Whether you agree or not, Drow in Faerun are virtually always evil or neutral leaning more towards evil than good.
It's the "Virtually" and the "Neutral" that many people have a problem with. And considering he is asking for your help AND he doesn't attack you until you attack him, I'd say that anyone "Playing Lawful good" and role playing it would think twice before initiating combat with someone under such a circumstance.
I have played a lot of PNP D&D. Certain creatures are just assumed to be evil. I never stopped to detect evil on an ogre or a red dragon before I attacked them. Maybe one of the ogre's I was lucky enough to sneak up on and kill before he new I was there was the fun loving Shrek. I'll never know. In the D&D world drow are evil. From that stand point killing a drow on sight would be perfectly normal for a Paladin. Hating somone for their race is perfectly normal and expected in D&D.
I have played a lot of PNP D&D. Certain creatures are just assumed to be evil. I never stopped to detect evil on an ogre or a red dragon before I attacked them. Maybe one of the ogre's I was lucky enough to sneak up on and kill before he new I was there was the fun loving Shrek. I'll never know. In the D&D world drow are evil. From that stand point killing a drow on sight would be perfectly normal for a Paladin. Hating somone for their race is perfectly normal and expected in D&D.
I believe there is a certain truth to the general idea you are espousing.
I think this is an unusual circumstance, however.
When you meet him, Drizzt is not hostile to you. Not only that, but he is *asking for help.* I think if I was RPing a LG Cavalier and ran across that situation--even if the character in question was an ogre / red dragon / what-have-you--I'd have to stop and consider.
Add to this the fact that the Cavalier has an innate Detect Evil ability, given to them by their god presumably to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.
But instead, you craft a big lure to get Drizzt on an island while you drill him from afar with arrows? (Or whatever else cheesebucket tactics people use for this--sheesh!)
Let's get real: you, the player, want your charname to have Drizzt's gear. Any "roleplay" considerations are secondary to this desire.
Actually, my Paladins (PNP) have often given even Ogres and Red Dragons a chance. Of course dealing with someone/something likely to be evil and dangerous requires caution and wisdom. But adventurers, including especially Paladins, are in the business of doing dangerous things to make the world a safer and better place. I see that as a key part of Lawful-Good. Especially because in such a magical world strange exceptions to rules and behaviors DO happen. Even in the BG series we have an Avarial Mage/Cleric disguised as an Ogre when you first meet her; and a color type Dragon during your trials in the Abyss that is SUPPOSED to be spared if you are going to pass the test as a good guy!
Aerie, when you first meet her "Looks like an ogre" and acts in a menacing manner. For everyone that says it is AOK to KOS Drizzt, must by default kill Aerie.
Point is, if you attack and kill on sight based on nothing more than appearance, that is not a very good attitude.
What I don't think people get is, it may be OK to Hate drow, or Ogres or whatever. But there is a LONG distance between that (even distrusting these monsters) and killing them when they are not a threat to anyone and asking for help.
The way I play a Paladin, I am not going to kill anyone unless they give me reason to. And that reason is more than simply that they 'Look evil'.
Actually, I started combat with him and my group scored a few crits and he took 1/2 them out before getting blasted with lightning bolts, but whatever.
I like how everyone picked out certain key words of my post, completely ignoring the actual asked for the most part. I never claimed to have an RP reason for killing him. I simply said the argument could be made and there is nothing wrong with it. I stated most of my experience in PnP was with 3.5. If you want to pull out your PhB, you can see "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation," under the Lawful Good description around page 103.
1: Grinding mindlessly through the game AFTER completing it once. Doesn't kill the story in anyway. I've already said I'm doing it out of OCD without cheating. How many times can you RP the same character the same way in the same situations with the same scripted response before wanting to put your head through the wall?
2: Remember that whole protecting innocent without hesitation? Taking the time to investigate is the very definition of hesitation. Paladins are supposed to be very Black and White. Taking the time to find out if the Drow on the surface is up to no good or not when 999,999 out of 1,000,000 he is evil would be falling in the gray area that Paladins stay out of. Self sacrifice ring a bell? Sometimes they're wrong and have to atone for it. I guess I will stop my evil half brother from starting a war and killing countless people to make amends.
3: Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here, I started a response on my phone and it died. I played through BG 2 once, in a 1 week period while on a school break at my Uncle's house. Over ten years ago. While I'm high school, on the Wrestling team, Academic Decathlon, active member of Chess Club, and maintaining honor roll grades. [Sarcasm]So sorry for forgetting storyline of the game. Clearly I had my priorities wrong. [/sarcasm]
4: This has gotten so far off topic it's laughable. The very manner of most of the responses speaks a lot about the community of this thread. Next time I have a question I will just google it and not bother trying to talk to people.
In other words, you come to a community to express your opinions about a certain style of play, and then gets offended when people voice their own dissenting opinions.
And then you dismiss everyone as nerds who got their priorities wrong as only an active member of the wrestling team, academic decathlon and chess club with honor roll grades could do.
I think you're completely off base on what a Paladin is and does. Even overlooking the fact you're quoting the wrong Players' Handbook, you're ignoring key words to make your point, like "protect the innocent". Nowhere in that description does it allow for wanton slaughter. The whole point to Paladins having a minimum wisdom requirement (13, that actually makes it more important to the Paladin than Strength or Constitution) and Detect Evil ability is so they can discern the right and wrong of such situations. Its like you're trying to justify a parody of a Crusader or Dudley-Do-Right or something. And yeah, I get that such cynicism of do-gooders is very popular; but its also ignorant and offensively prejudicial.
And in spite of all of that, in the end its completely your decision how you want to play the game. None of us can tell you what you can or can't do; its all between you and your save game files. I even understand trying to do different things like that on repeat play throughs. But if you try to justify evil behavior for role playing reasons you will get a reaction. Especially when you are trying too twist evil into good. The game will let you play any alignment, there is no need to make such convoluted rationalizations.
Except I never once asked for anybody's opinion, just a simple question about the mechanics of the game. Instead I received responses that came off more as attacks than opinions, which are the ones I directed that at. You know, those off topic replies that equate to nothing more than inflammatory spam.
And I wasn't quoting the wrong book. I knew I was quoting 3.5 and I expressly stated my experience is primarily with 3.5. That is the point of view I am coming from. (Which would be really annoying if that was the comment my phone died on when writing.)
I didn't generalize and dismiss anyone as nerds. My annoyance carried over from on response to another, and for that I do apologize. It would have been better if I had said I had a lot of stuff going on at the time that prevented me from focussing on the story as much as I would have preferred.
Except I never once asked for anybody's opinion, just a simple question about the mechanics of the game.
Well I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding. It looked more like a rationalization to me, but I may have misinterpreted your intent.
But even in your previous comment you were saying things that look way off base for Lawful-Good behavior. If there is an actual question in that I'm missing it.
I see Lawful Good paladins as being black and white, including punishing wrongful acts done out of good. The gray area actions belong to the Neutral Good characters. The wrongful acts done out of good are for the Chaotic Good.
I saw Batman listed as a Lawful Good example. The darker Batman comics, which I am more familiar with, portray him as someone who will beat the shit out of you before giving you the chance to explain, and still leave you to face authorities.
I think you're completely off base on what a Paladin is and does.
And yeah, I get that such cynicism of do-gooders is very popular; but its also ignorant and offensively prejudicial.
I consider myself to be a do-gooder in real life, so I don't believe I am being cyncial. But, I do disagree with how to role play Lawful Good. The key point being the Lawful part. So, I tend to play them as being more rigid and following the letter of the law. I tend to play Neutral Good and Chaotic Good characters as more flexible and understanding.
I don't think you should play Cavaliers or Paladins as idiots, but if you play them like Batman or Robin Hood, then you are doing it wrong.
And Drow are so generally considered evil that just having Viconia in your party drops your reputation by 2 points. Ajantis, a Paladin, treats her worse than just about any other evil character.
Obvioiusly, whether you are role playing in a video game or pnp, typically evil creatures who are not actually evil tend to be presented to you in an obvious manner. Killing them, even though you know that you should not and then pretend that you are "role playing", is dumb.
I see Lawful Good paladins as being black and white, including punishing wrongful acts done out of good. The gray area actions belong to the Neutral Good characters. The wrongful acts done out of good are for the Chaotic Good.
I saw Batman listed as a Lawful Good example. The darker Batman comics, which I am more familiar with, portray him as someone who will beat the shit out of you before giving you the chance to explain, and still leave you to face authorities.
I don't think Batman is a very good example of Lawful-Good. He's a vigilante who puts himself above the law, I would say more Neutral-Good (maybe, like the comment above, the 1960s television version was Lawful-Good).
Superman might be a better Lawful-Good example.
But I really prefer the fantasy/mythic prototypes for a fantasy setting. Really obvious Lawful-Goods would be like King Arthur or Galahad (from classic sources like Le Morte d' Arthur; or a modern re-invention like Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle), maybe Aragorn or Samwise, or possibly Theseus or Greater Aias from Greek Mythology.
But I think the bottom line on selecting a prototype is to keep the ideal the focus; NOT the actions of a flawed human. I think the real standards for both Lawful and Neutral Good are pretty idealized; human characters will occasionally fail to live up to idealized standards. But that doesn't ever mean the behavior is justified, it means the character has shortcomings. How much atonement is needed should vary with the severity of the failing. A Paladin who tells a white lie (like telling his wife she's as beautiful as the day they met...) may only have to refrain from eating his favorite Nachos for a week. While killing a Half-Orc who only wanted to know where the nearest good inn was located may result in "Fallen" status and require an epic quest to make up for it.
I like how everyone picked out certain key words of my post, completely ignoring the actual asked for the most part. I never claimed to have an RP reason for killing him. I simply said the argument could be made and there is nothing wrong with it. I stated most of my experience in PnP was with 3.5. If you want to pull out your PhB, you can see "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation," under the Lawful Good description around page 103.
Except Drizzt ISN'T EVIL. Assuming someone is Evil, doesn't make it so.
If he isn't evil and he isn't performing evil, then by killing him to "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation" is evil in itself. In short, you just killed an innocent. YOU are the evil.
The whole thing about Lawful Good is that you can't simply assume and let the Gods sort things out. As stated before "Kill em all and let God sort it out" is pretty much the definition of evil. Even if you can resurrect someone, it doesn't change the fact that you KILLED him. And once he is dead, how are you going to find out differently? You are in essence turning a blind eye and giving in to your prejudices, which is wholly evil.
The Batman example is not great, because his ethics and values change completely based on whichever writer is crafting his stories at the time and how that writer wants to do his own take on this ever-changing icon.
Even a Superman example would probably fail for the same reason. Writers mold these characters into their own vision, and obscure things such as DnD alignment would be the last thing on their minds.
In reference to the thread hijack: You opened that up yourself when you commented that you were playing through "for the story." Story legitimately touches on the sphere of RP considerations, for which alignment is certainly a factor.
Sorry if you are feeling picked on, but to just speak for myself, I saw some associations you had made about RPing a Cavalier that seemed way off to my view, and I have expressed how I feel my view squares more with the game's design for that style of character. You can certainly disagree with my view, but I have yet to see any supporting arguments for your version that are persuasive.
But as everyone has been very clear about, you are certainly entitled to play the game however you please. If you disagree with our opinions, please feel free to ignore them. In the end it's just a game after all.
I like how everyone picked out certain key words of my post, completely ignoring the actual asked for the most part. I never claimed to have an RP reason for killing him. I simply said the argument could be made and there is nothing wrong with it. I stated most of my experience in PnP was with 3.5. If you want to pull out your PhB, you can see "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation," under the Lawful Good description around page 103.
Except Drizzt ISN'T EVIL. Assuming someone is Evil, doesn't make it so.
and a Paladin would *easily* be able to detect that Drizzt is *not* evil, they have bucketloads of innate Detect Evil spells, so he/she could hardly "mistake" Drizzt for being evil...
If he isn't evil and he isn't performing evil, then by killing him to "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation" is evil in itself. In short, you just killed an innocent. YOU are the evil.
The whole thing about Lawful Good is that you can't simply assume and let the Gods sort things out. As stated before "Kill em all and let God sort it out" is pretty much the definition of evil. Even if you can resurrect someone, it doesn't change the fact that you KILLED him. And once he is dead, how are you going to find out differently? You are in essence turning a blind eye and giving in to your prejudices, which is wholly evil.
Unless of course the law in your country was that all drow were to be killed or detained on sight. Then it would be your duty to follow the law.
And just because a group isn't attacking you or performing evil doesn't mean they are not evil. Bandit's, gnolls, maybe even drow who are evil might not attack a fully decked out paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends. That doesn't mean they wouldn't attack more vulnerable prey. So, your paladin runs across a group of gnolls and they don't attack you, you are just going to let them live?
And you can't just use the detect evil as your easy moral out. Different races or factions within a race could be enemies without them being evil. You detect evil on the drow and it turns out he is not. You help him kill the gnolls and you are on your way. However, the neutral drow happens to be an advance scout for a raiding party that attacks Beregost the following evening.
I think you're completely off base on what a Paladin is and does.
And yeah, I get that such cynicism of do-gooders is very popular; but its also ignorant and offensively prejudicial.
I consider myself to be a do-gooder in real life, so I don't believe I am being cyncial. But, I do disagree with how to role play Lawful Good. The key point being the Lawful part. So, I tend to play them as being more rigid and following the letter of the law. I tend to play Neutral Good and Chaotic Good characters as more flexible and understanding.
I don't think you should play Cavaliers or Paladins as idiots, but if you play them like Batman or Robin Hood, then you are doing it wrong.
And Drow are so generally considered evil that just having Viconia in your party drops your reputation by 2 points. Ajantis, a Paladin, treats her worse than just about any other evil character.
Obvioiusly, whether you are role playing in a video game or pnp, typically evil creatures who are not actually evil tend to be presented to you in an obvious manner. Killing them, even though you know that you should not and then pretend that you are "role playing", is dumb.
The problem with that is the 2E Player's Handbook is quite clear that "lawful" has nothing to do with "rigid". Lawful is about community and civilization; as opposed to chaos which is about individuality and liberty. So a lawful-good type is most concerned with the greater good and doing that which benefits the most people and is most fair to everyone. That can often require quite a bit of creativity to discern. And keep in mind the good/evil axis in AD&D is largely about one's view of the weak and defenseless. Good believes the weak are to be protected, evil believes they are to be exploited. So a lawful-Evil type would be fine with a strong Imperial sort of state that is built by an underclass of exploited slaves or serfs. If a lawful-good type lived in a monarchy they'd want to see those same disadvantaged sorts protected and provided for either by the state or through well organized charitable organizations. To continue that illustration further; a chaotic-good type would likely give generously to beggars, but not give the matter any thought once they'd moved on. While a chaotic-evil sort might steal the beggar's coins or run him through for the fun of it. The various neutral types balance those extremes.
If he isn't evil and he isn't performing evil, then by killing him to "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation" is evil in itself. In short, you just killed an innocent. YOU are the evil.
The whole thing about Lawful Good is that you can't simply assume and let the Gods sort things out. As stated before "Kill em all and let God sort it out" is pretty much the definition of evil. Even if you can resurrect someone, it doesn't change the fact that you KILLED him. And once he is dead, how are you going to find out differently? You are in essence turning a blind eye and giving in to your prejudices, which is wholly evil.
Unless of course the law in your country was that all drow were to be killed or detained on sight. Then it would be your duty to follow the law.
And just because a group isn't attacking you or performing evil doesn't mean they are not evil. Bandit's, gnolls, maybe even drow who are evil might not attack a fully decked out paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends. That doesn't mean they wouldn't attack more vulnerable prey. So, your paladin runs across a group of gnolls and they don't attack you, you are just going to let them live?
And you can't just use the detect evil as your easy moral out. Different races or factions within a race could be enemies without them being evil. You detect evil on the drow and it turns out he is not. You help him kill the gnolls and you are on your way. However, the neutral drow happens to be an advance scout for a raiding party that attacks Beregost the following evening.
THAT is definitely not true. The law may be evil. The Lawful-GOOD Paladin is serving a lawful-good god. The deity's standards of good and evil matter, not the state's. Unless the state is now granting magical clerical powers to its knights...
I'd also point out "Detect Evil" is never the solution to all of one's problems. It is only one source of information. Non-evil forces may be at war and choices may need to be made; and lesser of two evils issues do arise (as Winston Churchill once said about allying with the Soviets, "if Hitler attacked Hell I'd at least have to say a good word for the Devil").
This surprises me, too. It's been discussed a million times who can and can not kill Drizzt for RP reasons. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't care about the story or roleplay and simply wanted the best, most powerful gear. That's all there is to it.
These guys are more or less right, OP, a Paladin that "strikes without hesitation" but doesn't do so without some facts is doomed to lose his powers. Paladins are a rarity because the role requires a combination of discipline, devotion, and most importantly restraint that most men lack. Why restraint? Because of their nigh-instantaneous detect evil that would allow them to see that the local magistrate is actually Lawful Evil. They cannot simply strike this man down based on that alone, however, because he is a citizen in good-standing and the Paladin has no proof of any wrongdoing. The Paladin must root out evil, but that means exposing those roots to the people that they might learn from the example.
This surprises me, too. It's been discussed a million times who can and can not kill Drizzt for RP reasons. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't care about the story or roleplay and simply wanted the best, most powerful gear. That's all there is to it.
That was my feeling as well, but the OP seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.
This surprises me, too. It's been discussed a million times who can and can not kill Drizzt for RP reasons. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't care about the story or roleplay and simply wanted the best, most powerful gear. That's all there is to it.
And there's nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play and you enjoy the game, but it's not how many here (myself included) like to play the game.
Comments
But that is simply my opinion.
Hating somone for their race is perfectly normal and expected in D&D.
I think this is an unusual circumstance, however.
When you meet him, Drizzt is not hostile to you. Not only that, but he is *asking for help.* I think if I was RPing a LG Cavalier and ran across that situation--even if the character in question was an ogre / red dragon / what-have-you--I'd have to stop and consider.
Add to this the fact that the Cavalier has an innate Detect Evil ability, given to them by their god presumably to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.
But instead, you craft a big lure to get Drizzt on an island while you drill him from afar with arrows? (Or whatever else cheesebucket tactics people use for this--sheesh!)
Let's get real: you, the player, want your charname to have Drizzt's gear. Any "roleplay" considerations are secondary to this desire.
Call a spade a spade.
"OP is gibbed."
Really?!?!?!? 10x!?!?!? Just use Shadow Keeper.
/thread
Point is, if you attack and kill on sight based on nothing more than appearance, that is not a very good attitude.
What I don't think people get is, it may be OK to Hate drow, or Ogres or whatever. But there is a LONG distance between that (even distrusting these monsters) and killing them when they are not a threat to anyone and asking for help.
The way I play a Paladin, I am not going to kill anyone unless they give me reason to. And that reason is more than simply that they 'Look evil'.
Completely agree. The Aerie example drives the point home quite well.
Side note:
I like how everyone picked out certain key words of my post, completely ignoring the actual asked for the most part. I never claimed to have an RP reason for killing him. I simply said the argument could be made and there is nothing wrong with it. I stated most of my experience in PnP was with 3.5. If you want to pull out your PhB, you can see "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation," under the Lawful Good description around page 103.
1: Grinding mindlessly through the game AFTER completing it once. Doesn't kill the story in anyway. I've already said I'm doing it out of OCD without cheating. How many times can you RP the same character the same way in the same situations with the same scripted response before wanting to put your head through the wall?
2: Remember that whole protecting innocent without hesitation? Taking the time to investigate is the very definition of hesitation. Paladins are supposed to be very Black and White. Taking the time to find out if the Drow on the surface is up to no good or not when 999,999 out of 1,000,000 he is evil would be falling in the gray area that Paladins stay out of. Self sacrifice ring a bell? Sometimes they're wrong and have to atone for it. I guess I will stop my evil half brother from starting a war and killing countless people to make amends.
3: Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here, I started a response on my phone and it died. I played through BG 2 once, in a 1 week period while on a school break at my Uncle's house. Over ten years ago. While I'm high school, on the Wrestling team, Academic Decathlon, active member of Chess Club, and maintaining honor roll grades. [Sarcasm]So sorry for forgetting storyline of the game. Clearly I had my priorities wrong. [/sarcasm]
4: This has gotten so far off topic it's laughable. The very manner of most of the responses speaks a lot about the community of this thread. Next time I have a question I will just google it and not bother trying to talk to people.
And then you dismiss everyone as nerds who got their priorities wrong as only an active member of the wrestling team, academic decathlon and chess club with honor roll grades could do.
Classy stuff, sir. Good riddance.
And in spite of all of that, in the end its completely your decision how you want to play the game. None of us can tell you what you can or can't do; its all between you and your save game files. I even understand trying to do different things like that on repeat play throughs.
But if you try to justify evil behavior for role playing reasons you will get a reaction. Especially when you are trying too twist evil into good. The game will let you play any alignment, there is no need to make such convoluted rationalizations.
And I wasn't quoting the wrong book. I knew I was quoting 3.5 and I expressly stated my experience is primarily with 3.5. That is the point of view I am coming from. (Which would be really annoying if that was the comment my phone died on when writing.)
I didn't generalize and dismiss anyone as nerds. My annoyance carried over from on response to another, and for that I do apologize. It would have been better if I had said I had a lot of stuff going on at the time that prevented me from focussing on the story as much as I would have preferred.
But even in your previous comment you were saying things that look way off base for Lawful-Good behavior. If there is an actual question in that I'm missing it.
I saw Batman listed as a Lawful Good example. The darker Batman comics, which I am more familiar with, portray him as someone who will beat the shit out of you before giving you the chance to explain, and still leave you to face authorities.
Good.
Oh alignment threads, how I love thee.
how to role play Lawful Good. The key point being the Lawful part. So, I tend to play them as being more rigid and following the letter of the law. I tend to play Neutral Good and Chaotic Good characters as more flexible and understanding.
I don't think you should play Cavaliers or Paladins as idiots, but if you play them like Batman or Robin Hood, then you are doing it wrong.
And Drow are so generally considered evil that just having Viconia in your party drops your reputation by 2 points. Ajantis, a Paladin, treats her worse than just about any other evil character.
Obvioiusly, whether you are role playing in a video game or pnp, typically evil creatures who are not actually evil tend to be presented to you in an obvious manner. Killing them, even though you know that you should not and then pretend that you are "role playing", is dumb.
Superman might be a better Lawful-Good example.
But I really prefer the fantasy/mythic prototypes for a fantasy setting. Really obvious Lawful-Goods would be like King Arthur or Galahad (from classic sources like Le Morte d' Arthur; or a modern re-invention like Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle), maybe Aragorn or Samwise, or possibly Theseus or Greater Aias from Greek Mythology.
But I think the bottom line on selecting a prototype is to keep the ideal the focus; NOT the actions of a flawed human. I think the real standards for both Lawful and Neutral Good are pretty idealized; human characters will occasionally fail to live up to idealized standards. But that doesn't ever mean the behavior is justified, it means the character has shortcomings. How much atonement is needed should vary with the severity of the failing. A Paladin who tells a white lie (like telling his wife she's as beautiful as the day they met...) may only have to refrain from eating his favorite Nachos for a week. While killing a Half-Orc who only wanted to know where the nearest good inn was located may result in "Fallen" status and require an epic quest to make up for it.
If he isn't evil and he isn't performing evil, then by killing him to "fight evil mercilessly and protect the innocent without hesitation" is evil in itself. In short, you just killed an innocent. YOU are the evil.
The whole thing about Lawful Good is that you can't simply assume and let the Gods sort things out. As stated before "Kill em all and let God sort it out" is pretty much the definition of evil. Even if you can resurrect someone, it doesn't change the fact that you KILLED him. And once he is dead, how are you going to find out differently? You are in essence turning a blind eye and giving in to your prejudices, which is wholly evil.
Even a Superman example would probably fail for the same reason. Writers mold these characters into their own vision, and obscure things such as DnD alignment would be the last thing on their minds.
In reference to the thread hijack: You opened that up yourself when you commented that you were playing through "for the story." Story legitimately touches on the sphere of RP considerations, for which alignment is certainly a factor.
Sorry if you are feeling picked on, but to just speak for myself, I saw some associations you had made about RPing a Cavalier that seemed way off to my view, and I have expressed how I feel my view squares more with the game's design for that style of character. You can certainly disagree with my view, but I have yet to see any supporting arguments for your version that are persuasive.
But as everyone has been very clear about, you are certainly entitled to play the game however you please. If you disagree with our opinions, please feel free to ignore them. In the end it's just a game after all.
And just because a group isn't attacking you or performing evil doesn't mean they are not evil. Bandit's, gnolls, maybe even drow who are evil might not attack a fully decked out paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends. That doesn't mean they wouldn't attack more vulnerable prey. So, your paladin runs across a group of gnolls and they don't attack you, you are just going to let them live?
And you can't just use the detect evil as your easy moral out. Different races or factions within a race could be enemies without them being evil. You detect evil on the drow and it turns out he is not. You help him kill the gnolls and you are on your way. However, the neutral drow happens to be an advance scout for a raiding party that attacks Beregost the following evening.
So a lawful-Evil type would be fine with a strong Imperial sort of state that is built by an underclass of exploited slaves or serfs. If a lawful-good type lived in a monarchy they'd want to see those same disadvantaged sorts protected and provided for either by the state or through well organized charitable organizations. To continue that illustration further; a chaotic-good type would likely give generously to beggars, but not give the matter any thought once they'd moved on. While a chaotic-evil sort might steal the beggar's coins or run him through for the fun of it.
The various neutral types balance those extremes.
I'd also point out "Detect Evil" is never the solution to all of one's problems. It is only one source of information. Non-evil forces may be at war and choices may need to be made; and lesser of two evils issues do arise (as Winston Churchill once said about allying with the Soviets, "if Hitler attacked Hell I'd at least have to say a good word for the Devil").