the undead into dust? Or open a portal for the people in the church to flee? Most settings have some kind of "deity non-intervention agreement", so it depends on how strict that is.

[Samael Morgenst]

To me, it would depend on if he successfully got the attention of a deity. The sword itself, assuming we're talking about a normal non-intelligent weapon, can't really choose whether to have that effect or not. It's like if a group of fire elementals had a sword that was made of solid fire, so that anyone touching it took fire damage. One day, they're under attack from water elementals and a friendly conjurer who's summoned them before shows up to help their defense. Even if he's working on behalf of fire-aligned creatures, he'd still get burnt by handling the sword.

But Good is all about that thing of redemption, atonement, repentance, penance and stuff.

[Kish]

Only robust men, he never hit a woman (well, a civilian woman - amazonian fighters and barbarian female halforcs are a lecit exception) or an elder, or a youngling. And he don't kick unconscious foes when they're down.

But yes, getting drunk according to that Dragon Magazine issue about Temptation Point is still considered a minor evil act, as it is brawling, and when they become radicated habits they slowly lead to the (weakly) Evil alignment.

Not enough to *ping* a detect evil spell mabye, for sure no Evil aura, but the alignment is still that.



Well, Evil do not means necessarily to be sadistical, murderous monsters.

Dude, two of us cited what evil does mean in D&D. Now you're bringing in Dragon Magazine to contradict the SRD? The answer to your question remains: inapplicable because he's not evil.

(And in D&D 3.5ed, if he has no evil aura, and if he doesn't ping a detect evil spell, that also means he's not evil. Neutral is a thing, you know.)

And...does the specific character matter, or only the abstract question "what if an evil character grabs a holy weapon to use heroically?"

[Darg]

But Good is all about that thing of redemption, atonement, repentance, penance and stuff.

I mean yeah, if the character is actually repentant then they would no longer be evil. Doing good acts does not equate to being good. An evil tyrannical overlord funding orphanages out of their own pocket doesn't outweigh the evil they do. Think of it like robber barons. The soup kitchens they fund doesn't make up for the fact that they didn't pay their workers living wages in the first place making the soup kitchens necessary.

[Eurus]

I realize "DM's call" is the most useless answer here, but I can't really see a better one if I take OP's word for the character's original alignment and the morality of his orphanage-defending action.

Unless you're using Behavioral Alignment rules (which I do think are interesting), there's no contradiction with an Evil character taking a Good action, and there's also no contradiction in an Evil character becoming Good as the result of taking a Good action. Alignment doesn't flip instantly every time you take an action, and although it's almost certainly true that some actions are more Good or Evil than others, it's not an easily quantified thing. A DM could reasonably rule that the character's decision is so heavily Good that it flips his alignment on the spot, but they could just as easily decide that it doesn't.

Prayer adds an interesting curveball. This is almost certainly setting-dependent, but the Portfolio Sense ability means that it's entirely possible that the god in question does become aware of what's going on. What the god is then able to do about it is also setting-dependent, though. Most settings don't let gods go around breaking the rules willy-nilly, and as far as I know, there's no RAW ability for a god to instantly change the alignment of a mortal outside of the same atonement spell available to anyone.

Personally, I'd give him the negative levels for a bit, then dramatically remove them if he survives a few rounds.

[Crake]

according to that Dragon Magazine issue

You’re aware that Dragon magazine is NOT first party material right?

[spectralphoenix]

I feel like there are really three independent questions being discussed here:

1) What is the character's alignment normally?

2) What is the character's alignment now?

3) What do the gods do about this?

I don't really agree with the OP's picture of alignment, but if you want to say he's evil in your game, so he is. I would point out that being evil for Detect Evil has the same requirements as being evil for a holy sword - if he's not evil enough to 'ping' a detect evil spell he shouldn't be penalized by the sword.

For two, I think the answer is that alignment is a state of being. It's not a sum total of good and evil deeds and you don't have to ask a god for permission to change alignments. In an actual game the DM might want to see some evidence of alignment change so the character can't just be good until he can sell the sword and buy a snazzy evil one, but as far as the narrative goes he can have a sudden epiphany and change, just like that. The catch is that he has to change. If in your universe "fights hordes of demons then drinks beer at the local tavern" works out to an evil alignment, then he's evil whether he's in the fighting demons or the drinking stage.

What the gods should or can do is totally a question of setting and DM. In Eberron, the gods aren't even provably real. In Forgotten Realms, they go around at night throwing rocks through atheists' windows.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

In Forgotten Realms, they go around at night throwing rocks through atheists' windows.

And then Old Man Henderson told them to get off his lawn, and if they didn't, he'd give them a shotgun slug enema. Bhaal laughed at him. Then he found out why you don't laugh at Old Man Henderson.

He ain't laughin' no more.

[Samael Morgenst]

You’re aware that Dragon magazine is NOT first party material right?

Isn't considered canon? It's the official d&d magazine. It's content appears in many canon supplements.

[Crake]

Isn't considered canon? It's the official d&d magazine. It's content appears in many canon supplements.

“Canon” is for narratives. It may be the officially recognised d&d magazine, but it was neither written, published, nor edited by wizard of the coast.

The material that was adapted for 1st party supplements went through editing and review by wotc before publishing, but no, dragon magazine is not “canon”

[Chronos]

Certainly, anywhere where Dragon Magazine contradicts the PHB, the PHB takes precedence. Or at most, what's in the magazine constitutes an alternate variant rule.

And besides, even if one does construe drunkenness as evil, neutral characters can commit evil acts. Even good characters can commit evil acts. The guy described in the OP sounds to me like a textbook example of Chaotic Neutral.

[OracleofWuffing]

Setting aside what D&D defines as evil (or [Evil]), the bottom line is that if the player wrote "Chaotic Evil," "Neutral Evil," or "Lawful Evil" on their character sheet, then the character's evil. Even if they haven't recently committed any evil acts. As long as that alignment stays like that, the character's getting negative levels. The praying could be an opportunity for the DM and player to consider a change in alignment.

If it was my personal call as a DM, any chance of an alignment change flew out the window the second you said "temporarily." Dude knew what he was getting into when he wrote "Chaotic Evil" on his character sheet, and gods want commitment. If I wanted the mercenary to have a cool sword without a negative level, I would have selected a different enchantment.

Is the good sword punishing the character for trying to be good? Yeah, no one said D&D alignment is smart and this isn't an intelligent item. The character is using a tool that is explicitly designed not to be used by him. The alternative "lesson" to be taught- that your choices don't matter because we'll just do whatever's easiest for the narrative- seems more dangerous to me, but could fly at a few other tables pretty well if discussed in advance.

To reframe the question in a different light, if a party was trying to intercept a Lawful Good soldier from interfering in some evil cult ritual to doom the world, and they sundered all of the soldier's weaponry... How would you feel if the soldier happened upon an Evil sword, prayed to an evil god, and used it to prematurely slaughter the virgins that needed to be sacrificed to complete said ritual?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The character could have a talk with the local priest, tell him (or her) that he knows he's not a good person, and to ask for a blessing of some sort that would allow him to wield the sword and save HaplessOrphanBurg. Perhaps the priest could commune with its deity and hit him with a Protection From Evil, inverted. Perhaps give him some penalties to other things he cares about outside of a fight, but for the upcoming battle, he'll be able to save all the hapless orphans that live there. In exchange, he must agree to do something for the priest's deity, enforced with a binding geas. It must be agreed to up front, and it can't be something particularly onerous, else he might just decide to skive off instead of saving the hapless orphans. If the deity is clever, it'll be something that teaches the "evil" character that doing good feels good and can have good consequences.

After all, if the god's faithful live there, said god should want its future sacrifices followers to survive, and the person trying to help is trying to help, and good deeds should be rewarded with good things on occasion, especially for someone who normally wouldn't do such things. And redeeming evil is at least as important as smiting it. Of course, it depends on the deity in question, so perhaps a kinder, gentler deity more focused on redemption rather than slaughter?

[Chronos]

Quoth OracleofWuffing:

Setting aside what D&D defines as evil (or [Evil]), the bottom line is that if the player wrote "Chaotic Evil," "Neutral Evil," or "Lawful Evil" on their character sheet, then the character's evil. Even if they haven't recently committed any evil acts.

If they consistently never commit any major evil acts, then it's time for the DM to take the player aside and tell them "Despite what you wrote on your character sheet, based on how you're actually playing the character, they're actually neutral.". Probably before the orphanage or the sword even shows up.