And just showing up on a paladin radar as "evil" is reason enough to attack? Kagain doesn't do anything evil. He runs a lawful business. People in Beregost apparently hire him and have nothing against him offering his services there. He's not bothering anyone. The banter lines aren't aggressive. They are laid back. Kagain doesn't even react to insults in kind; he replies with "yeah whatever, shut up". His "evil" nature exists only on paper/know alignment. No-one would guess from his personality or behavior; he comes across as lawful, maybe true, neutral.
So, it is prejudice to attack based on nothing but "shows up when casting Detect Evil". Viconia does, too, but if you get to know her, she's not that evil anymore (and can be redeemed to prove the point). Unless someone actually does something evil, the paladin can't know if that person is on a way to redemption or simply not a problem for anyone even if they are "evil", like Kagain.
I'm sorry. Where does Ajantis blind attack Kagain? I must have missed that part.
@the_spyder Ajantis is scripted to attack any evil NPC except Baeloth (as far as I know). So he also attacks Viconia, who is proven to be redeemable later, Kagain and everyone else based only on them being "evil".
The comic book justification; whenever heroes from different series meet, they have to throw down at some point. It's the law.
Except rarely do they Kill each other.
That's true; at least I can't think of any time a superhero has killed another superhero unless it's some alternate reality or they're being controlled. But they never stay dead anyway.
I have a hard time dealing with a world where evil is actually a thing. I tried to reason once that Detect Evil worked by sensing guilt, but that wouldn't work since psycho and sociopaths really don't feel much guilt. You'd end up killing lots of good people who just feel guilty because they had a bad day and snapped at someone or borrowed something and forgot to bring it back.
I can't really think of any way to justify killing someone who isn't attacking or posing a threat.
the_spyder basicaly points out the nonsense what set alingment value is.
Every time I did a DM alignment was always a floating value, depending on player actions. The best CRPG that underlined was Planescape:Torment. You had to actualy do something meanigful here to become good or evil
@Coutelier Being evil requires you to perform evil actions, such as theft, murder, rape etc. Guilt has nothing to do with that and is a separate concept - you can feel guilt even after perfoming actions that are not evil.
The paladin's radar basicaly recognizes, if the object commited enough evil acts to be deemed evil as whole. You need to do something to become evil. No one is born evil.
@KidCarnival - I generally don't play with Ajantis, so I didn't know he blind attacked anyone. Does he really do that? Will he blind attack Charname and party if Kagain or Viccy or Edwin are among them? If he does, then yes. I would say that he should not be Lawful Good.
Still, I don't see this as prejudice, nor does it break what I've been saying. He isn't killing Kagain or Viconia because of their race. Nor is he doing it for no reason. He is killing them because they are evil. And yes even a little evil is still evil. Sure Viccy is redeemable, and sure, almost every play through that I do, I give her the benefit of the doubt, but she is still Evil to begin with.
But that doesn't change the fact that Ajantis is attacking ACTUAL evil beings, not Beings who are merely associated with EVIL by no other virtue than being the same race, but who might not actually BE evil themselves. He has basis, albeit a really incredibly thin and tenuous one, by virtue of them ACTUALLY and FACTUALLY being Evil, not merely of the same race as other Evil beings. Therefore not prejudice.
If I were DM? Ajantis would fall the first time he raised his sword against someone not actually engaging in evil. I'm not the DM in BG, so I can't speak for the original writers intent on that one.
Blind guess though... I just remembered that in his backstory, he started off as a bit of a hippie and went all 'evil' after being dumped by a girl. He also eventually brought down his 'evil organisation', which had always been his objective for joining such a morally bankrupt bank.
@the_spyder I rarely take Ajantis for exactly this reason. He's impossible in mixed alignment parties. He refuses to be in a party with Dorn, so there's no fight, and I assume Baeloth was an oversight (or I never had them together for long enough to see it happen). Ajantis also uses his insult lines toward a evil charname. I don't know if he'll eventually attack.
I still think it is prejudice and an example of the flawed alignment system. As long as an evil creature doesn't do anything evil, it isn't justified to attack them. In the case of Kagain, I even argue that he has no intention to do any evil acts because he has found a perfectly acceptable outlet for what makes him evil. He turned his greed into a business, which ultimately benefits his customers and doesn't do any harm. His lawfulness and laziness plays into this; it is quite unlikely he'll resort to stealing or blackmail, simply because it's more convenient to run a business and do things by the book.
You could even say it is an evil act to kill Kagain because he is one of the few capable fighters in a village in the wilderness, surrounded by bandits, monsters and wild animals - and even a whole gnoll fortress nearby. Evil or not, I think if it came to an attack on Beregost, people like Kagain and Thalantyr would defend their home, if only because an attack would bother them personally. They aren't pleasant people, but they don't go out of their way to make life unpleasant for those around them.
I can't find any way to say Ajantis is justified to attack simply because the alignment says "evil". There are probably also evil commoners who dream of ruling the Sword Coast with an iron fist, but will never act on it because they lack the means to get into power. Would a paladin be justified in killing defenseless people who have "evil" aspirations that will never become a reality? Nope, it's not. Innocent until proven otherwise.
@KidCarnival - I'm not sure how you consider it prejudice if (a) there is a logical and factual reason behind the hatred directly associated with the person the anger is directed at, and (b) it isn't aimed at potentially non-evil types? Hating Evil Drow is fine. Hating non evil Drow because some of them are evil is not. It's as simple as that. Or to put it more specifically hating Evil Drow "BECAUSE they are Evil" and not because they are Drow, is perfectly legitimate.
If we agree that Ajantis isn't a normal character, it is useless to debate what he would or wouldn't do. I also agree that you can't justify attacking someone "walking around while being evil" without any actual evil actions to prompt it. He does (or apparently according to you). In my book, he would no longer be Lawful Good. So not much more reason to discuss.
Where I think there is more going on is in traveling with (or potentially working along side) Kagain. We (the player) see various relatively innocuous barbs that he throws out. But Charname and party actually bunk with him. They share meals with him every day. They see how he is at the end of combat, and even DURING combat. There could potentially be a LOT that goes on that any lawful good would find unacceptable that simply doesn't translate into the feedback the game gives. In that, I find it easy to justify people not liking Kagain or Edwin or Viconia or the rest after traveling with them for a while. KOS? No. but yeah, coming to blows and not having any issues with alignment.
But we are free to disagree on these points. I respect your point of view. I just hold a different one.
The comic book justification; whenever heroes from different series meet, they have to throw down at some point. It's the law.
Except rarely do they Kill each other.
Also, remember. Just because you are not smart enough or wise enough to know what you are doing is evil, doesn't mean it is any less evil. It just makes you an evil fool.
I disagree: intention (or lack thereof) and state of mind make a big difference. That's why criminal law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter, and why mental disorders, addictions etc. make for lower sentences. Because it's less evil to kill someone when provoked by the victim's malicious behavior, or to kill someone when one isn't in control of oneself than to do so in cold blood.
To stay on topic and whether killing Drizzt is evil, I'd say it depends on what you know. Let's say you are role-playing a character that has no prior knowledge of Drizzt's reputation, and simply pre-judge him based on his being a drow. Well, that's not evil. Misguided, maybe, but not inherently evil. You were trying to help the world after all by ridding it of this very dangerous evil-doer.
The game itself supports this view, as later, in SoA, you are given a chance to apologize and explain that you knew no better, and Drizzt will forgive you.
But let's say the real reason you kill Drizzt is because you simply want those badass scimitars. In that scenario, you have succumbed to the deadly sin of greed, and you are a truly evil bastard and I hope the alignment of your character reflects that.
The comic book justification; whenever heroes from different series meet, they have to throw down at some point. It's the law.
Except rarely do they Kill each other.
Also, remember. Just because you are not smart enough or wise enough to know what you are doing is evil, doesn't mean it is any less evil. It just makes you an evil fool.
I disagree: intention (or lack thereof) and state of mind make a big difference. That's why criminal law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter, and why mental disorders, addictions etc. make for lower sentences. Because it's less evil to kill someone when provoked by the victim's malicious behavior, or to kill someone when one isn't in control of oneself than to do so in cold blood.
You are arguing the difference between knowing the law and the CAPACITY to be able to know the law through mental disability. They are different.
someone with an IQ of 86 would be tried the same way as someone with an IQ of 130 provided that neither one was deemed incompetent through mental illness or other impairment.
To put it another way, any lawyer who uses the plea "He didn't know it was illegal to kill that guy." isn't going to win the case (unless he can prove mental incapacity).
@the_spyder: How is it not a pejudice to hate someone because they are evil, if they don't perform any evil acts? It's the same as hating someone for being something else you disagree with, but that doesn't do any harm - let's say, a communist. It's someone who has a different idea about politics and supports a different system, but what harm does that do if that person just lives a normal, average life? People disagree about politics a lot, yet still get along on a day to day basis. The guy in the next office may be a socialist and I'm not - if I say I hate him for being a socialist, it's because of prejudice, not because he did something that goes against my values.
Everything about what Kagain may or may not do unseen to the player doesn't matter. We have to work with what the game provides about the NPCs. Except for the new NPCs, everyone has roughly the same amount of lines and personality. Kagain's lines suggest a laid back seen-it-all-done-it-all veteran attitude, not even overly pronounced greed, and certainly not bloodlust. Ajantis, on the other hand, could possibly best be described as "overly eager". He's young, he's a squire/paladin, it's his first assignment - he may just take his orders a bit too far to prove himself to superiors. Ironically, one of them - Keldorn - has Kagain's (relatively) relaxed attitude and gets along with the more openly evil Korgan.
I personally think that in a world where there is objective Good and Evil, and Evil characters have (presumably) earned their 'evilness' through evil actions, and you can magically determine if somebody is good or evil, then a zealous Good character can slay an evil individual/creature without moral contradiction. An objectively evil individual is not the same as somebody whose political views you might vehemently oppose.
Both Liberty and Equality are 'Good' ideals, but they are fundamentally incompatible. It's not the same as somebody who selflessly protects the weak and hunts down villainy, and somebody who enjoys the misery and suffering of others and would commit horrid crimes if not prevented.
Basically I don't believe a Paladin needs to catch a villain 'in the act' in order to justify killing him on the spot.
@KidCarnival - It isn't prejudice because it isn't hatred "Without reason" which is the definition of Prejudice (see above). There is reason in the fact that the characters are EVIL. They may not act as evil as you might like (though if they aren't they aren't playing their alignment) but they are in fact EVIL. There IS reason to hate them. Therefore it isn't Prejudice, it's plain hatred.
If you want to get all politics on me, people have killed each other for thousands of years over politics. it's done all the time, even today. But understand that in Faerun, Good and Evil are more than simple political ideologies. They are tangible forces that drive a characters actions. If they don't act their alignment, it changes. If Kagain didn't act evil in some way or manner, his alignment would change. Therefore, since we don't actually see anything overtly Evil, we have to read in that it goes on behind the scenes.
And you are right. We can only go by what we are given by the game. I.e. we are given that Viconia has an Evil alignment, as does Kagain and Edwin and the rest. it says so on their character sheet, one of the inputs of the game to the player. This is feedback that we can't ignore. And it is intended to fill in the blanks that the normal character emotes and dialogues don't give. You can't ignore it.
As for Ajantis, you can't hold him up as an example of a Non-Lawful Good acting character if at least one of us doesn't agree that he should be lawful good. I think he shouldn't be. You think he isn't acting as such. In that we agree. Get past him actually being it and see that we agree his actions are NOT lawful good.
Back on topic, yes it is evil to attack and kill Drizzt for his equipment. there is no two ways around it. Even if someone is trying to come up with a 'Way to do it', that amounts to an excuse. You are doing it 'For his equipment'. That's greed. you are murdering someone who has done you no harm and has done a lot of good. that's evil. Done.
@the_spyder Ajantis is scripted to attack any evil NPC except Baeloth (as far as I know). So he also attacks Viconia, who is proven to be redeemable later, Kagain and everyone else based only on them being "evil".
He "attacks" Baeloth in the same way he "attacks" any NPC. He doesn't leave the party and you can just move him to stop him from doing it.
This is sort of a difference between D&D and BG (and the other games).
In D&D, if your paladin ran around killing people because they detected as evil, they'd fall. That's pointed out much better in third and three point five edition (the books on goodness and evilness, I think) then AD&D, mind, where it may not be a thing at all. Thousand of commoners are evil to the bone, but will never do an evil act in their lives, because they are too scared of the reach of the law to do so. Is that a good reason to be good? No, of course not, which is why they're still evil: they still have evil thoughts, evil desires, and evil reaches. They just never do anything. Without a deed, that person is just evil.
In BG1, though, clearly Ajantis can get around with murdering even Kaigan (who never really does anything evil) without falling. And in BG2, Keldorn murders Viconia specifically because she's drow (ironically, if he murdered her because she was a Priestess of Shar, he'd be fully in the right). Both deeds would probably be very shifty on the moral access in D&D, and could result in falling- but in BG series, it's fine. So... who knows?
It's evil through and through. Even if someone doesn't know he's a "good" guy, that doesn't make killing him excusable. Even with "good" intentions, people do "bad" things.
This is why I wish they were keeping the ability to pickpocket his scimitars during the next release. Sure its theft but stealing his weapons (after the fight with the gnolls) is a goal that I think Alora would aspire to do. Having to kill him is difficult to RP for a good character.
1. I summoned a bunch of gnolls to help in my fight alongside Drizzt 2. They went crazy and attacked Drizzt, since he was killing a bunch of their people 3. "Oops!" 4. I summon more monsters to fight the monsters already attacking Drizzt. 5. My new monsters, to my dismay, also decide to attack Drizzt until he dies. Just monsters being monsters I guess. 6. My character facepalms 7. Profit!
@Heindrich: You can't have both. Either someone "earns" their evilness by evil deeds, or entire races - i.e. drow - are "born evil". Drizzt and to a lesser degree Viconia show that the latter is not the case; they overcame the evil or never had it to begin with. (I'm not a Drizzt expert, I just remember that he was never really happy among drow and disliked their ways even as a child.)
1. I summoned a bunch of gnolls to help in my fight alongside Drizzt 2. They went crazy and attacked Drizzt, since he was killing a bunch of their people 3. "Oops!" 4. I summon more monsters to fight the monsters already attacking Drizzt. 5. My new monsters, to my dismay, also decide to attack Drizzt until he dies. Just monsters being monsters I guess. 6. My character facepalms 7. Profit!
This would be the 'woman who swallowed a fly' justification. Don't know why, but I summoned a fly. Then I summoned some spiders to catch the fly, and summoned some wolves to catch the spiders, and summoned some hobgoblins to catch the wolves... and Drizzt died.
@KidCarnival - It isn't prejudice because it isn't hatred "Without reason" which is the definition of Prejudice (see above). There is reason in the fact that the characters are EVIL. They may not act as evil as you might like (though if they aren't they aren't playing their alignment) but they are in fact EVIL. There IS reason to hate them. Therefore it isn't Prejudice, it's plain hatred.
So I can hate communists because they are communists without having any prejudice against communists...? Sorry, I'm not following here. Let's just call it a day. We won't agree on a definition of "hate with/without reason".
@KidCarnival - No. Hating someone for the actions of someone else is prejudice. Hating someone for their own actions is NOT prejudice. It's hate, but it isn't prejudice.
@KidCarnival - No. Hating someone for the actions of someone else is prejudice. Hating someone for their own actions is NOT prejudice. It's hate, but it isn't prejudice.
And Kagain does not do any own actions Ajantis could hate him for... He hates him for the actions of other evil people. That's what I keep saying.
Comments
I have a hard time dealing with a world where evil is actually a thing. I tried to reason once that Detect Evil worked by sensing guilt, but that wouldn't work since psycho and sociopaths really don't feel much guilt. You'd end up killing lots of good people who just feel guilty because they had a bad day and snapped at someone or borrowed something and forgot to bring it back.
I can't really think of any way to justify killing someone who isn't attacking or posing a threat.
Every time I did a DM alignment was always a floating value, depending on player actions. The best CRPG that underlined was Planescape:Torment. You had to actualy do something meanigful here to become good or evil
Being evil requires you to perform evil actions, such as theft, murder, rape etc. Guilt has nothing to do with that and is a separate concept - you can feel guilt even after perfoming actions that are not evil.
The paladin's radar basicaly recognizes, if the object commited enough evil acts to be deemed evil as whole. You need to do something to become evil. No one is born evil.
Still, I don't see this as prejudice, nor does it break what I've been saying. He isn't killing Kagain or Viconia because of their race. Nor is he doing it for no reason. He is killing them because they are evil. And yes even a little evil is still evil. Sure Viccy is redeemable, and sure, almost every play through that I do, I give her the benefit of the doubt, but she is still Evil to begin with.
But that doesn't change the fact that Ajantis is attacking ACTUAL evil beings, not Beings who are merely associated with EVIL by no other virtue than being the same race, but who might not actually BE evil themselves. He has basis, albeit a really incredibly thin and tenuous one, by virtue of them ACTUALLY and FACTUALLY being Evil, not merely of the same race as other Evil beings. Therefore not prejudice.
If I were DM? Ajantis would fall the first time he raised his sword against someone not actually engaging in evil. I'm not the DM in BG, so I can't speak for the original writers intent on that one. me neither.
My guess is Barney Stinson
Blind guess though... I just remembered that in his backstory, he started off as a bit of a hippie and went all 'evil' after being dumped by a girl. He also eventually brought down his 'evil organisation', which had always been his objective for joining such a morally bankrupt bank.
Edit: @the_spyder Ok. You've lost me again. But put the picture into spoiler :-P
I still think it is prejudice and an example of the flawed alignment system. As long as an evil creature doesn't do anything evil, it isn't justified to attack them. In the case of Kagain, I even argue that he has no intention to do any evil acts because he has found a perfectly acceptable outlet for what makes him evil. He turned his greed into a business, which ultimately benefits his customers and doesn't do any harm. His lawfulness and laziness plays into this; it is quite unlikely he'll resort to stealing or blackmail, simply because it's more convenient to run a business and do things by the book.
You could even say it is an evil act to kill Kagain because he is one of the few capable fighters in a village in the wilderness, surrounded by bandits, monsters and wild animals - and even a whole gnoll fortress nearby. Evil or not, I think if it came to an attack on Beregost, people like Kagain and Thalantyr would defend their home, if only because an attack would bother them personally. They aren't pleasant people, but they don't go out of their way to make life unpleasant for those around them.
I can't find any way to say Ajantis is justified to attack simply because the alignment says "evil". There are probably also evil commoners who dream of ruling the Sword Coast with an iron fist, but will never act on it because they lack the means to get into power. Would a paladin be justified in killing defenseless people who have "evil" aspirations that will never become a reality? Nope, it's not. Innocent until proven otherwise.
If we agree that Ajantis isn't a normal character, it is useless to debate what he would or wouldn't do. I also agree that you can't justify attacking someone "walking around while being evil" without any actual evil actions to prompt it. He does (or apparently according to you). In my book, he would no longer be Lawful Good. So not much more reason to discuss.
Where I think there is more going on is in traveling with (or potentially working along side) Kagain. We (the player) see various relatively innocuous barbs that he throws out. But Charname and party actually bunk with him. They share meals with him every day. They see how he is at the end of combat, and even DURING combat. There could potentially be a LOT that goes on that any lawful good would find unacceptable that simply doesn't translate into the feedback the game gives. In that, I find it easy to justify people not liking Kagain or Edwin or Viconia or the rest after traveling with them for a while. KOS? No. but yeah, coming to blows and not having any issues with alignment.
But we are free to disagree on these points. I respect your point of view. I just hold a different one.
To stay on topic and whether killing Drizzt is evil, I'd say it depends on what you know. Let's say you are role-playing a character that has no prior knowledge of Drizzt's reputation, and simply pre-judge him based on his being a drow. Well, that's not evil. Misguided, maybe, but not inherently evil. You were trying to help the world after all by ridding it of this very dangerous evil-doer.
The game itself supports this view, as later, in SoA, you are given a chance to apologize and explain that you knew no better, and Drizzt will forgive you.
But let's say the real reason you kill Drizzt is because you simply want those badass scimitars. In that scenario, you have succumbed to the deadly sin of greed, and you are a truly evil bastard and I hope the alignment of your character reflects that.
someone with an IQ of 86 would be tried the same way as someone with an IQ of 130 provided that neither one was deemed incompetent through mental illness or other impairment.
To put it another way, any lawyer who uses the plea "He didn't know it was illegal to kill that guy." isn't going to win the case (unless he can prove mental incapacity).
Everything about what Kagain may or may not do unseen to the player doesn't matter. We have to work with what the game provides about the NPCs. Except for the new NPCs, everyone has roughly the same amount of lines and personality. Kagain's lines suggest a laid back seen-it-all-done-it-all veteran attitude, not even overly pronounced greed, and certainly not bloodlust. Ajantis, on the other hand, could possibly best be described as "overly eager". He's young, he's a squire/paladin, it's his first assignment - he may just take his orders a bit too far to prove himself to superiors.
Ironically, one of them - Keldorn - has Kagain's (relatively) relaxed attitude and gets along with the more openly evil Korgan.
I personally think that in a world where there is objective Good and Evil, and Evil characters have (presumably) earned their 'evilness' through evil actions, and you can magically determine if somebody is good or evil, then a zealous Good character can slay an evil individual/creature without moral contradiction. An objectively evil individual is not the same as somebody whose political views you might vehemently oppose.
Both Liberty and Equality are 'Good' ideals, but they are fundamentally incompatible. It's not the same as somebody who selflessly protects the weak and hunts down villainy, and somebody who enjoys the misery and suffering of others and would commit horrid crimes if not prevented.
Basically I don't believe a Paladin needs to catch a villain 'in the act' in order to justify killing him on the spot.
If you want to get all politics on me, people have killed each other for thousands of years over politics. it's done all the time, even today. But understand that in Faerun, Good and Evil are more than simple political ideologies. They are tangible forces that drive a characters actions. If they don't act their alignment, it changes. If Kagain didn't act evil in some way or manner, his alignment would change. Therefore, since we don't actually see anything overtly Evil, we have to read in that it goes on behind the scenes.
And you are right. We can only go by what we are given by the game. I.e. we are given that Viconia has an Evil alignment, as does Kagain and Edwin and the rest. it says so on their character sheet, one of the inputs of the game to the player. This is feedback that we can't ignore. And it is intended to fill in the blanks that the normal character emotes and dialogues don't give. You can't ignore it.
As for Ajantis, you can't hold him up as an example of a Non-Lawful Good acting character if at least one of us doesn't agree that he should be lawful good. I think he shouldn't be. You think he isn't acting as such. In that we agree. Get past him actually being it and see that we agree his actions are NOT lawful good.
Back on topic, yes it is evil to attack and kill Drizzt for his equipment. there is no two ways around it. Even if someone is trying to come up with a 'Way to do it', that amounts to an excuse. You are doing it 'For his equipment'. That's greed. you are murdering someone who has done you no harm and has done a lot of good. that's evil. Done.
In D&D, if your paladin ran around killing people because they detected as evil, they'd fall. That's pointed out much better in third and three point five edition (the books on goodness and evilness, I think) then AD&D, mind, where it may not be a thing at all. Thousand of commoners are evil to the bone, but will never do an evil act in their lives, because they are too scared of the reach of the law to do so. Is that a good reason to be good? No, of course not, which is why they're still evil: they still have evil thoughts, evil desires, and evil reaches. They just never do anything. Without a deed, that person is just evil.
In BG1, though, clearly Ajantis can get around with murdering even Kaigan (who never really does anything evil) without falling. And in BG2, Keldorn murders Viconia specifically because she's drow (ironically, if he murdered her because she was a Priestess of Shar, he'd be fully in the right). Both deeds would probably be very shifty on the moral access in D&D, and could result in falling- but in BG series, it's fine. So... who knows?
2. They went crazy and attacked Drizzt, since he was killing a bunch of their people
3. "Oops!"
4. I summon more monsters to fight the monsters already attacking Drizzt.
5. My new monsters, to my dismay, also decide to attack Drizzt until he dies. Just monsters being monsters I guess.
6. My character facepalms
7. Profit!