Alignment

[Measure Zero]

In an absolute morality system, you should not be considered Evil if you do good deeds for bad reasons.  That's neutral at worst.  To have an Evil alignment and a powerful Evil aura, you should have to have done some nasty deeds.  Being Evil without doing Evil is not absolutism.

[kenada]

I’m not sure I see what your objection is. If someone does good deeds for bad reasons, then he doesn’t have an Evil alignment, and his aura does not register as Evil when detect evil is cast.

The severity of an action determines whether one needs to atone or if an alignment shift happened. Once you have an alignment, your aura reflects that alignment and its strength your hit dice.

I admit this is kind of clunky. It feels like an anachronism from AD&D (with its ludicrous treatment of alignments and cosmic balance), but I’m not really willing to mess with it due to the scope of the change. If I were, I’d have just replaced the D&D alignment system entirely.

[Measure Zero]

If the paladin detects that someone is strongly evil, then that person is evil and deserves punishment for whatever crimes he has committed.  It doesn't matter that the paladin doesn't know what those crimes are.

[BobChuck]

To have an Evil alignment and a powerful Evil aura, you should have to have done some nasty deeds.

Or be the subject of even a minor illusion spell - Detect Evil is only level 1, so another level 1 spell could trick it; the illusion would fall apart under intense scrutiny, but that's okay, since it's only level 1. The level 2 spell "Obscure Alignment" completely blocks any attempt to divine the targets alignment for a full 24 hours, so a downgraded version at level 1 is conceivable, even if it's not in the Pathfinder Core book.

Or, the person could be carrying an evil item. Or the paladin could have been cursed in a way that makes Detect Evil work incorrectly. Etc

A person detecting as evil does not automatically mean that person is evil. Likewise, a person that doesn't detect as evil could still be evil. The Detect Evil ability of a Paladin is a tool; it is not absolute proof. Paladins who go around acting like it is tend to not last very long.

There are few things Evil likes more than a fallen hero.

EDIT - Extension: Likewise, whether or not all Evil people are automatically deserving of death is another huge debate, and is greatly dependent on how "evil" a person has to be in order to qualify as evil. Does an innkeeper who jacks up his prices when wealthy clients walk in (even though he has plenty of space and does not need more money and is just greedy) qualify as Evil? Maybe, maybe not, it's a worthy discussion, and probably requires more information on the Innkeeper. But even if he does qualify as evil just for this (repeated) act, does that make him automatically deserving of death, or is another punishment more appropriate?

EDIT: in other news, I have both internet and a desk on which to put my PC (so I don't have to run a cable up a flight of stairs to the dining room table), so I should be able to actually reply to everything within a day or two. I mean, heck, this post, which is a reply to merely two posts, took 20 minutes to write.

[kenada]

If the paladin detects that someone is strongly evil, then that person is evil and deserves punishment for whatever crimes he has committed.

Paladins generally do not have the authority to pass summary judgement. As such, any extrajudicial action they take is probably going to end up being non-Lawful and Evil. A paladin in this situation who claims to follow a ‘higher law’ is still sowing disorder by acting without the approval of the resident mortal authority. Vigilantism is not a Lawful act.

It doesn't matter that the paladin doesn't know what those crimes are.

Generally, not every crime is punishable by summary execution.

[kenada]

Hmm, I suppose a paladin could claim that mortal law is illegitimate, though I’m not aware of any paladin-compatible deities who would support that position.

[BobChuck]

depends on who wrote the law - for instance, how lawful were the actions taken by Prince John in the Robin Hood myth? At what point does a Paladin stop following the laws of a tyrant?

[kenada]

Yeah, the issue of legitimacy is an annoying one.

[Measure Zero]

If the aura of evil is strong enough and the paladin isn't being tricked by magic, then he can be certain that the evil he detects is worthy of violence.

Now, if someone tricking a paladin via an illusion is something a paladin must be ever watchful for, what about an illusion and some additional mind control?  A person could look and act evil for years, until he finally breaks the (extremely hard to detect) spell that forced him to act that way.  Does the paladin need to be constantly on the lookout for something like this?

[kenada]

If the aura of evil is strong enough and the paladin isn't being tricked by magic, then he can be certain that the evil he detects is worthy of violence.

No, no he can’t. The paladin’s code of conduct* obliges him to respect the (legitimate) authority of the jurisdiction he is operating in. Unless that jurisdiction grants him the authority to summarily execute people for detecting evil, killing them: 1) violates his code of conduct, 2) is an unlawful act of vigilantism, and 3) is an evil act because it intends to cause (violent) harm and is ‘not fair, just, or legal’.† I don’t see how you’re making the leap that you are.

--
*

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement  spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

† Using the definitions I proposed on page 2.

[Bishop]

I've been wondering the case of a Soldier.
It seems he'd be Lawful Evil.
Assuming he follows orders, he'd be within Lawful parameters.
Since he's willing to harm others (fight and kill not necessarily in self defense) he's evil.

Then are all armies evil.

Are rulers who have and use armies evil?

[kenada]

I've been wondering the case of a Soldier.
It seems he'd be Lawful Evil.
Assuming he follows orders, he'd be within Lawful parameters.
Since he's willing to harm others (fight and kill not necessarily in self defense) he's evil.

Then are all armies evil.

It depends on the purpose. If an army’s function is to defend the kingdom, then I would say probably not (for the same reason that slaying a red dragon to bring it to justice is not evil).

Are rulers who have and use armies evil?

Non-defensive armies? Probably.

[BobChuck]

It all depends on what the army is used for.

It's not Evil to attack a base that is being used to export slaves. It's not Good to defend said base.

Attacking another country to stop them from doing Bad Things is debatable. There's a lot of collateral damage when armies get involved.

It's also worth considering how much each person is is responsible for: Soldier doing the actual deed vs the immediate commanding officer who is in charge and observing vs the high-up general/commander who has all the information and issued the set of orders.

Generally speaking, the legal fault lies with the officers, rather than the soldiers, but the moral fault is less clear.

[kenada]

It's not Evil to attack a base that is being used to export slaves. It's not Good to defend said base.

Attacking another country to stop them from doing Bad Things is debatable. There's a lot of collateral damage when armies get involved.

I feel that violations of sovereignty are almost never Good. They make too much of a mess, and there is a risk that at least one of the involved parties will end up very broken.

It's also worth considering how much each person is is responsible for: Soldier doing the actual deed vs the immediate commanding officer who is in charge and observing vs the high-up general/commander who has all the information and issued the set of orders.

Generally speaking, the legal fault lies with the officers, rather than the soldiers, but the moral fault is less clear.

People are responsible for their actions. Sometimes that has bad consequences for those who refuse to do no Evil.

[Measure Zero]

If the aura of evil is strong enough and the paladin isn't being tricked by magic, then he can be certain that the evil he detects is worthy of violence.

No, no he can’t. The paladin’s code of conduct* obliges him to respect the (legitimate) authority of the jurisdiction he is operating in. Unless that jurisdiction grants him the authority to summarily execute people for detecting evil, killing them: 1) violates his code of conduct, 2) is an unlawful act of vigilantism, and 3) is an evil act because it intends to cause (violent) harm and is ‘not fair, just, or legal’.† I don’t see how you’re making the leap that you are.

--
*

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement  spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

† Using the definitions I proposed on page 2.

If the authority is legitimate, then the heinous evil required to accumulate such an aura implies many illegal acts.  These acts MUST be punished, according to the paladin code of conduct.  The only objection you seem to have is that the paladin should check with the local authorities before administering his legitimate justice.  This is just bureaucratic nonsense for the sake of bureaucratic nonsense, and the paladin should lose his paladinhood for putting this ahead of his duty to do good.  If there is absolute evil, then destroying evil is not an evil act.  By embracing the idea of absolute morality, you remove any moral ambiguity here.  You can't have it both ways except by completely neutering the paladin's ability to detect the evil that he is to destroy.