PDA

View Full Version : How to screw a paladin?



Adamaro
2009-02-23, 02:41 PM
I've been reading a lot of themes regarding rigid paladin code and DMs making situations, which cause the paladin to fall. Well I for one believe, all such situations can be handled properly, even if you play a LG paladin. So I would like to get to know a few examples considered to cause paladin to fall. (Exception being DMs insistance "You made an evil deed, you must fall/atone).

I am also a bit surprised regarding questions like "I am a paladin and LE necromancer is in my party. What should I do?*"

*In my book hack away. Smite and hack as long others don't decide to play N or G characters or paladin dies.

Heliomance
2009-02-23, 02:43 PM
It takes a very high charisma. A Succubus might be able to manage it, but only if the paladin didn't realise what she was.

Keld Denar
2009-02-23, 02:45 PM
Um...candles, soft music, a little wine?

Sorry, queue the "Paladins fall, everyone dies!" threads.

MCerberus
2009-02-23, 02:58 PM
I'm not a big proponent of the rear end + stick method of conduct for Paladins and, to a lesser extent, Druids (they get more leeway anyway). In my book, creating armies of unholy zombies would be a smiteable offense, but trying to gouge a local government for adventuring fees only earns up to a stern talking to from the paladin.

Having an evil party member is not the same as associating with evil. The Paladin might be a "blah blah redemption" annoyance, but it's better than... a Miko.

At one point I had a necromancer. He used ability drains/debuffs to incapacitate instead of kill. The party paladin figured out what his school specialty was and went all smitey. The wizard was LG. Quite literally pummeled to death with the stick up the paladin's butt.

In summation, give some leeway to the Paladin. Also, <double entendre referring to thread title here>.

Heliomance
2009-02-23, 03:01 PM
I'm not a big proponent of the rear end + stick method

No? What do you find works, then?

TheThan
2009-02-23, 03:08 PM
What most Dms do is present a no win situation. or provide such a tempting offer that the PLAYER grabs at it without thinking of the consequences.

Say for instance the dragon princessnaps the princess of the local kingdom. The paladin bravely volunteers to go and rescue her and slay the dragon in the process. So he goes out there kills the dragon and rescues the princesses. Only to discover that he lost his powers because the princess is evil and he was “associating with an evil character”.

Another good one people use is “the deal”.

The paladin captures an evil character… say a thief. The thief makes a deal to expose the rest of his thieves’ guild in order to secure his freedom. The paladin, thinking that taking out the rest of the guild would be great, takes the thief up on his offer and lets him go in exchange for the information. BAM lost paladin powers because his code says “punish those that harm or threaten innocents”. He did not punish the thief.

Advocate
2009-02-23, 03:10 PM
The old fashioned way. They won't approve of any funny business.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-23, 03:19 PM
The last Paladin I had was a lot of fun for everyone involved. Basically, he decided that the tactics that Evil uses to tempt people can also be used for the side of Good, and proceeded to 'tempt' people into doing good deeds.

For example:

Party thief wants to steal something

Paladin: "Okay, so you steal from him, you get what... five hundred gold? Come on, this is small potatoes for you. You're risking imprisonment, mutilation, or worse... just for five hundred measly gold? Come on, if you are that hard up for cash, I can loan it to you myself. And think about the long-term consequences. That particular merchant won't ever deal with us again, and he's dealt with us fairly. Consider how much more expensive it would be to hunt down another honest merchant? Probably a lot more than five hundred."

Or, for the 'evil necro in the party' situation

"Okay, look man, we gotta talk. Now, I don't have a problem with you using the negative energy stuff, by and large. It's a weapon, like any other. Enervation is a great resource, has helped us out of many a problem. Same thing with your Fear effects. I don't mind the cursing either, they had it coming. It's the undead. Come on, what do you need a bunch of rotting corpses around for? The whole party is wondering too. I mean, you may not have a problem with it, but the rest of us have a sense of smell, yanno? It's hard for us to get to sleep when you are smelling rotting flesh. And it really hurts the Bard's Diplomacy checks to have rotting corpses standing around. Not to mention trying to talk to a merchant to get some stuff of pawn off some loot. Look, if you really want, we can get together and maybe hire some porters, or maybe some other way of putting obstacles between you and danger. But these undead? They're not a big help. Right now, they're not even speedbumps against the things we're fighting, and the Cleric is about ready to just Destroy them. There's got to be a better way to do this."

Rather than a 'stick up your pigu', he does the entirely sensible and reasonable fellow, sort of the LG side of the Godfather clone.

Person_Man
2009-02-23, 03:21 PM
1) Giving the Paladin a situation that can be easily solved with nuance and diplomacy, which they resolve with violence. For example, Evil Guy casts Dominate Person on Good Guy. Dominated Good Guy is dressed in the uniform of bad guys. Dominated Good Guy attacks the PCs. The Paladin attacks him back. Dominated Good Guy realizes that he's attacking a Paladin of his god, and gets another Save, because attacking the Paladin would be contrary to his nature. Good Guy succeeds, and immediately surrenders. Paladin decides that Evil bad guys don't deserve mercy (an arguably Good act, depending on his god), and kills the Good Guy (an obviously bad act). Paladin looses powers until he atones.

2) Give the Paladin a choice between wealth/power and Good. Offer the PC a very large bribe. If he takes it, he takes it, but it comes with strings attached...

3) Male the Paladin sacrifice something in order to maintain his goodness. For example, the current saga of what's going on with V. The Good choice is to deny the Evil Outsiders, and accept the death of your family as the actions of an Evil enemy. But a reasonable PC might want to save his family, even if it means ultimately screwing the multiverse.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-23, 03:48 PM
The classic way to trap a paladin is to set up a dilemma; a situation where the DM forces a choice down to only a few options, all of which are bad.

For example, we have a classic 'archdemon opens a gate to hell' scenario. The Paladin arrives to discover that there is less than a minute before the door opens and he is swarmed and killed by demons. The archdemon cackles evilly and tells the Paladin that the only way to stop it is by killing the archdemon himself.

The archdemon wants to make it interesting though, so he has arranged for an innocent newborn baby to be on hand. With a twisted gleam in his eyes the archdemon shifts his form and possesses the baby. He leaves the paladin with a dilemma; If he doesn't stop the archdemon fast the legions of Hell will march through the portal, kill him, then wage war across the lands. He doesn't have time to perform a rite of exorcism, so the only hope of getting the archdemon back in a form he can fight is to kill the child. Either way some innocent is going to die and he will be responsible.

Starscream
2009-02-23, 03:54 PM
Question: Suppose the paladin's way of dealing with an evil party member was basically the same as Roy's way of dealing with Belkar: channel his evil toward a good purpose, while limiting the amount of damage he can do.

Obviously for a paladin the ultimate goal would be redeeming the character, but surely even a stick-enveloping paladin can see there are better ways to do that than "Change your alignment right now or I'll stab you".

Starbuck_II
2009-02-23, 04:16 PM
The classic way to trap a paladin is to set up a dilemma; a situation where the DM forces a choice down to only a few options, all of which are bad.

For example, we have a classic 'archdemon opens a gate to hell' scenario. The Paladin arrives to discover that there is less than a minute before the door opens and he is swarmed and killed by demons. The archdemon cackles evilly and tells the Paladin that the only way to stop it is by killing the archdemon himself.

The archdemon wants to make it interesting though, so he has arranged for an innocent newborn baby to be on hand. With a twisted gleam in his eyes the archdemon shifts his form and possesses the baby. He leaves the paladin with a dilemma; If he doesn't stop the archdemon fast the legions of Hell will march through the portal, kill him, then wage war across the lands. He doesn't have time to perform a rite of exorcism, so the only hope of getting the archdemon back in a form he can fight is to kill the child. Either way some innocent is going to die and he will be responsible.

Paladins can cast Protection from evil, can't they?

If this Paladin is level 4+: he can cast the demon out by that spell:
Any possession fails with that spell on target. The possessor wouls be cast out.

Granted, as Paladins aren't spontanous...it is not something he can do unless he prepared for this.

Vonriel
2009-02-23, 05:21 PM
Why is it that people want to screw paladins, anyway? I mean, I get it, immune to STDs so you at least know it's a safe bet, and then the whole Lay on Hands thing, but still...

With that out of the way... I have two questions for you folks: One, what gives a paladin his powers? His god, correct? So why would his god punish him for (in Tokiko's example) choosing to kill a child in order to stop thousands of people from dying? Surely the god can see the necessity of killing one to save thousands, so why would the god unnecessarily punish his servant (who would be incredibly powerful, by this point, as besting an archdemon in 10 rounds or less at any level by himself would be a challenve) for something like this?

The second is, why are people so determined to mess up paladins? They're mechanically not nearly as strong as other classes who suffer from a rigid follow-this-or-fall code (*coughdruidscough*) and I imagine it would be more fun to encourage the paladin to find a loophole in the you're-screwed situations you guys are coming up with.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-23, 05:33 PM
The problem, as I see it, is that most DMs and sometimes players don't see past the fact that a paladin can fall. They ignore the fact that a paladin can do oodles of damage to evil stuff (which is the majority of the monsters anyway), that they get a mount FOR FREE, and that they can heal and cure disease without the need for spells. They just see that the paladin can fall.

Because of this, making the paladin fall becomes something that sounds cool. I mean, the whole reason Belkar was taunting Miko to kill him was to make her fall. There are players out there like this. My brother played a paladin with a group once, and when he showed them his character sheet, their response was "Woo! Fallen paladin! Come on, make your paladin fall, that'd be awesome!"

The paladin becomes the class that everyone picks on because the other classes (with the often ignored exceptions of the cleric, the druid and the monk) can do whatever they want without losing their capabilities. It becomes the class that gets looked down upon for being a beacon of justice and integrity when players and/or DM's want a gritty, amoral, "realistic" style.

You ask how to screw a paladin over, and I think the others have done a fantastic job of explaining it. Why paladins get screwed over in the first place, however, is another matter entirely.

Lappy9000
2009-02-23, 05:45 PM
I've been reading a lot of themes regarding rigid paladin code and DMs making situations, which cause the paladin to fall. Well I for one believe, all such situations can be handled properly, even if you play a LG paladin. So I would like to get to know a few examples considered to cause paladin to fall. (Exception being DMs insistance "You made an evil deed, you must fall/atone).

I am also a bit surprised regarding questions like "I am a paladin and LE necromancer is in my party. What should I do?*"

*In my book hack away. Smite and hack as long others don't decide to play N or G characters or paladin dies.Many groups seem to have the idea that when a paladin falls she must immediately become a blackguard. Here's an example outside of the stereotype:

The paladin I'm currently playing is a member of an evil party (joy!), with the ruling that paladins can, in fact, travel with evildoers if they have good reason (often justified by their deity). Baraeon ('ze paladin) knows the party is evil and is capable of horrible things, but so far hasn't been able to prove it. Most of their evil shennanigans go on behind his back (normally when he's doing some good act). Part of it is because he's a former fighter of Neutral Evil sentiments before redeeming himself, so he knows what evil folks are capable of (and he has a ridiculiously high Sense Motive to keep them in check). Basically the kind of paladin that won't ruin an evil party. Additionally, the balance of power is kept in check, because evil parties tend not to be the most solidified groups (Evil Cleric: Oh no! The fighter died? I loot his body!) and they know that Baraeon could take any one of them. They tolerate him because his daughter (also evil, much to Baraeon's dissatisfaction) is integral to the group.

Now here's what I'm getting at: Baraeon would consider it a just sacrifice if he were to lose his powers by associating with the evil guys if he were able to prevent a catastrophe by their doing. The roleplaying potentials are downright juicy if Baraeon ends up against his daughter. Even better: Baraeon has already fallen twice prior to the start of the adventure (he's older).

What I'm getting at is don't just trick/trap the paladin into falling (unless he's just messing around), instead, work with him to make up awesome character development.

Keld Denar
2009-02-23, 05:54 PM
Epic link is epic. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5592334&postcount=130)

Dixieboy
2009-02-23, 06:03 PM
1) Giving the Paladin a situation that can be easily solved with nuance and diplomacy, which they resolve with violence. For example, Evil Guy casts Dominate Person on Good Guy. Dominated Good Guy is dressed in the uniform of bad guys. Dominated Good Guy attacks the PCs. The Paladin attacks him back. Dominated Good Guy realizes that he's attacking a Paladin of his god, and gets another Save, because attacking the Paladin would be contrary to his nature. Good Guy succeeds, and immediately surrenders. Paladin decides that Evil bad guys don't deserve mercy (an arguably Good act, depending on his god), and kills the Good Guy (an obviously bad act). Paladin looses powers until he atones.

Sadly the Paladin has every right to defend himself and punish those who do wrong, unless he specifically knows that the guy was dominated he has done nothing wrong.

Unless you want him to atone for accidents or side effects he could not foresee too?

I mean if he kills an ogre that attacks him and said ogres children die of starvation due to the provider being... well dead, would he fall?

Advocate
2009-02-23, 06:04 PM
But seriously. Normally I wouldn't support deliberately trying to mess with one of the weakest classes in the game. But I like the Dominate idea despite that, because if you can't make a DC 15 Sense Motive check to get a clue, and neither can anyone else you're asking to be Magnificent Bastarded. If it actually works, the BBEG is entitled to look like this guy.

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/death%20note%20exactly%20as%20planned.jpg

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-23, 06:56 PM
Paladins can cast Protection from evil, can't they?

If this Paladin is level 4+: he can cast the demon out by that spell:
Any possession fails with that spell on target. The possessor wouls be cast out.

Granted, as Paladins aren't spontanous...it is not something he can do unless he prepared for this.

Also, it's touch range, meaning the Paladin would have to beat the archdemon to the baby. Once the child is possessed, Protection from Evil based spells only suppress it's control of the host: they do not expel the demon unless it wants to be expelled, or the host dies.

The point is as a DM, you set up a scenario with only a few answers and none of them are good. You can definitely argue that sacrificing one to save many is a hard choice a paladin should make, but that's something many real world people have agonized over for their entire lives. Maybe the paladin wouldn't even fall this time, but it doesn't really change the fact that, of the paladin's own free will, an innocent was murdered. The next time the paladin has to bring in a villain to justice, the paladin will have to wonder if the villain wasn't just forced by circumstance to commit evil in the same way.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-23, 06:59 PM
And the only reason that DMs even THINK up these scenarios is because they want to **** with the paladin.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-23, 07:14 PM
And the only reason that DMs even THINK up these scenarios is because they want to **** with the paladin.

I'd like to rebut that. Some DM's think up these scenario's so they understand them and don't put a paladin in them unless it's dramatic or meaningful to the story. They're also good for understanding what makes a paladin different. People like paladins because they're real in the sense that they would flinch if they had to kill a child to save the world, like most real people would. the majority of other adventurer classes by and large wouldn't even bat an eye at adding another kill to their tally if they had a compelling reason.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-23, 07:18 PM
I'd like to rebut that. Some DM's think up these scenario's so they understand them and don't put a paladin in them unless it's dramatic or meaningful to the story. They're also good for understanding what makes a paladin different.
People like paladins because they're real in the sense that they would flinch if they had to kill a child to save the world, like most real people would. the majority of other adventurer classes by and large wouldn't even bat an eye at adding another kill to their tally if they had a compelling reason.

The problem arises that you don't know which action is best.
Some DMs will make you fall for not killing the Child. Some for killing it.
You are dependent on reading the DM's mind in real life. Not everyone can read minds: we all can't be blessed with Psionics :smallbiggrin:

Now Atonement spell isn't as bad as it used to be in 2nd edition, but still not fun.

Then you have to hope the DM makes it available.

Lappy9000
2009-02-23, 07:31 PM
The problem arises that you don't know which action is best.
Some DMs will make you fall for not killing the Child. Some for killing it.Regardless, if a paladin killed the child to save the world, and fell because of it, he should just take it into stride. If my character was in that situation, he would assume that the action had a good effect by saving a world but was still an evil act nontheless. He would see his fall as a punishment for not finding a more ideal solution to the problem, thus, atonement ("Surely there was another way!")

Michaelos
2009-02-23, 07:35 PM
The problem arises that you don't know which action is best.
Some DMs will make you fall for not killing the Child. Some for killing it.
You are dependent on reading the DM's mind in real life.

Gift of Discernment. Very handy for reading the DM's mind. Alternatively, get this magic item (But if your Dm is very mean, he'll break it, and then make you make the choice.)

Phylactery of Faithfulness: This item is a small box containing religious scripture affixed to a leather cord and tied around the forehead. There is no mundane way to determine what function this religious item performs until it is worn. The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect his alignment and his standing with his deity, including magical effects. He acquires this information prior to performing such an action or becoming associated with such an item if he takes a moment to contemplate the act.

Faint divination; CL 1st; Craft Wondrous Item, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law; Price 1,000 gp.

If you have Gift of Discernment and you still fall either your DM is a real jerk or you had some very interesting reason for saying yes even though your DM said "Your faith tells you this would be a bad idea." or your DM is horribly technical and will say "You didn't say you were contemplating this, so you don't get the affect." (This falls into the real jerk category most of the time.)

Shadowbane
2009-02-23, 07:41 PM
^I can't really think of any DM most people would play with that would do that.

PaladinBoy
2009-02-23, 07:47 PM
And the only reason that DMs even THINK up these scenarios is because they want to **** with the paladin.

I would also like to rebut this. I'll grant that some DMs are in fact like this, just looking for ways to make the paladin fall. However, those DMs don't usually go to the trouble of actually creating a good moral dilemma, they just provide an obviously contrived scenario with one goal: to make the paladin fall.

Those DMs that actually go to some effort to create a good dilemma are actually pretty good; at least they give something for the paladin and the rest of the party to consider seriously. It's not for everyone, and it can create big problems if your players deal with it (and each other) wrongly, but at its best, it can provoke an interesting discussion on morality.

Xuincherguixe
2009-02-23, 07:48 PM
Making Paladin's fall is easy. And stupid.

Well there might be something said for testing them, frankly they don't deserve any more harshness than any other character.

Unless they're an ass, in which case they're probably playing the Paladin wrong anyways.


I figure not only should they be a generally nice person, but when they're killing monsters they should be polite.
"Foul spawn of evil! Please hold still so I can decapitate you painlessly. I recognize that you can't be allowed to exist, but I don't want to make you suffer more than I have to!"

MickJay
2009-02-23, 08:00 PM
Some DMs will make you fall for not killing the Child. Some for killing it.

Some are just waiting for the paladin to make any choice and then make him fall for doing it :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, "falling" a paladin who was, in a very problematic situation, acting with good intentions while accepting the risk that he may still fall for doing what he thought was the best course of action possible, is plain nasty. The LG gods are not idiots who want to randomly punish their mortal servants for not being all-knowing...

Jayabalard
2009-02-23, 08:11 PM
With that out of the way... I have two questions for you folks: One, what gives a paladin his powers? His god, correct?Not generally; this is only the case in specific settings. The standard power source for paladins is the raw power of goodness and purity itself, and only by preserving their own sanctity are they able to tap into that power. It's not a matter of having offended someone and having to get back on their good side, you just no longer have the ability to tap into that power.


So why would his god punish him for (in Tokiko's example) choosing to kill a child in order to stop thousands of people from dying? Surely the god can see the necessity of killing one to save thousands, so why would the god unnecessarily punish his servant (who would be incredibly powerful, by this point, as besting an archdemon in 10 rounds or less at any level by himself would be a challenve) for something like this?This depends quite a bit on the god in question; it's quite understandable for a god to be unmoving on their commandments, even if you have a "good reason" to break them.

sonofzeal
2009-02-23, 08:16 PM
Those DMs that actually go to some effort to create a good dilemma are actually pretty good; at least they give something for the paladin and the rest of the party to consider seriously. It's not for everyone, and it can create big problems if your players deal with it (and each other) wrongly, but at its best, it can provoke an interesting discussion on morality.
Once, as DM, I got a Paladin to stab his best friend in the back, literally, and with no provocation from the friend in question. By doing so, the Paladin lost his pally powers but activated the semi-evil sentient sword he was carrying in order to defeat the BBEG and save the day. The fight was possible to win without activating the sword, but their tactics had been poor and a party member was already in serious risk of death. And I let him atone afterwards. Still, it was one of my favorite memories as DM, for the "wtf" looks from the friend's player if nothing else. Totally hadn't seen it coming!

Myou
2009-02-23, 08:18 PM
Well, first things first, you have to get him out of that armour, I suggest offering him a body massage, it's sensual, sexy and he'll really appreciate it after a hard day's smiting.

Try putting on some music and flirting a little with him. Try to find out if he's a top or bottom, it can be awkward to ask later.

Once he's starting to relax and you're both starting to get in the mood I reccomend the missionary position, and don't forget to use protecton. And lube. :3

Stormageddon
2009-02-23, 08:31 PM
And the only reason that DMs even THINK up these scenarios is because they want to **** with the paladin.

Well there is that and a lot of people want to play paladins to mess with other characters. Theirs not a lot of D&D stories that I've heard involving a paladin in the group and it was cool. I played a paladin in a one shot adventure that people liked, but he was killed far too soon.

Plus all DMs love evil paladins.

chiasaur11
2009-02-23, 08:36 PM
Well, first you find that Succubus paladin...

Sure, the joke has been don, but...

Agrippa
2009-02-23, 08:47 PM
To me a paladin draws divine power not from any god or gods but from his or her own personal heroism and idealism. Because of that, if a paladin falls he or she has no one to blame but him or herself. That paladin has simply failed to be a truly righteous and idealistic holy knight and has cast aside his or her status and powers out of selfrighteousness or desperation. When others say that we can not fight fate, no matter how horrible and cruel, or that causing or allowing evil for the greater good is required a paladin has only one worthy reply.

"No, those are lies! I need not accept that fate calls for innocents to suffer or that atrocities are justified in the name of justice! I became what I am today to defend the defenseless, to uphold the weak and avenge the innocent, not to be their murderer for you so-called "greater good." I will save both the world and those innocent that the forces of evil use as pawns and hostages for it. If you don't understand that you can go to Hell and choke to death on those words of your's for all I care."

Hat-Trick
2009-02-23, 10:34 PM
On the kill the baby or let loose hell on the Material Plane thing, DnD has resurrection. I'd only hesitate for character reasons and have the paladin come to the conclusion that killing the baby to seal the rift is the best short term solution and then take the baby to the closest church for the resurrection, being somber and down-trodden over the needed actions and swearing to return the infant to it's mother.

And paladins are, by the books, NOT allowed to associate with evil people. Undead, if they aren't evil, I'd consider okay. The EVIL necromancer will either be refused entry to the party until his alignment changes to neutral, kept held prisoner until put in court (or something), or killed if he's running around being stupid evil (i.e.Necro: "I shall kill this poor defenseless child, loot it's body, and raise it as my personal meatshield![queue hideous mad laughter]", Pally: "You're new to this aren't you?")

Flickerdart
2009-02-23, 10:38 PM
Could you really raise a baby? I mean, the CON loss is probably going to kill it. You'd need to have a Wish caster on the spot to give it back the stats, or True Resurrection. It's cheaper to make a new baby.

A Paladin, I am not.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-23, 10:45 PM
Could you really raise a baby? I mean, the CON loss is probably going to kill it. You'd need to have a Wish caster on the spot to give it back the stats, or True Resurrection. It's cheaper to make a new baby.

A Paladin, I am not.

Dude, this isn't 2nd edition: there is no system suck failure. You only lose 1 Con and NPCs are assumed to have 10's unless they rolled stats.

So the baby is assumed to have 10 Con.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-23, 10:48 PM
I don't deny that sometimes a moral dillema can be good for dramatic purposes, but the DM has to make it so that it's appropriate to the game, the paladin's player knows that it's coming, and if the paladin is meant to fall either way, make sure there's a way to redemption.

I refuse to believe that all the horror stories about moral dillemas created solely to punish a player for playing a paladin when the party rogue wants to pickpocket everyone in the tavern or the party'd rather not argue about whether killing baby werewolves is morally wrong are made up.

Kris Strife
2009-02-23, 11:11 PM
Worry free on the back seat of her mount of course.

In all seriousness, I'm lucky enough to have avoided the 'You killed that bandit who's great grandson was going to save the world, you fall' DMs, but I'm sure they exist. I enjoy playing paladins and being that shining beacon of hope, but I've come to learn that expecting the worst of people leaves you not dissapointed and usually right.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-24, 12:55 AM
I am also a bit surprised regarding questions like "I am a paladin and LE necromancer is in my party. What should I do?*"

*In my book hack away. Smite and hack as long others don't decide to play N or G characters or paladin dies.This, right here, is why people want Paladins to fall. The code, by RAW, requires this destruction of the party. The LE Necromancer would have worked with you. It's not his fault you decided to play with a stick.

FYI, if I was DMing, the Paladin would only fall if he doesn't try to do the right thing, or if he is an idiot about being LG. Attacking a party member is at the least chaotic, if not evil, even if it is done under the guise of the code.

Heliomance
2009-02-24, 03:11 AM
On the kill the baby or let loose hell on the Material Plane thing, DnD has resurrection. I'd only hesitate for character reasons and have the paladin come to the conclusion that killing the baby to seal the rift is the best short term solution and then take the baby to the closest church for the resurrection, being somber and down-trodden over the needed actions and swearing to return the infant to it's mother.

And paladins are, by the books, NOT allowed to associate with evil people. Undead, if they aren't evil, I'd consider okay. The EVIL necromancer will either be refused entry to the party until his alignment changes to neutral, kept held prisoner until put in court (or something), or killed if he's running around being stupid evil (i.e.Necro: "I shall kill this poor defenseless child, loot it's body, and raise it as my personal meatshield![queue hideous mad laughter]", Pally: "You're new to this aren't you?")

And if the necromancer started out neutral, was a good friend to the Paladin, and was gradually corrupted by the black arts, becoming evil over time? Should the Paladin cut off all ties, throw him out of the party and refuse to associate with him? Or should the Paladin stay wit him and try to guide him back to the path of good?

The Minx
2009-02-24, 03:14 AM
Having an evil party member is not the same as associating with evil.

What, then, is associating with evil? What does it take? :smallconfused:

Narmoth
2009-02-24, 03:25 AM
The last Paladin I had was a lot of fun for everyone involved. Basically, he decided that the tactics that Evil uses to tempt people can also be used for the side of Good, and proceeded to 'tempt' people into doing good deeds.

For example:

Party thief wants to steal something

Paladin: "Okay, so you steal from him, you get what... five hundred gold? Come on, this is small potatoes for you. You're risking imprisonment, mutilation, or worse... just for five hundred measly gold? Come on, if you are that hard up for cash, I can loan it to you myself. And think about the long-term consequences. That particular merchant won't ever deal with us again, and he's dealt with us fairly. Consider how much more expensive it would be to hunt down another honest merchant? Probably a lot more than five hundred."

Or, for the 'evil necro in the party' situation

"Okay, look man, we gotta talk. Now, I don't have a problem with you using the negative energy stuff, by and large. It's a weapon, like any other. Enervation is a great resource, has helped us out of many a problem. Same thing with your Fear effects. I don't mind the cursing either, they had it coming. It's the undead. Come on, what do you need a bunch of rotting corpses around for? The whole party is wondering too. I mean, you may not have a problem with it, but the rest of us have a sense of smell, yanno? It's hard for us to get to sleep when you are smelling rotting flesh. And it really hurts the Bard's Diplomacy checks to have rotting corpses standing around. Not to mention trying to talk to a merchant to get some stuff of pawn off some loot. Look, if you really want, we can get together and maybe hire some porters, or maybe some other way of putting obstacles between you and danger. But these undead? They're not a big help. Right now, they're not even speedbumps against the things we're fighting, and the Cleric is about ready to just Destroy them. There's got to be a better way to do this."

Rather than a 'stick up your pigu', he does the entirely sensible and reasonable fellow, sort of the LG side of the Godfather clone.

Awesome! Great rp idea

MickJay
2009-02-24, 04:24 AM
Idea is indeed great, but is far more appropriate for a CG character rather than LG. Not that it can't be done by someone LG, but they'd have a lot of trouble roleplaying this and remaining lawful. Sure, paladin can have his moral code as "I am going to convince people to do good deeds in any way possible, including bribery, trickery and [insert -ery appropriate to situation here]" and leave it at that, but that's a good motto for a paladin of a cause (not restricted to LG), not a "classic" paladin.

xanaphia
2009-02-24, 04:29 AM
The last Paladin I had was a lot of fun for everyone involved. Basically, he decided that the tactics that Evil uses to tempt people can also be used for the side of Good, and proceeded to 'tempt' people into doing good deeds.

For example:

Party thief wants to steal something

Paladin: "Okay, so you steal from him, you get what... five hundred gold? Come on, this is small potatoes for you. You're risking imprisonment, mutilation, or worse... just for five hundred measly gold? Come on, if you are that hard up for cash, I can loan it to you myself. And think about the long-term consequences. That particular merchant won't ever deal with us again, and he's dealt with us fairly. Consider how much more expensive it would be to hunt down another honest merchant? Probably a lot more than five hundred."

Or, for the 'evil necro in the party' situation

"Okay, look man, we gotta talk. Now, I don't have a problem with you using the negative energy stuff, by and large. It's a weapon, like any other. Enervation is a great resource, has helped us out of many a problem. Same thing with your Fear effects. I don't mind the cursing either, they had it coming. It's the undead. Come on, what do you need a bunch of rotting corpses around for? The whole party is wondering too. I mean, you may not have a problem with it, but the rest of us have a sense of smell, yanno? It's hard for us to get to sleep when you are smelling rotting flesh. And it really hurts the Bard's Diplomacy checks to have rotting corpses standing around. Not to mention trying to talk to a merchant to get some stuff of pawn off some loot. Look, if you really want, we can get together and maybe hire some porters, or maybe some other way of putting obstacles between you and danger. But these undead? They're not a big help. Right now, they're not even speedbumps against the things we're fighting, and the Cleric is about ready to just Destroy them. There's got to be a better way to do this."

Rather than a 'stick up your pigu', he does the entirely sensible and reasonable fellow, sort of the LG side of the Godfather clone.

Brilliant. This wins completely.

Jayabalard
2009-02-24, 07:45 AM
This, right here, is why people want Paladins to fall. The code, by RAW, requires this destruction of the party. The LE Necromancer would have worked with you. It's not his fault you decided to play with a stick. Many BBEG are willing to work with you too; that doesn't make it right, or heroic to do so.

Adamaro
2009-02-24, 10:18 AM
This will take some serios quoting, I see ...


It takes a very high charisma. A Succubus might be able to manage it, but only if the paladin didn't realise what she was.

First of all, a fine lol to you, good sir :smallbiggrin:(and all others)


I'm not a big proponent of the rear end + stick method of conduct for Paladins and, to a lesser extent, Druids (they get more leeway anyway). In my book, creating armies of unholy zombies would be a smiteable offense, but trying to gouge a local government for adventuring fees only earns up to a stern talking to from the paladin.

Having an evil party member is not the same as associating with evil. The Paladin might be a "blah blah redemption" annoyance, but it's better than... a Miko.

At one point I had a necromancer. He used ability drains/debuffs to incapacitate instead of kill. The party paladin figured out what his school specialty was and went all smitey. The wizard was LG. Quite literally pummeled to death with the stick up the paladin's butt.

In summation, give some leeway to the Paladin. Also, <double entendre referring to thread title here>.

I disagree. Allowing evil to live, exist and promote its evil-ness is an act of evil by itself.


What most Dms do is present a no win situation. or provide such a tempting offer that the PLAYER grabs at it without thinking of the consequences.

Say for instance the dragon princessnaps the princess of the local kingdom. The paladin bravely volunteers to go and rescue her and slay the dragon in the process. So he goes out there kills the dragon and rescues the princesses. Only to discover that he lost his powers because the princess is evil and he was “associating with an evil character”.

Another good one people use is “the deal”.

The paladin captures an evil character… say a thief. The thief makes a deal to expose the rest of his thieves’ guild in order to secure his freedom. The paladin, thinking that taking out the rest of the guild would be great, takes the thief up on his offer and lets him go in exchange for the information. BAM lost paladin powers because his code says “punish those that harm or threaten innocents”. He did not punish the thief.

Hmmm - detect evil as far as princess goes? And yes, I also agree there is no "I'll remedy greater evil ...". No. Smite. Smite now.


The last Paladin I had was a lot of fun for everyone involved. Basically, he decided that the tactics that Evil uses to tempt people can also be used for the side of Good, and proceeded to 'tempt' people into doing good deeds.

For example:

Party thief wants to steal something

Paladin: "Okay, so you steal from him, you get what... five hundred gold? Come on, this is small potatoes for you. You're risking imprisonment, mutilation, or worse... just for five hundred measly gold? Come on, if you are that hard up for cash, I can loan it to you myself. And think about the long-term consequences. That particular merchant won't ever deal with us again, and he's dealt with us fairly. Consider how much more expensive it would be to hunt down another honest merchant? Probably a lot more than five hundred."

Or, for the 'evil necro in the party' situation

"Okay, look man, we gotta talk. Now, I don't have a problem with you using the negative energy stuff, by and large. It's a weapon, like any other. Enervation is a great resource, has helped us out of many a problem. Same thing with your Fear effects. I don't mind the cursing either, they had it coming. It's the undead. Come on, what do you need a bunch of rotting corpses around for? The whole party is wondering too. I mean, you may not have a problem with it, but the rest of us have a sense of smell, yanno? It's hard for us to get to sleep when you are smelling rotting flesh. And it really hurts the Bard's Diplomacy checks to have rotting corpses standing around. Not to mention trying to talk to a merchant to get some stuff of pawn off some loot. Look, if you really want, we can get together and maybe hire some porters, or maybe some other way of putting obstacles between you and danger. But these undead? They're not a big help. Right now, they're not even speedbumps against the things we're fighting, and the Cleric is about ready to just Destroy them. There's got to be a better way to do this."

Rather than a 'stick up your pigu', he does the entirely sensible and reasonable fellow, sort of the LG side of the Godfather clone.

Yes on the thief(if thief is not evil), NO on a necromancer. Enervation, cursing ... maybe, but undead - imagine your grandmother, your sister, a friend, being resurrected for ncros meat shield buddy. No. The second he deals with the undead - smitesmitesmite!



1) Giving the Paladin a situation that can be easily solved with nuance and diplomacy, which they resolve with violence. For example, Evil Guy casts Dominate Person on Good Guy. Dominated Good Guy is dressed in the uniform of bad guys. Dominated Good Guy attacks the PCs. The Paladin attacks him back. Dominated Good Guy realizes that he's attacking a Paladin of his god, and gets another Save, because attacking the Paladin would be contrary to his nature. Good Guy succeeds, and immediately surrenders. Paladin decides that Evil bad guys don't deserve mercy (an arguably Good act, depending on his god), and kills the Good Guy (an obviously bad act). Paladin looses powers until he atones.

2) Give the Paladin a choice between wealth/power and Good. Offer the PC a very large bribe. If he takes it, he takes it, but it comes with strings attached...

3) Male the Paladin sacrifice something in order to maintain his goodness. For example, the current saga of what's going on with V. The Good choice is to deny the Evil Outsiders, and accept the death of your family as the actions of an Evil enemy. But a reasonable PC might want to save his family, even if it means ultimately screwing the multiverse.

1. Detect evil
2. That's not even a problem ...
3.I'm not really familiar with what is happening with V. so can't answer that.


The classic way to trap a paladin is to set up a dilemma; a situation where the DM forces a choice down to only a few options, all of which are bad.

For example, we have a classic 'archdemon opens a gate to hell' scenario. The Paladin arrives to discover that there is less than a minute before the door opens and he is swarmed and killed by demons. The archdemon cackles evilly and tells the Paladin that the only way to stop it is by killing the archdemon himself.

The archdemon wants to make it interesting though, so he has arranged for an innocent newborn baby to be on hand. With a twisted gleam in his eyes the archdemon shifts his form and possesses the baby. He leaves the paladin with a dilemma; If he doesn't stop the archdemon fast the legions of Hell will march through the portal, kill him, then wage war across the lands. He doesn't have time to perform a rite of exorcism, so the only hope of getting the archdemon back in a form he can fight is to kill the child. Either way some innocent is going to die and he will be responsible.

Letting the gate open, of course. It's not about some innocents being killed, but IMO in not subduing to "lesser evil theory". Paladin let's the gate open and runs for a few lvl 2o buddies. Then the show starts.


Question: Suppose the paladin's way of dealing with an evil party member was basically the same as Roy's way of dealing with Belkar: channel his evil toward a good purpose, while limiting the amount of damage he can do.

Obviously for a paladin the ultimate goal would be redeeming the character, but surely even a stick-enveloping paladin can see there are better ways to do that than "Change your alignment right now or I'll stab you".
1.So how much is limited amonut? No amount is the only amount, acceptable for paladins. Thus, hack away, mon frere ... There are better ways, worse ways and paladin ways :D

Tnx 2 StarbuckII for some fine info there ...


Why is it that people want to screw paladins, anyway? I mean, I get it, immune to STDs so you at least know it's a safe bet, and then the whole Lay on Hands thing, but still...

With that out of the way... I have two questions for you folks: One, what gives a paladin his powers? His god, correct? So why would his god punish him for (in Tokiko's example) choosing to kill a child in order to stop thousands of people from dying? Surely the god can see the necessity of killing one to save thousands, so why would the god unnecessarily punish his servant (who would be incredibly powerful, by this point, as besting an archdemon in 10 rounds or less at any level by himself would be a challenve) for something like this?

The second is, why are people so determined to mess up paladins? They're mechanically not nearly as strong as other classes who suffer from a rigid follow-this-or-fall code (*coughdruidscough*) and I imagine it would be more fun to encourage the paladin to find a loophole in the you're-screwed situations you guys are coming up with.
AHA! Lovely post. Yes, here's thinking similar to mine. Paladins are servants of God. In dnd there is no "maybe there are gods". There are. They have stats. They have powers. AND! i think paladins can ask their gods to which they are devoted to to help them (let's say by shutting the gate, having deamon turn gay and ensure a long, fruitful life of a book salesman for a newborn)

Many groups seem to have the idea that when a paladin falls she must immediately become a blackguard. Here's an example outside of the stereotype:

The paladin I'm currently playing is a member of an evil party (joy!), with the ruling that paladins can, in fact, travel with evildoers if they have good reason (often justified by their deity). Baraeon ('ze paladin) knows the party is evil and is capable of horrible things, but so far hasn't been able to prove it. Most of their evil shennanigans go on behind his back (normally when he's doing some good act). Part of it is because he's a former fighter of Neutral Evil sentiments before redeeming himself, so he knows what evil folks are capable of (and he has a ridiculiously high Sense Motive to keep them in check). Basically the kind of paladin that won't ruin an evil party. Additionally, the balance of power is kept in check, because evil parties tend not to be the most solidified groups (Evil Cleric: Oh no! The fighter died? I loot his body!) and they know that Baraeon could take any one of them. They tolerate him because his daughter (also evil, much to Baraeon's dissatisfaction) is integral to the group.

Now here's what I'm getting at: Baraeon would consider it a just sacrifice if he were to lose his powers by associating with the evil guys if he were able to prevent a catastrophe by their doing. The roleplaying potentials are downright juicy if Baraeon ends up against his daughter. Even better: Baraeon has already fallen twice prior to the start of the adventure (he's older).

What I'm getting at is don't just trick/trap the paladin into falling (unless he's just messing around), instead, work with him to make up awesome character development.
I sense a lot of heresy in you, good sir ... As said, "greater evil, lesser evil. There is just evil." (and divine help. And if god's don't see fit to help ... heck, they're to blame. )


The LG gods are not idiots who want to randomly punish their mortal servants for not being all-knowing...
My point ... to the point.


This, right here, is why people want Paladins to fall. The code, by RAW, requires this destruction of the party. The LE Necromancer would have worked with you. It's not his fault you decided to play with a stick.

FYI, if I was DMing, the Paladin would only fall if he doesn't try to do the right thing, or if he is an idiot about being LG. Attacking a party member is at the least chaotic, if not evil, even if it is done under the guise of the code.
And the last(but not least). There is no RAW code. There is a code. Paladin does not let half-a-murder instead of two. None are acceptable. LE character? Oh he'll work with paladin, but he'll also sell infected blankets to poor kobolds. No sir, there is no RAW. It's just erasure off evil-doers.

Advocate
2009-02-24, 12:00 PM
Funny part is I don't even like Paladins. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I would still allow them to 'fight' evil by converting it instead of killing it. Because ya know, you can't always kill the guy, making him not evil still weakens evil while strengthening good, and oftentimes it's the more logical way of doing it. Don't expect it to work on an undead, or evil outsider or whatever but an evil human? Sure, why not? No risk of falling by doing so. It also allows said evil character to corrupt them which will make them fall... *evil grin*

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-24, 12:46 PM
Yes on the thief(if thief is not evil), NO on a necromancer. Enervation, cursing ... maybe, but undead - imagine your grandmother, your sister, a friend, being resurrected for ncros meat shield buddy. No. The second he deals with the undead - smitesmitesmite!Why? It's a corpse. No one was using it or going to use it. The only reason it's evil is the same reason poison is; it says so in the books. There is no legitimate reason to make it blanket evil.

FWIW, I'm an organ doner, but other than that after death you can make my skeleton dance and mount my head on the wall for all I care.
And the last(but not least). There is no RAW code. There is a code. Paladin does not let half-a-murder instead of two. None are acceptable. LE character? Oh he'll work with paladin, but he'll also sell infected blankets to poor kobolds. No sir, there is no RAW. It's just erasure off evil-doers.And you don't see what's wrong with that? I don't have a probblem with LG characters, but playing a Paladin means one player is restricting other players options. Orcs and Elves can exist in the same party, as well as Clerics of Heironimus and Hextor, but the instant you put a Pally in the party, 33% of the alignments are closed off, as well as several classes and entire archetypes. Crusaders and Clerics can have the same fluff with none of the restrictions. Use them instead.

Telonius
2009-02-24, 01:18 PM
Messing with the Paladin isn't fun, because it's too easy to do.

My preferred method: houserule that Paladins take the alignment of their god, with changes in their "Smite X" and "Detect X" abilities as necessary. ("Smite Extremist" is a great one for True Neutral Paladins). They have to serve as a shining example of their god's philosophy (not alignment). When they don't, they fall.

This makes it harder to fall, more interesting to tempt, and more obvious to all of the players why the paladin falls (if he does).

Narmoth
2009-02-24, 01:36 PM
Why? It's a corpse. No one was using it or going to use it. The only reason it's evil is the same reason poison is; it says so in the books. There is no legitimate reason to make it blanket evil.

Well, according to BoVD, masochism, that is, inflicting pain on yourself, is evil, and casting a spell that let's you channel your pain into attack bonuses is an Evil spell (the capital "e" is intentional)
Also, there exist sleep poison. By the rules, it's still evil to use. But I could disarm a guard with no permanent harm, rather than kill him with the use of it? I'm saving lives, I go by the way of least harm, and it's more evil than cut him down if he doesn't surrender?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-24, 02:00 PM
Well, according to BoVD, masochism, that is, inflicting pain on yourself, is evil, and casting a spell that let's you channel your pain into attack bonuses is an Evil spell (the capital "e" is intentional)
Also, there exist sleep poison. By the rules, it's still evil to use. But I could disarm a guard with no permanent harm, rather than kill him with the use of it? I'm saving lives, I go by the way of least harm, and it's more evil than cut him down if he doesn't surrender?I think you misunderstood me. I was saing that using undead isn't automatically evil, no matter what the books say. The books are dumb. :smallwink:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-24, 02:09 PM
Why? It's a corpse. No one was using it or going to use it. The only reason it's evil is the same reason poison is; it says so in the books. There is no legitimate reason to make it blanket evil.

FWIW, I'm an organ doner, but other than that after death you can make my skeleton dance and mount my head on the wall for all I care. And you don't see what's wrong with that?
Generally speaking, D&D religion regards death as a sacred thing that shouldn't be violated. To animate corpses, generally with the intention of harming others, violates that sanctity and what the dominant forces of D&D religion consider "the natural order." When you die, your body is dead for good. Your soul remains forever. The body is not supposed to exist without a soul driving it, and that's what makes undead unnatural as they are soulless. This is also why spells like Raise Dead and Ressurection are NOT evil, since they return the soul to the body. Death need not be a permanent end for you in D&D, but if you want to come back, your soul actually needs to leave the afterlife and return to the body it came from. Some random soul can't take your body, and you can't go into someone else's body. Your body is your body, and if some jerk of a necromancer reanimates it, that's like stealing from you, since the body still belongs to your disembodied soul.

Am I even making sense here?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-24, 02:19 PM
Generally speaking, D&D religion regards death as a sacred thing that shouldn't be violated. To animate corpses, generally with the intention of harming others, violates that sanctity and what the dominant forces of D&D religion consider "the natural order." When you die, your body is dead for good. Your soul remains forever. The body is not supposed to exist without a soul driving it, and that's what makes undead unnatural as they are soulless. This is also why spells like Raise Dead and Ressurection are NOT evil, since they return the soul to the body. Death need not be a permanent end for you in D&D, but if you want to come back, your soul actually needs to leave the afterlife and return to the body it came from. Some random soul can't take your body, and you can't go into someone else's body. Your body is your body, and if some jerk of a necromancer reanimates it, that's like stealing from you, since the body still belongs to your disembodied soul.

Am I even making sense here?You're making sense, but religion considering something wrong !=evil. And after a certain time period, ressurection does not need the true body anyways, so why would it bug the soul?

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-24, 02:30 PM
I thought generally by the time you didn't need a body to bring someone back to life was around the time the body was too rotten to even make a decent zombie. :smallconfused:

snoopy13a
2009-02-24, 02:36 PM
I don't have a probblem with LG characters, but playing a Paladin means one player is restricting other players options. Orcs and Elves can exist in the same party, as well as Clerics of Heironimus and Hextor, but the instant you put a Pally in the party, 33% of the alignments are closed off, as well as several classes and entire archetypes. Crusaders and Clerics can have the same fluff with none of the restrictions. Use them instead.

That's why paladins should only be in goody two shoes parties. It isn't really a problem. If a player wants to play a paladin then he or she should clear it with the other players first. If the other players want more morally "gray" characters then that player should play a different class.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-24, 02:39 PM
I thought generally by the time you didn't need a body to bring someone back to life was around the time the body was too rotten to even make a decent zombie. :smallconfused:Skeletons. Or Gentle Repose. Or buying the corpse while it is still alive. Or using Undeadification to keep truly Evil creatures from being returned to life.
The point is that "the body belongs to the soul" isn't acceptable justification for Animate Dead always being evil. Neither is religious justification when the Necromancer may not follow that religion.

Zincorium
2009-02-24, 03:00 PM
I don't allow paladins in games I DM, and I don't mess with paladins when other people play them.

Because players generally fall into two types:

1. They don't believe the DM will punish them for doing something that constitutes their enjoyment of the game. Which, arguably, the DM should not do unless the player is the problem.

2. Are hoping the paladin falls spectacularly so they can get their wangst on/roll up that blackguard/play a fighter without feats and do unconscionable things to the stormwind fallacy.

Neither is good for DM.

Narmoth
2009-02-24, 03:09 PM
I think you misunderstood me. I was saing that using undead isn't automatically evil, no matter what the books say. The books are dumb. :smallwink:

Actually, I just quoted the wrong part. I wanted to quote the one about poison use

Zeful
2009-02-24, 03:12 PM
What, then, is associating with evil? What does it take? :smallconfused:

Proof of Evil and knowing association after the revelation of the proof. Say there's a evil thief in the group, if he is never proven to be evil to the paladin, as he's never in the area of Detect Evil, never been seen negatively affected by Holy word, etc. The paladin can marry said evil thief and not be knowingly associating with evil. If the paladin later learns that the evil-thieving spouse is evil, the paladin must break off all ties with that person or be knowingly associating with evil (not a fallable offense through). If the Evil thief becomes Good (whether in actuality or the paladin's perception), then the paladin may associate with them as normal. If during the separation the Evil thief disguises himself, and appears before the paladin, it's not knowing association with an evil party.

Shademan
2009-02-24, 03:33 PM
Proof of Evil and knowing association after the revelation of the proof. Say there's a evil thief in the group, if he is never proven to be evil to the paladin, as he's never in the area of Detect Evil, never been seen negatively affected by Holy word, etc. The paladin can marry said evil thief and not be knowingly associating with evil. If the paladin later learns that the evil-thieving spouse is evil, the paladin must break off all ties with that person or be knowingly associating with evil (not a fallable offense through). If the Evil thief becomes Good (whether in actuality or the paladin's perception), then the paladin may associate with them as normal. If during the separation the Evil thief disguises himself, and appears before the paladin, it's not knowing association with an evil party.

wait, what gender was the paladin here? female?
...'cus i suddenly started thinking.... being gay was in medieval times often a completely reasonable ...well...reason for being burned, maimed, tortured or generally pained to death.
so what if the paladin's god hates homosexuals(and lesbians, mind) with abandon but said paladin comes outta the closet?
in our enlightened (with a pinch of salt) society we KNOW gays are not evil and the gays having sex do NOT bring the destruction of the earth, but D&D is usually set to a medieval setting...
wouldn't it be considered evil by some then?


(disclaimer: I think gays are ok, so dont fling any burning poop at me, anyone!)

Telonius
2009-02-24, 03:44 PM
Part of the problem is the definition of "associate." Does it mean "be in an adventuring party with," "be friends with," or "talk to, ever?"

"Talk to, ever," seems to be a bit too harsh. No Paladin would ever be able to try to redeem an evildoer if that were true. But what about "be friends with?" How close do you have to be to the person? It's never really spelled out too clearly in the rules.

And there are ways that a Paladin could fall because of the extent of that definition. Suppose he knows his dad is evil, but his dad summons him (which he is entitled to do by the rules of his society) to his deathbed to tell him something. Does the Paladin automatically fall? He'd be associating with an evil person if he goes, and disobeying legitimate authority if he doesn't. A summons from the Lawful Evil king of his hometown would be another example. (Let's say the king doesn't oppress people, it's just that he sold his soul to a fiend for some reason he thought was good at the time).

Piedmon_Sama
2009-02-24, 03:49 PM
wait, what gender was the paladin here? female?
...'cus i suddenly started thinking.... being gay was in medieval times often a completely reasonable ...well...reason for being burned, maimed, tortured or generally pained to death.
so what if the paladin's god hates homosexuals(and lesbians, mind) with abandon but said paladin comes outta the closet?
in our enlightened (with a pinch of salt) society we KNOW gays are not evil and the gays having sex do NOT bring the destruction of the earth, but D&D is usually set to a medieval setting...
wouldn't it be considered evil by some then?


(disclaimer: I think gays are ok, so dont fling any burning poop at me, anyone!)

The status of gays in the Medieval world is actually one of the more hotly debated topics in the study. Suffice to say that, while it may have officially been castigated, the reality was much more complex. Urban culture and court life were far from wholly dependent upon the Church's graces, and how much influence the Parish or Apostolic Clergy had in day-to-day life varied enormously between time and place.

But Richard I was probably bisexual, Edward II was certainly gay, and really as long as they produced an heir at some point, nobody cared.

And even among the Ecclesiastical Courts (who had no authority to kill anyone and had to turn to Secular courts to actually enforce their judgements), I doubt homosexuality would often be a killing offense. They wouldn't kill you the first time for heresy, after all, and I have no doubt that was a much worse sin than sodomy.

Shademan
2009-02-24, 03:54 PM
The status of gays in the Medieval world is actually one of the more hotly debated topics in the study. Suffice to say that, while it may have officially been castigated, the reality was much more complex. Urban culture and court life were far from wholly dependent upon the Church's graces, and how much influence the Parish or Apostolic Clergy had in day-to-day life varied enormously between time and place.

But Richard I was probably bisexual, Edward II was certainly gay, and really as long as they produced an heir at some point, nobody cared.

sooo... Paladins can travel up satan's(or Batoor, if you prefer) alley as long as they spawn a heir once in a while.
...
I could make a whole deity based on those few lines...

Zeful
2009-02-24, 04:01 PM
wait, what gender was the paladin here? female?
...'cus i suddenly started thinking.... being gay was in medieval times often a completely reasonable ...well...reason for being burned, maimed, tortured or generally pained to death.
so what if the paladin's god hates homosexuals(and lesbians, mind) with abandon but said paladin comes outta the closet?
in our enlightened (with a pinch of salt) society we KNOW gays are not evil and the gays having sex do NOT bring the destruction of the earth, but D&D is usually set to a medieval setting...
wouldn't it be considered evil by some then?


(disclaimer: I think gays are ok, so dont fling any burning poop at me, anyone!)

I deliberately left the gender unknown (though the pronoun "he" in English is the also used for an unknown entity, so it's possible that the Paladin is male, and the Thief Female).

As for the status of homosexuals in the setting, it depends on the setting itself. FR's Sune would probably have very little against Homosexuals, being a goddess of Love and all that, while say, Morodin, might have a problem with it.


Part of the problem is the definition of "associate." Does it mean "be in an adventuring party with," "be friends with," or "talk to, ever?"

"Talk to, ever," seems to be a bit too harsh. No Paladin would ever be able to try to redeem an evildoer if that were true. But what about "be friends with?" How close do you have to be to the person? It's never really spelled out too clearly in the rules.

And there are ways that a Paladin could fall because of the extent of that definition. Suppose he knows his dad is evil, but his dad summons him (which he is entitled to do by the rules of his society) to his deathbed to tell him something. Does the Paladin automatically fall? He'd be associating with an evil person if he goes, and disobeying legitimate authority if he doesn't. A summons from the Lawful Evil king of his hometown would be another example. (Let's say the king doesn't oppress people, it's just that he sold his soul to a fiend for some reason he thought was good at the time).

Due to the phrasing of the Paladin's Code, Knowingly associating with with evil isn't fall worthy, unless you go out of your way to associate them (buying from the Evil merchant, then going to sleep with Evil prostitutes, and playing with Evil children, when you know of Good-to-neutral Merchants/Prostitutes/Children).

Adamaro
2009-02-24, 04:32 PM
Why? It's a corpse. No one was using it or going to use it. The only reason it's evil is the same reason poison is; it says so in the books. There is no legitimate reason to make it blanket evil.

So if after death, I would like to use your loved one's body as a sex toy, you have no problem with it? ALSO: Corpses should be buried after death. Why? Well in order to calm the departed spirit and enable its close ones to part ways with the deceased.
As for poison: It is insidious. And paladins don't do insidious. They ride right to the castle and challenge the castellan/dragon/evil princess. (detect evil. lots of it he he)



I don't have a probblem with LG characters, but playing a Paladin means one player is restricting other players options. Orcs and Elves can exist in the same party, as well as Clerics of Heironimus and Hextor, but the instant you put a Pally in the party, 33% of the alignments are closed off, as well as several classes and entire archetypes. Crusaders and Clerics can have the same fluff with none of the restrictions. Use them instead.

Quite so on the bold part, as for others - I love the one-mindedness of paladins. I intend to play one really die-hard in the future, so I opened this thread.


Messing with the Paladin isn't fun, because it's too easy to do.

My preferred method: houserule that Paladins take the alignment of their god, with changes in their "Smite X" and "Detect X" abilities as necessary. ("Smite Extremist" is a great one for True Neutral Paladins). They have to serve as a shining example of their god's philosophy (not alignment). When they don't, they fall.

This makes it harder to fall, more interesting to tempt, and more obvious to all of the players why the paladin falls (if he does).

Well that is one way to put it ... BUT! IMO paladins are primarily good. So "standing behind god's principles" here really doesn't apply. Same as "you broke the local law, you fall!. If the local law say's adulterers are stoned to death, as a paladin I'll have some mob slashing to do (or intimidation. or bribing. or diplomacy, etc ...) but will not buy into that "you broke the law" crapolla.


Generally speaking, D&D religion regards death as a sacred thing that shouldn't be violated. To animate corpses, generally with the intention of harming others, violates that sanctity and what the dominant forces of D&D religion consider "the natural order." When you die, your body is dead for good. Your soul remains forever. The body is not supposed to exist without a soul driving it, and that's what makes undead unnatural as they are soulless. This is also why spells like Raise Dead and Ressurection are NOT evil, since they return the soul to the body. Death need not be a permanent end for you in D&D, but if you want to come back, your soul actually needs to leave the afterlife and return to the body it came from. Some random soul can't take your body, and you can't go into someone else's body. Your body is your body, and if some jerk of a necromancer reanimates it, that's like stealing from you, since the body still belongs to your disembodied soul.

Am I even making sense here?

My point in other words.


Skeletons. Or Gentle Repose. Or buying the corpse while it is still alive. Or using Undeadification to keep truly Evil creatures from being returned to life.
The point is that "the body belongs to the soul" isn't acceptable justification for Animate Dead always being evil. Neither is religious justification when the Necromancer may not follow that religion.

Buying the corps while it is still alive? Are we talking slavery here? I find your aspect rather druidistic, which is also - quite heretical.


Proof of Evil and knowing association after the revelation of the proof. Say there's a evil thief in the group, if he is never proven to be evil to the paladin, as he's never in the area of Detect Evil, never been seen negatively affected by Holy word, etc. The paladin can marry said evil thief and not be knowingly associating with evil. If the paladin later learns that the evil-thieving spouse is evil, the paladin must break off all ties with that person or be knowingly associating with evil (not a fallable offense through). If the Evil thief becomes Good (whether in actuality or the paladin's perception), then the paladin may associate with them as normal. If during the separation the Evil thief disguises himself, and appears before the paladin, it's not knowing association with an evil party.

But evil is, who evil does. When I'm a DM, NPCs switch their alignments pretty darn fast. Somebody going around as evil rouge, who helps lost travelers is surely at least neutral.
Some say it's a problem because orcs or kobolds are evil and paladin attacks them with no good reason. But there is good reason. If a character is cought by orcs, he/she wil be cut, burnt, mutilated, etc. If they don't do such things, well, then ... we can hardly say these creatures are evil, right?


Part of the problem is the definition of "associate." Does it mean "be in an adventuring party with," "be friends with," or "talk to, ever?"

"Talk to, ever," seems to be a bit too harsh. No Paladin would ever be able to try to redeem an evildoer if that were true. But what about "be friends with?" How close do you have to be to the person? It's never really spelled out too clearly in the rules.

And there are ways that a Paladin could fall because of the extent of that definition. Suppose he knows his dad is evil, but his dad summons him (which he is entitled to do by the rules of his society) to his deathbed to tell him something. Does the Paladin automatically fall? He'd be associating with an evil person if he goes, and disobeying legitimate authority if he doesn't. A summons from the Lawful Evil king of his hometown would be another example. (Let's say the king doesn't oppress people, it's just that he sold his soul to a fiend for some reason he thought was good at the time).

Associate ... paladin comes across LE trader, who by the way trades in necromantic stuff. There is NO WAY such a man should be left unpunished. So yes', saying hello/talking to - if detected as such.

As for dad thingy - paladin knows only one thing. Goodness. If dad hurts no one, then maybe he may die under paladin's vigil - making sure dad hurts no one. But if the dad does hourt someone by being alive, well then ... hack away!
I find that legitimate authority silly. If authority forces paladin do commit an evil act, authority itself is no longer good and thus - can easily be disobeyed by a paladin.

Well if the king is Evil, he must opress his people. Or have virgins for breakfast. Or steal their yellbeans. As long as that is not the case, he is not evil. I think most here are forgetting the fact, that alignment designation comes with certain behavior type.

As for the gay issue: If given PCs don't hurt anybody AND are thus not evil, I see no problem here. In fact, IMO it would be paladin's duty to save a gay, who the angry mob would want to burn at a stake.

Narmoth
2009-02-24, 04:33 PM
sooo... Paladins can travel up satan's(or Batoor, if you prefer) alley as long as they spawn a heir once in a while.
...
I could make a whole deity based on those few lines...

Oh, please people! Don't give him any ideas. He's my Dm, and I'll have to face all the, ehm, stuff he makes up

Heliomance
2009-02-24, 04:50 PM
And if the necromancer started out neutral, was a good friend to the Paladin, and was gradually corrupted by the black arts, becoming evil over time? Should the Paladin cut off all ties, throw him out of the party and refuse to associate with him? Or should the Paladin stay wit him and try to guide him back to the path of good?

No-one's answered this question yet. I'm interested in the answer.

estradling
2009-02-24, 05:07 PM
No-one's answered this question yet. I'm interested in the answer.


Its a Roleplaying call and very much situational. Such a slide into evil would be accompanied by actions that are questionable. Did the paladin know about the 'questionable acts'? Did he see the acts and try to intervene or discuss other ways/why it was wrong? A paladin who has watched as a friend slowly twisted to evil no matter what he tried would react differently to a paladin who suddenly was brought to face his friends evil ways.

Sholos
2009-02-24, 05:24 PM
Adamaro, you're talking about playing exactly the kind of paladins people hate. The kind that get all smite-happy and are generally self-righteous jerks who no one wants to be around. In short, you're going to be Miko. Actually, I'll go so far as to say you'll be worse than Miko. And if you've got a reasonable DM at all, you'll fall within a few sessions. And deserve it.

Lazy Fat Man
2009-02-24, 11:26 PM
I think creating undead is evil not because it reanimates corpses, but because it uses negative energy, which is itself evil. Making a flesh golem is essentially the same thing as reanimating a corpse,or several corpses' parts, but it is not an evil act because its doesn't require negative energy. In my most humble of opinions.

Anyway wouldn't it be more evil to kill an evil person than to kill a good one? Let's say you kill a lawful evil cleric, you are just adding to hell's army.And binding souls is evil, but binding an evil persons soul would be great. Morality is weird in a world where you know what the afterlife brings.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-25, 12:09 AM
So if after death, I would like to use your loved one's body as a sex toy, you have no problem with it?Nope.
ALSO: Corpses should be buried after death. Why? Well in order to calm the departed spirit and enable its close ones to part ways with the deceased. There is no reason to believe that is the case. The rules make no mention of what s done with bodies. For all the PHB says cremation or embalming and display could be standard.
As for poison: It is insidious. And paladins don't do insidious. They ride right to the castle and challenge the castellan/dragon/evil princess. (detect evil. lots of it he he)I didn't say "verboten by Code", I said Evil. As in, poison your dagger and use it on a regular basis, and your damned for all eternity. Even if poison is less painful and less deadly than a so-called fair fight.
Buying the corps while it is still alive? Are we talking slavery here? I find your aspect rather druidistic, which is also - quite heretical. I'm talking about a rich necromancer going into a villiage and paying a hundred GP(3 years wages) to old men on their deathbeds, so that their family is looked after when they're gone. Essentially Life insurance, but you pay the premium after death. And that wasn't my only idea. I listed half a dozen ways Undeadification could be done that violated no rights, even given your rather tenuous objection.
Associate ... paladin comes across LE trader, who by the way trades in necromantic stuff. There is NO WAY such a man should be left unpunished. So yes', saying hello/talking to - if detected as such.With no evidence of actual crimes? All you have is proof that the peron isn't nice. Maybe he insults his neighbors. Maybe he prays for the all stupid yapping dogs to die a horrible death. Are any of those things grounds for assault?
I find that legitimate authority silly. If authority forces paladin do commit an evil act, authority itself is no longer good and thus - can easily be disobeyed by a paladin.Legitimate !=Good. If people elect an Evil leader, would you really violate the rights of an entire country to remove him?
Well if the king is Evil, he must opress his people. Or have virgins for breakfast. Or steal their yellbeans. As long as that is not the case, he is not evil. I think most here are forgetting the fact, that alignment designation comes with certain behavior type.But not all of that behavior type is criminal. Even when it is, should you really chase down and kill a pickpocket who is only trying to survive?


I think creating undead is evil not because it reanimates corpses, but because it uses negative energy, which is itself evil. Making a flesh golem is essentially the same thing as reanimating a corpse,or several corpses' parts, but it is not an evil act because its doesn't require negative energy. In my most humble of opinions.But so does Enervation, which isn't Evil, and in fact, even the Negative Energy Plane, a world of pure Negative Energy, isn't Evil-Aligned.

The Glyphstone
2009-02-25, 12:33 AM
I think creating undead is evil not because it reanimates corpses, but because it uses negative energy, which is itself evil. Making a flesh golem is essentially the same thing as reanimating a corpse,or several corpses' parts, but it is not an evil act because its doesn't require negative energy. In my most humble of opinions.


By RAW, though, this is wrong. Enervation/Energy Drain is not evil, nor are any of the Inflict spells, or Ray of Enfeeblement, or even the Negative Energy Plane itself.

Then again, Deathwatch is [Evil]. So go figure. D&D is incredibly inconsistent in this regard, even more so than usual.

ironically, golem creation, while not tagged as Evil, should be Evil by its description - it involves the forceful binding of an unwilling earth elemental spirit to animate your golem.

Dacia Brabant
2009-02-25, 01:37 AM
Why? It's a corpse. No one was using it or going to use it. The only reason it's evil is the same reason poison is; it says so in the books. There is no legitimate reason to make it blanket evil.

FWIW, I'm an organ doner, but other than that after death you can make my skeleton dance and mount my head on the wall for all I care.

Since you brought up the organ donor thing, in reality corpses have legal rights in most societies even when there's no life in them, and a big no-no is using them for purposes that go against the deceased's prior expressed consent. Violations of consent are generally regarded as moral evils, so it's not much of a leap to call it evil (or chaotic anyway, if these rights are recognized by law) to turn someone's corpse into a zombie without them giving permission before they died to use them that way.

On the other hand, the setting I was working on for one of my games had a generally Lawful Good society where animating the dead was allowed and acceptible--but it was governed under probate law, so the necromancer in question had to have legitimate proof of the deceased's wishes, signed and attested to by two independent witnesses just as with the rest of their estate. So if a Paladin went all smitey-smite smite against undead and necromancers just for what they are and not for what they do, it'd be a one-way ticket to Fallsville.


But anyway, while the Miko archetype is indeed dreadful and deserves scorn, I wish folks would have a little sympathy for those of us who like Paladins since a lot of the friction we face in parties comes from having to work with all those anarchist types. It's not our fault so many of our fellow gamers are enamored with chaos. :smalltongue:

krossbow
2009-02-25, 02:06 AM
For example, we have a classic 'archdemon opens a gate to hell' scenario. The Paladin arrives to discover that there is less than a minute before the door opens and he is swarmed and killed by demons. The archdemon cackles evilly and tells the Paladin that the only way to stop it is by killing the archdemon himself.

The archdemon wants to make it interesting though, so he has arranged for an innocent newborn baby to be on hand. With a twisted gleam in his eyes the archdemon shifts his form and possesses the baby. He leaves the paladin with a dilemma; If he doesn't stop the archdemon fast the legions of Hell will march through the portal, kill him, then wage war across the lands. He doesn't have time to perform a rite of exorcism, so the only hope of getting the archdemon back in a form he can fight is to kill the child. Either way some innocent is going to die and he will be responsible.





In my mind thats simple. The paladin should quickly and efficiently kill the child and then destroy the demon.


The baby is in a state in which it will die if the paladin does not kill the demon; should the archdemon suceed, then demons will emerge from the portal and begin killing all the humans they can find, and presumably the child shall also die once it is vacated. The baby in this situation is dead no matter what; therefore, it should be viewed as being already dead.

The child is not in this situation due to the paladin; the blame for that is purely on the demon. He kidnapped it ahead of time, and no action the paladin took resulted in this situation. The paladin is in no way shape or form responsible for not being omnipotent.






After the situation has been resolved, he should respectfully bury and eulagize the child, and then attempt to find out if there is a way to see who's parents it had so you could inform them of the situation. Possibly even if the paladin truly feels guilty, he could attempt to have the child ressurected.

However, he should NOT feel guilty about the situation. The demon chose its death and fate, not him. Mortals are not culpable for being mortals.




I've had DMs attempt to pull situations like this before (such as a group refusing to pay our party for retrieving and delivering medicine) by taunting that our refusal to hand over or do work for them would result in the deaths of innocents. At which point i calmly but firmly agreed, but also pointed out that i was still free to beat the **** out of them as "punishment" for coorcion; and then used subdual damage to smash their faces into the wall until they either kept their end of the bargain or they conked out and i would leave.


A paladin being good does not mean being bound and gagged by alignment. A "good" character can still use violence to maneuver through attempts to entrap paladins.







However, at the same time i would like to point out the HORRIBLE flaw of believing that a paladin should smite anything and everything they detect as evil; this just comes off as insane and uptight. A paladin should realize that ALL mortals are fallable; trying to hold people up to perfection would just justify themselves falling for minor infractions.
A paladin should attempt to talk to evil characters and attempt to persuade them to take a lighter path; however, should they refuse, the paladin should politely thank them for their time and leave them be unless they are actively committing a crime. Just because a paladin cannot cooperate with evil individuals does not mean they can't attempt to talk to them, or avoid smiting; thats called life. a paladin who refuses to even talk or interact with evil characters would have no justification for casting judgment on them. Anyone who could not be bothered to first try and persuade someone of the evil of their ways has no right to cast blame.

Adamaro
2009-02-25, 06:11 AM
Adamaro, you're talking about playing exactly the kind of paladins people hate. The kind that get all smite-happy and are generally self-righteous jerks who no one wants to be around. In short, you're going to be Miko. Actually, I'll go so far as to say you'll be worse than Miko. And if you've got a reasonable DM at all, you'll fall within a few sessions. And deserve it.
Well, I agree on hatred part. But world is full of evil-doers, so such hate is understandable. As for Miko being bad ... I am very sorry, but defending an Evil! halfling is indeed not a good deed. As for falling for a reason - paladin does not fall for being annoying(Or irritating DM and other players), but for violating the law.


I think creating undead is evil not because it reanimates corpses, but because it uses negative energy, which is itself evil. Making a flesh golem is essentially the same thing as reanimating a corpse,or several corpses' parts, but it is not an evil act because its doesn't require negative energy. In my most humble of opinions.

Anyway wouldn't it be more evil to kill an evil person than to kill a good one? Let's say you kill a lawful evil cleric, you are just adding to hell's army. And binding souls is evil, but binding an evil persons soul would be great. Morality is weird in a world where you know what the afterlife brings.

Abuse of post-mortem remains is evil. That means anything but proper burial(and some cases, described below).


Nope. There is no reason to believe that is the case. The rules make no mention of what s done with bodies. For all the PHB says cremation or embalming and display could be standard. I didn't say "verboten by Code", I said Evil. As in, poison your dagger and use it on a regular basis, and your damned for all eternity. Even if poison is less painful and less deadly than a so-called fair fight.
It's not about pain. It's about fair fight.



I'm talking about a rich necromancer going into a villiage and paying a hundred GP(3 years wages) to old men on their deathbeds, so that their family is looked after when they're gone. Essentially Life insurance, but you pay the premium after death. And that wasn't my only idea. I listed half a dozen ways Undeadification could be done that violated no rights, even given your rather tenuous objection. With no evidence of actual crimes? All you have is proof that the peron isn't nice. Maybe he insults his neighbors. Maybe he prays for the all stupid yapping dogs to die a horrible death. Are any of those things grounds for assault?Legitimate !=Good. If people elect an Evil leader, would you really violate the rights of an entire country to remove him? But not all of that behavior type is criminal. Even when it is, should you really chase down and kill a pickpocket who is only trying to survive?

Hmmm, I find life insurance idea acceptable. Still, there is a question of good use of these reanimated bodies. A good necromancer gathering an undead army to defeat an evil dragon and along providing a society with wealth to improve their life may actually be ok.
Evil is not just "not nice". Hannibal lecter is evil. The dude from the Saw is evil. Guy who molests little kids is evil. I don't think insulting a neighbor or wanting for some dogs to die is a reason for smite - but thievery ... First of all hurts others and second of all, there are other means of survival - like hard work. So, smite in this case? Hmmm ... unless thief repents and repays his evil deeds, then yes, for sure.


Since you brought up the organ donor thing, in reality corpses have legal rights in most societies even when there's no life in them, and a big no-no is using them for purposes that go against the deceased's prior expressed consent. Violations of consent are generally regarded as moral evils, so it's not much of a leap to call it evil (or chaotic anyway, if these rights are recognized by law) to turn someone's corpse into a zombie without them giving permission before they died to use them that way.

On the other hand, the setting I was working on for one of my games had a generally Lawful Good society where animating the dead was allowed and acceptable--but it was governed under probate law, so the necromancer in question had to have legitimate proof of the deceased's wishes, signed and attested to by two independent witnesses just as with the rest of their estate. So if a Paladin went all smitey-smite smite against undead and necromancers just for what they are and not for what they do, it'd be a one-way ticket to Fallsville.

But anyway, while the Miko archetype is indeed dreadful and deserves scorn, I wish folks would have a little sympathy for those of us who like Paladins since a lot of the friction we face in parties comes from having to work with all those anarchist types. It's not our fault so many of our fellow gamers are enamored with chaos. :smalltongue:

In a society as mentioned, even my code would accept corpse reanimation.

Yeah, most people just think looting their asses off is ok, killing everything that brings XP and being an all out money/XP monger. I love to rain on such parades :D

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-25, 10:47 AM
Abuse of post-mortem remains is evil. That means anything but proper burial(and some cases, described below). Who does it hurt?
It's not about pain. It's about fair fight. Again, I wasn't talking about the Paladin's code. I was talking about the fact that poison use is Evil, no matter the circumstances, while Coup De Gras isn't. And neither are Ravages. It just makes no logical sense.
Evil is not just "not nice". Hannibal lecter is evil. The dude from the Saw is evil. Guy who molests little kids is evil. I don't think insulting a neighbor or wanting for some dogs to die is a reason for smiteIn the Alignment section, it talks about Evil "debasing...innocent life" and "Hurting or oppressing others". Being verbally crude, offensive, and hurtful is contained in that, but isn't illegal.
but thievery ... First of all hurts others and second of all, there are other means of survival - like hard work. So, smite in this case? Hmmm ... unless thief repents and repays his evil deeds, then yes, for sure. So if your Pally saw a pickpocket running away and gave chase, he'd beat the pickpocket to death rather than let him escape? You do realize that there is a difference between LN and LG, right?
Yeah, most people just think looting their asses off is ok, killing everything that brings XP and being an all out money/XP monger. I love to rain on such parades :DI don't mind moral characters. Crusaders and Clerics and heck, even LG Fighters who attempt to keep the party on the straight and narrow are fine by me. It's the Paladin, who is required to smite his allies if they don't conform, that I dislike. The Paladin is the only class that creates roleplaying restrictions for everyone else, and I really don't see how you can not see why people don't want to adventure with them.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-25, 11:14 AM
In my mind thats simple. The paladin should quickly and efficiently kill the child and then destroy the demon.

It is that simple, but at the same time it's not that simple. One of the problems with a dilemma like this is you're asked to accept one of two options as being the only possible decisions. In the heat of the moment, perhaps those are the only two there's time to consider, but later on reflection the paladin will have to ask a rather dooming question: "What if there was another way?"

For example, it's entirely possible the archdemon lied about the gate. It is a fiend, after all. Or if the paladin had seen a diviner and memorized the right spell he might have been able to stop the possession without killing a child. Or found some way to seal the gate the archdemon didn't think of. There are other alternatives, but none as likely to solve things as the scenario the demon wants the paladin to play to. Actually, that's the part that should give you the greatest pause: the demon obviously wants the paladin to kill the child, or he wouldn't have set this whole scenario up.

The whole point of my example was to show a fairly standard no-frills way of making things very uncomfortable for a Paladin (i.e. they are screwed.) As a DM you shouldn't do things like this to Paladins unless it's a dramatic campaign effecting climax, because it's going to change how the paladin values life versus his calling. This kinda thing generally ends in a paladin retiring ("I didn't become a knight to slaughter innocent people!") becoming smite happy ("If it serves the greater good, I would kill ANYONE!") or going Miko ("I now fulfill the destiny that the Twelve Gods have revealed to me.")

Darth Stabber
2009-02-25, 12:55 PM
Given the obviously modern attitude most D&D societies take toward women (ie you see them in places other than the kitchen), I would probably venture to guess that the attitudes toward Homosexuality is probably fairly enlightened.

My personal belief as a GM is that you should never play by RAW. And i have a somewhat more relaxed code for the paladins, and so far the types that are likely to cause issues tend to fall. I also use the CG paladin from UA along side the traditional LG.

Paladin codes
CG
Fight tyranny and oppression where ever you find them.
Never ask any one to do anything you would not do yourself.
Do not cause suffering where it can be avoided.
Let the temptations of evil fall upon deaf ears.
Seek to redeem the evil ones who can be saved, but do force your philosophies upon others.

LG
Fight those who seek to harm the good, the just and their societies.
Follow the order of the land should it be just.
Do not cause suffering where it can be avoided.
Let the temptations of Wickedness fall upon deaf ears.
Seek to redeem the evil ones who can be saved, but do force your philosophies upon others.

That last bit makes the bad paladin tropes fall faster than gravity.

Both are fairly easy to follow, and i tend to be flexible when decisions are ambiguous, so long as the player can reasonably support there decision. Also I created a variant partial fall. If the player has screwed up, but not gigantically, the character loses divine grace (keeps everything else) until they spend 24 hours (straight) in fasting and meditation. It penalizes the character, reveals the flaw to them and lets them fix it themselves. Also if they decide to make a magnificent Face Heal Turn, one of the other two paladin variants from UA(tyranny and slaughter) become their classes and they just replace one set of benefits with another. I don't allow the Evil paladins to be taken except by fallen good paladins, so if the players see one, they know what that they are dealing with a corrupted champion of good.

Narmoth
2009-02-25, 01:34 PM
Okay, time to smite this thread:

Detect evil:
The paladin detect aura of evil. A commoner who secretly wishes for his neighbor to die in a well is not showing such an aura. A child molester would. A necromancer who's reanimated one skeleton wouldn't either, but an evil cleric of lvl 5 and higher would. What I'm saying is that only powerfully evil deeds detect. Thus a paladin shouldn't smite those who he wouldn't detect as evil.

Associating with evil:
I read this as the evil he can detect with the Detect evil power, not evil known with Know Alignment. So he can assosiate with the LE necromancer. But he should try to sway him to good, following the rules for such in BoED. If the necromancer commits evil deeds that are not justifiable, the paladin should stop him. The paladin should challenge the necromancers questionable deeds anyway, but it's much better RP not to kill the necromancer for raising the village graveyard to defend the village

Remember it's a game:
It's meant to be fun. Therefore thing that's not strictly by the rules should be let go if it makes for a better story

(Also, the smiting is by the power of ordained champion from CC, who can stack paladin and blackguard lvls and can smite anything)

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-25, 01:34 PM
It is that simple, but at the same time it's not that simple. One of the problems with a dilemma like this is you're asked to accept one of two options as being the only possible decisions. In the heat of the moment, perhaps those are the only two there's time to consider, but later on reflection the paladin will have to ask a rather dooming question: "What if there was another way?"

For example, it's entirely possible the archdemon lied about the gate. It is a fiend, after all. Or if the paladin had seen a diviner and memorized the right spell he might have been able to stop the possession without killing a child. Or found some way to seal the gate the archdemon didn't think of. There are other alternatives, but none as likely to solve things as the scenario the demon wants the paladin to play to. Actually, that's the part that should give you the greatest pause: the demon obviously wants the paladin to kill the child, or he wouldn't have set this whole scenario up.

The whole point of my example was to show a fairly standard no-frills way of making things very uncomfortable for a Paladin (i.e. they are screwed.) As a DM you shouldn't do things like this to Paladins unless it's a dramatic campaign effecting climax, because it's going to change how the paladin values life versus his calling. This kinda thing generally ends in a paladin retiring ("I didn't become a knight to slaughter innocent people!") becoming smite happy ("If it serves the greater good, I would kill ANYONE!") or going Miko ("I now fulfill the destiny that the Twelve Gods have revealed to me.")
Actually, this raises a very good point. In my opinion, there generally should be another way to solve things instead of forcing the paladin to fall either way.

For example, say that an archdevil has the paladin and a few other innocents at his mercy. The archdevil wants to make the paladin fall, or at least squirm, so he makes the following offer. If the paladin kills one of the people he's captured, the paladin and the rest of them can go free. If the paladin refuses, all the captives die. The paladin responds thus: "You want an innocent life in exchange for letting the rest go. Fine! If it's a life you want, then you can have mine!" and he impales himself on his own sword, forcing the archdevil to stick to the bargain and release the other innocents. The gods would likely be proud that he was willing to sacrifice his life rather than compromise his morals, and bring him back to life as a reward, or at least give him a place of the highest honor in the afterlife.

In an old article of Dungeon, there was this module that had the party exploring a plane that used to be celestial in nature, but fell into the Abyss for some reason. If the PCs passed a series of tests, they'd be named the plane's rulers, and then could do with it as they pleased. Unfortunately, others want to rule it to. At the end, the PCs and their last enemy are forced to make a choice. In order to rule the plane, a living person must be sacrificed to some sort of fire or something. The enemy immediately goes for the obvious and tries to sacrifice one of the PCs. The PCs have this option, but there's a better way. If a PC sacrifices himself or herself by throwing himself or herself into the fire, instead of being pushed into it, the Gods restore the PC to life and the PC's pass the test, becoming rulers of the plane, which they can then alter to their will. The option even exists to redeem it, and return it to the celestial planes of Good.

I know it kind of defeats the purpose of a moral dillema, but I don't think those should be set up specifically to make the paladin fall, but rather make the paladin think about how they can negotiate the dillema without resorting to evil.

krossbow
2009-02-25, 04:18 PM
but do force your philosophies upon others.


Wait, you want paladins to force others to convert by force? or is this a typo?






Actually, this raises a very good point. In my opinion, there generally should be another way to solve things instead of forcing the paladin to fall either way.

For example, say that an archdevil has the paladin and a few other innocents at his mercy. The archdevil wants to make the paladin fall, or at least squirm, so he makes the following offer. If the paladin kills one of the people he's captured, the paladin and the rest of them can go free. If the paladin refuses, all the captives die. The paladin responds thus: "You want an innocent life in exchange for letting the rest go. Fine! If it's a life you want, then you can have mine!" and he impales himself on his own sword, forcing the archdevil to stick to the bargain and release the other innocents. The gods would likely be proud that he was willing to sacrifice his life rather than compromise his morals, and bring him back to life as a reward, or at least give him a place of the highest honor in the afterlife.

In an old article of Dungeon, there was this module that had the party exploring a plane that used to be celestial in nature, but fell into the Abyss for some reason. If the PCs passed a series of tests, they'd be named the plane's rulers, and then could do with it as they pleased. Unfortunately, others want to rule it to. At the end, the PCs and their last enemy are forced to make a choice. In order to rule the plane, a living person must be sacrificed to some sort of fire or something. The enemy immediately goes for the obvious and tries to sacrifice one of the PCs. The PCs have this option, but there's a better way. If a PC sacrifices himself or herself by throwing himself or herself into the fire, instead of being pushed into it, the Gods restore the PC to life and the PC's pass the test, becoming rulers of the plane, which they can then alter to their will. The option even exists to redeem it, and return it to the celestial planes of Good.

I know it kind of defeats the purpose of a moral dillema, but I don't think those should be set up specifically to make the paladin fall, but rather make the paladin think about how they can negotiate the dillema without resorting to evil.


While i can see the appeal of this idea for the image of self sacrifice, personally i kind of blanch at this myself.

While its somewhat cliched, i prefer the view of "Suicide is never the answer" :smalltongue: In all seriousness though, in this situation the PC is literally invoking deus ex machinas to save the day, in that they are relying on the gods to be moved to get off their asses. At the end of the day when you think about it, such "tests" just seem a bit off in my mind. You start to wonder just what the gods are doing while your stabbing yourself to death y'know?

Advocate
2009-02-25, 05:08 PM
If it's Faerun, they're knocking up random tavern goers.

If it's Eberron, they're not caring.

Kris Strife
2009-02-25, 09:22 PM
To every one who has used 'medieval standards', 'modern standards', 'according to X religion' or anything that is not an objective moral setup in their arguements: D&D Morality Does Not Work That Way!
Its an objective system, thats why its Detect/Smite Alignment, not Smite Foe/Heritic or Detect Does This Person Agree With Me.

This gets said every alignment/paladin thread at least once, but no body remembers the next time.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-25, 10:14 PM
Well, as long as its consensual. . .
Wait, not that kind of screw?
Well, my first question is, why?
Paladins are pretty MAD (multiple ability dependency), and have an agreement with a deity that can take away the bulk of their usefulness at the DM's discretion. If you want to contrive some way of making a paladin fall, you can justify it one way or the other, RAW. But the thing is, falling is, in game, at the discretion of the deity in question. That's right, as DM, your going to have to role play a god at this point. And unless the world your creating is one where deities, even good ones, are actually complete jerks, I would think many, some more then others admittedly, will be a bit more understanding. Now, if said paladin is going against his or her deities requirements, then yes, it is time to break out the falling stick. Remember, 'What Would Diety Do'. But thinking as DM "hee, hee, how can I make the paladin fall?" isn't very nice or even immersive. All your doing making the game less enjoyable for one player, just because you can. I am not saying a paladin shouldn't face tough choices, and sometimes, whatever the choice, the paladin may very well fall. But if he or she comes up with a novel third way out, don't veto it just because you want to see the paladin fall.
Paladins are PC's too.

Nightson
2009-02-25, 10:46 PM
To every one who has used 'medieval standards', 'modern standards', 'according to X religion' or anything that is not an objective moral setup in their arguements: D&D Morality Does Not Work That Way!
Its an objective system, thats why its Detect/Smite Alignment, not Smite Foe/Heritic or Detect Does This Person Agree With Me.

This gets said every alignment/paladin thread at least once, but no body remembers the next time.

You mean the objective morality system which is different for each and every game under different DMs?

Jack_Simth
2009-02-25, 10:53 PM
Why? It's a corpse. No one was using it or going to use it. The only reason it's evil is the same reason poison is; it says so in the books. There is no legitimate reason to make it blanket evil.
Interestingly, Core, Poison use isn't evil. Not using Poison is part of the Paladin's Code... but that's under the "honorable" section, not the "evil" section. You need to go to supplements before the rules say poison use is evil.

Mind you - the undead creating spells all have the Evil descriptor. Books don't say why. Nor do they say how undead are animated. Considering, though, that Reincarnate, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection all agree that you can't bring someone back if their corpse is shambling around (and Reincarnate and Raise Dead won't work even after the corpse is re-dead). Pure RAW, when you cast Animate Dead, something magical is damaging something spiritual. If it weren't for the Clone spell not listing that particular restriction, it wouldn't be a stretch at all for the DM to say the soul's dragged back into the body and trapped in a cage of rotting flesh...


I think creating undead is evil not because it reanimates corpses, but because it uses negative energy, which is itself evil. Making a flesh golem is essentially the same thing as reanimating a corpse,or several corpses' parts, but it is not an evil act because its doesn't require negative energy. In my most humble of opinions.

Funny thing though...
1) The description of creating a Flesh Golem specifically calls out that to make it, you must cast an evil spell.
2) There's a lot of spells that use Negative Energy that do not have the same [Evil] descriptor that the undead-creating spells do. Enervation, Harm, the entire Inflict line, Touch of Fatigue, Chill Touch, Ghoul Touch, and probably quite a few others.


Anyway wouldn't it be more evil to kill an evil person than to kill a good one? Let's say you kill a lawful evil cleric, you are just adding to hell's army.And binding souls is evil, but binding an evil persons soul would be great. Morality is weird in a world where you know what the afterlife brings.
Funny thing, though... Soul Bind does not have the Evil descriptor. Animate Dead does.

Kris Strife
2009-02-25, 11:07 PM
You mean the objective morality system which is different for each and every game under different DMs?

No. The admittedly insufficient RAW definitions. Or can every thread be argued entirely by house rulings?

Also: Cannabalism. There, the can of worms is opened.

krossbow
2009-02-25, 11:13 PM
there's the real question about undead in D&D isn't it?


What exactly IS reanimating a corpse doing? Some undead are most definitely that person brought back from the dead; on the other hand, most of the non-intelligent undead seem to be more like quasi-flesh golems.




The way that my group always liked to think about it was that intelligent undead were indeed souls bound into the body you'd just reanimated; however, non-intelligent ones appear to merely be animated hunks of meet, controlled and given life by a massive amount of negative energy.




Unfortunately, there's no real confirmation from wizards of the coast on whether or not non-intelligent undead are indeed binding the souls of the deceased, so that could be left up to the DM presumably.

Fortinbras
2009-02-26, 12:03 AM
Honestly I think that there are so many ways to make a paladin fall that I don't see the point of the discussion. I also don't see the point of doing it in the first place, picking on a class that is already hard to play from both a rp standpoint and a mechanical one is just mean. Quite frankly I think that a thread concerning weather or not paladins have to be celibate would be more interesting.

Any way we had a terrible NPC paladin once that I think he should have fallen. In the campaign the PCs landed in a strange city that was under attack by some strange extra planer creatures. The PCs, one of whom was actually a paladin, helped defend the city but were forced to retreat by overwhelming odds. Over the course of the campaign our group traveled across a war torn nation. At first we fought on the side of the king of the country but eventually we became aware of his evil, at one point my character, a dwarf samurai fighter, even killed one of the generals in single combat. Finally we realized that we would have to go to the capital city and kill the evil king who had started the war by enslaving the extra planer creatures.

Here is were the paladin comes in. He was employed by the evil king. How he managed to never cast a single detect evil in the presence of his king is beyond me. He then challenged my character to single combat. In the middle of the fight he had an archer start shooting at me. He said that this was fair based on the the fact that I had agreed to a fight with katanas and then used a warpike. When I pointed out that he was using a great sword he said it was "close enough." The paladin then surrendered I was talked out of killing him and the fight was chalked up to a misunderstanding. When asked why he continued to fight after he noticed that his smite evils didn't work and I didn't show up as evil on his scans he said he thought they weren't working. After sharing a meal and a few healing potions he rode off.

Later in the campaign when we had just finished killing the king the same guy came barreling into our rear, almost killing several people. This time both my character and our party paladin attacked for maximum effect and finished the idiot off. When do people think this guy should have fallen? What do they think of the actions of our two LG characters?

krossbow
2009-02-26, 12:09 AM
Well, there are multiple ways for a king to hide his alignment from a paladin. Unless the paladin starts digging really deep, he's not going to, at a glance, determine that the king is evil if the king is smart.


However, the actions during your battle strike me as betraying his code. While stating "fair enough" isn't a gross moral failing, it does greatly betray his honor and sense of law. That alone would probably not have been enough to fall however.



When he came riding back however, i do believe he should have fallen in a spectatular way.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-26, 12:28 AM
Interestingly, Core, Poison use isn't evil. Not using Poison is part of the Paladin's Code... but that's under the "honorable" section, not the "evil" section. You need to go to supplements before the rules say poison use is evil. True, it is only in the WotC supplements specifically about morality that Alignment gets really idiotic.
Mind you - the undead creating spells all have the Evil descriptor. Books don't say why. Nor do they say how undead are animated. Considering, though, that Reincarnate, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection all agree that you can't bring someone back if their corpse is shambling around (and Reincarnate and Raise Dead won't work even after the corpse is re-dead).The weaker 2 require a body, which has presumably been destroyed by the destruction of the Undead, or is "in use". Resurrection and True Resurrection actually do turn Undead into living beings though(check the Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) section).
Funny thing though...
1) The description of creating a Flesh Golem specifically calls out that to make it, you must cast an evil spell. But not other Golems, which we have more reason to think the creation of is Evil than Undead.
Funny thing, though... Soul Bind does not have the Evil descriptor. Animate Dead does.So a spell that, by the RAW, rips a soul out of it's long-deserved final paradise and shoves it into a featureless gem for the rest of eternity isn't Evil, but Animating a Corpse is. I love WotC. That's as bad as Dominate Person not being Evil, but Deathwatch is.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-26, 02:11 AM
I don't think poison use is evil, it is a force multiplier, a way of making yourself more effective, no more evil then buffs or or magic weapons.As for undead, I can see a good argument for it being unnatural, as the body is not being returned to the soil, not able to return to the soil, circle of life and all that. Same could be said for any technology or magic, that keeps people alive, when they would otherwise be dead. Such as clothes, which stop you from 'naturally' dying from hypothermia. But evil? Nah. All your doing is making use of an unused resource. Unless the soul in question were being tortured by the act, I don't see how it could be said to be evil. And I am sorry, I have yet to see a good argument for negative energy being evil. Sure, certain doses of positive energy heals the living, but it hurts the undead. Too much, as would be received on a strong positive energy plane, and your just as dead.
I made this example before,and I still think it is a good one. If we met beings made of antimatter, their very landing on our planet would likely kill us all. But unless they did this intentionally in a suicide mission, it could not be described as an evil act, despite their very touch meaning death. So, despite RAW, I think D&D is wrong to put undead creating spells under Evil, especially if they have the former owners consent.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-26, 07:41 AM
True, it is only in the WotC supplements specifically about morality that Alignment gets really idiotic.

I think that may be because they were trying to fill entire books with something very simple. I think that Alignment is pretty much what it says on the tin - who are you aligned with? Are you part of the Forces of Good or the Forces of Evil?

At least, that would be my opinion of it.

Jack_Simth
2009-02-26, 08:21 AM
True, it is only in the WotC supplements specifically about morality that Alignment gets really idiotic.
It's only in the WotC supplements that didn't get much playtesting that Alignment gets really idiotic ... and even then, those books just happen to be about the absolute extremes of the alignment... not the regular stuff. Funny how that works.

The weaker 2 require a body, which has presumably been destroyed by the destruction of the Undead, or is "in use". Resurrection and True Resurrection actually do turn Undead into living beings though(check the Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) section)
Resurrection and True Resurrection can turn an undead back into the critter it once was... if applied directly to the undead. True Resurrection doesn't need a corpse to raise the dead. If the corpse is sitting there normally in a tomb, you don't need to dig it up, you can just cast the spell. If the corpse is sitting there as an animate undead in a tomb, you do have to dig it up - and either destroy it (at which point, True Resurrection will work as normal) or apply the True Resurrection spell directly to the undead. The weaker versions don't work even if the undead has been destroyed, after.

Doesn't that reinforce the suggestion that the soul is in use in a zombie/skeleton/other undead in some manner?

. But not other Golems, which we have more reason to think the creation of is Evil than Undead. So a spell that, by the RAW, rips a soul out of it's long-deserved final paradise and shoves it into a featureless gem for the rest of eternity isn't Evil, but Animating a Corpse is. I love WotC. That's as bad as Dominate Person not being Evil, but Deathwatch is.
Yeah, I mean, you'd almost think those descriptors were on there to imply something about how the spell works at the fluff level, rather than being about the uses of the spell...

Cheesegear
2009-02-26, 08:47 AM
A Paladin forced to do something does not Fall.

I'm of the school of thought that if a Paladin has no other choice (i.e; The DM has forced him into an arbitrary choice), such as the Archfiend possessing the baby, and the Paladin smiting the kid. What other choice does he have?

"In seconds, the world is destroyed. Or I kill the child..."

The Paladin does not Fall. Because he's definitely not doing it because he wants to. There's no other choice. He kills the kid. And then feels bad about it. Really bad. So much so, that I'd probably get the player to talk to a Cleric of his religion about it and if he really did the right thing. And such.

IMHO, Paladins only Fall if they willingly choose to do an Evil/Unlawful act. But, that's why you PrC into Shadowbane Inquisitor. Use the darkness against itself!

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-26, 11:52 AM
Resurrection and True Resurrection can turn an undead back into the critter it once was... if applied directly to the undead. True Resurrection doesn't need a corpse to raise the dead. If the corpse is sitting there normally in a tomb, you don't need to dig it up, you can just cast the spell. If the corpse is sitting there as an animate undead in a tomb, you do have to dig it up - and either destroy it (at which point, True Resurrection will work as normal) or apply the True Resurrection spell directly to the undead. The weaker versions don't work even if the undead has been destroyed, after.

Doesn't that reinforce the suggestion that the soul is in use in a zombie/skeleton/other undead in some manner?I'm starting to wonder if it's not just Copypaste errors. True Ressurection says it can't be used to bring back Undead. Which may mean that it can't bring back someone from a Zombie state, or it might mean that if you want to bring back a Lich he has to come back as a living being, since Undead can be affected by it. Poor editing makes more sense than half the explanations I've heard.
Yeah, I mean, you'd almost think those descriptors were on there to imply something about how the spell works at the fluff level, rather than being about the uses of the spell...See, you're starting from the assumption that WotC knows what they're doing. I'm starting from the assumption that these are the people who printed the Druid and the Monk in the same book.

Let's have some fun. There is a spell out there that completely overwrites someone's personality, mind, and soul to bring them over to your team. Guess the Alignment. Trick Question. It could be either Mindrape(Evil), Programmed Amnesia(Neutral), or Sanctify the Wicked(Good) This only makes sense if you consider Alignment "Red v. Blue" rather than anything deeper, or if WotC is idiotic.

Advocate
2009-02-26, 01:20 PM
Oh! Oh! I know! Exalted Cheese alignment!

Ravens_cry
2009-02-26, 05:05 PM
I'm starting to wonder if it's not just Copypaste errors. True Ressurection says it can't be used to bring back Undead. Which may mean that it can't bring back someone from a Zombie state, or it might mean that if you want to bring back a Lich he has to come back as a living being, since Undead can be affected by it.

That's how I read it. Kill an undead, which is a simple way of describing a creature powered by an alternative elan vital to positive energy creatures, then cast resurrection and they come back, but not as an undead, but as a positive energy powered creature, AKA, 'living'. Some should 'research' a spell that does the same thing, but for undead. Not create undead, just raise them, back into an undead state, though just like resurrection but in reverse, it could be used to turn killed living into undead.

Advocate
2009-02-26, 06:42 PM
That's how I read it. Kill an undead, which is a simple way of describing a creature powered by an alternative elan vital to positive energy creatures, then cast resurrection and they come back, but not as an undead, but as a positive energy powered creature, AKA, 'living'. Some should 'research' a spell that does the same thing, but for undead. Not create undead, just raise them, back into an undead state, though just like resurrection but in reverse, it could be used to turn killed living into undead.

Revive Undead has beat you to it. Raise Dead, but for undead, and if the undead would lose Con, they lose Cha instead. Not sure on that last part, but the rest is definitely right.

Jack_Simth
2009-02-26, 07:02 PM
I'm starting to wonder if it's not just Copypaste errors. True Ressurection says it can't be used to bring back Undead. Which may mean that it can't bring back someone from a Zombie state, or it might mean that if you want to bring back a Lich he has to come back as a living being, since Undead can be affected by it. Poor editing makes more sense than half the explanations I've heard.See, you're starting from the assumption that WotC knows what they're doing. I'm starting from the assumption that these are the people who printed the Druid and the Monk in the same book.
Well, let's take a look at the relevant text used for the Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection (quotes copy/pasted from the SRD, for reference).

Raise Dead:
"A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised."
Undead are listed twice - once reasonably clearly referring to the creature prior to the undead state ("who has been turned into an undead creature"), once when referring to a dead undead creature ("undead creatures").

Resurrection:
"You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected."
Again, undead are listed twice - once reasonably clearly referring to the creature prior to the undead state ("who has been turned into an undead creature"), once when referring to a dead undead creature ("undead creatures").

True Resurrection:
"You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures."
Again, undead are listed twice - once reasonably clearly referring to the creature prior to the undead state ("who has been turned into an undead creature"), once when referring to a dead undead creature ("undead creatures").

With each transition, it's the same base text, but it's been edited to remove a restriction or two at each step. As written, with Resurrection, True Resurrection, Raise Dead, and Reincarnate, if the body has been zombiefied, and the zombie is still walking around, the spell fails. Resurrection and True Resurrection will let you get the original person back if you destroy the zombie first, however. In this specific case, WOTC is quite clear in their use of words, and makes very specific steps in the higher-level versions of the spells permitting things the lower-level versions of the spells don't. None of those four let you revive someone who's currently walking around as a shambling corpse (The Clone spell does not include that restriction, but it also requires you start the process while the person is still alive - you can cast the spell post-mortem, but you need to take the sample from the living person).


Let's have some fun. There is a spell out there that completely overwrites someone's personality, mind, and soul to bring them over to your team. Guess the Alignment. Trick Question. It could be either Mindrape(Evil), Programmed Amnesia(Neutral), or Sanctify the Wicked(Good) This only makes sense if you consider Alignment "Red v. Blue" rather than anything deeper, or if WotC is idiotic.
Not necessarily. As mentioned earlier - it could just imply something about how things work "under the hood" that's not stated in the mechanics of the spell. Additionally, there are other aspects to all three spells.

Sanctify the Wicked spells out how the fluff works - it's imprisonment and forced contemplation. The person isn't overridden, the person is convinced to change their ways (and as the spell has to work with game-mechanics, having to actually talk the person through it is hand-waved away). It ends up with the [Good] descriptor, for some odd reason.

Programmed Amnesia, for instance, is Permanent, rather than Instant. At the level where Programmed Amnesia is available, it's cure has been available for a fair length of time. While it can't be Dispelled, nothing stops it from being Disjoined, which, by RAW, completely removes the effects. What was is still there, it's just not accessible. It's much more meticulous than Dominate Person, but it's in exactly the same vein (even to the point of being the same school, and having the same descriptors attached). Most of this is not spelled out in the spell itself, but is a direct implication of the header of the spell.

Mindrape actually does most of what you describe it doing. It gets the Evil descriptor. Funny, that.

Talya
2009-02-26, 07:07 PM
I believe my heartwarder has written several holy books about how to properly screw a paladin.

Seriously though, Paladin codes are rigid, but not quite so obvious as people think. One of my favorite pictures is in the Book of Exalted Deeds where the paladin walks in on the two succubus lovers and must choose between destroying evil, or showing honor to true love...

Ravens_cry
2009-02-26, 07:10 PM
Revive Undead has beat you to it. Raise Dead, but for undead, and if the undead would lose Con, they lose Cha instead. Not sure on that last part, but the rest is definitely right.
Doh! Still, a whole set, including one that, like true resurrection, doesn't have a permanent negative effect would be nice. All the cure <blank> spells have inflict counter parts, why not the death defying ones? I looked through the SRD, couldn't find revive undead, where wouldst I find it?

Jack_Simth
2009-02-26, 07:21 PM
Doh! Still, a whole set, including one that, like true resurrection, doesn't have a permanent negative effect would be nice. All the cure <blank> spells have inflict counter parts, why not the death defying ones? I looked through the SRD, couldn't find revive undead, where wouldst I find it?
Libris Mortis, the book of Bad Latin, if I recall correctly. You could just check Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/spells) though.

Fortinbras
2009-02-27, 01:03 AM
I believe my heartwarder has written several holy books about how to properly screw a paladin.

Seriously though, Paladin codes are rigid, but not quite so obvious as people think. One of my favorite pictures is in the Book of Exalted Deeds where the paladin walks in on the two succubus lovers and must choose between destroying evil, or showing honor to true love...

Hmm let's think about that for just a minute. The succubi are evil. A paladin's job is to destroy evil. I have a very quick solution to the problem and it is spelled s-m-i-t-e. What the heck is the point of that picture? Is it trying to say that because someone is in love they can't be held accountable for their evilness? Hitler had a wife whom he supposedly loved. Genghis Khan was supposed to be very devoted to his mother. Of course this being the book of exalted deeds the paladin probably laid down her sword and apologized for intruding on the succubi who for some reason didn't slay her the minute her back was turned. That book is ridiculous.

Doomsy
2009-02-27, 01:34 AM
Hmm let's think about that for just a minute. The succubi are evil. A paladin's job is to destroy evil. I have a very quick solution to the problem and it is spelled s-m-i-t-e. What the heck is the point of that picture? Is it trying to say that because someone is in love they can't be held accountable for their evilness? Hitler had a wife whom he supposedly loved. Genghis Khan was supposed to be very devoted to his mother. Of course this being the book of exalted deeds the paladin probably laid down her sword and apologized for intruding on the succubi who for some reason didn't slay her the minute her back was turned. That book is ridiculous.

Hitler had a girlfriend. And besides winning a Godwin, you might be misinterpreting the point of that picture. Sure, they are evil. And sure they are horrible monsters. But you know there is such a thing as giving them a minute. You don't kill someone right in front of their family after breaking into their home. That is pretty much classic evil. A good paladin probably gave them a moment for goodbyes and then engaged in combat. Courtesy and giving someone some dignity counts a lot. Busting in and killing them both in a surprise attack is pretty much evil, even if they would do it to you.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-27, 02:21 AM
Hmm let's think about that for just a minute. The succubi are evil. A paladin's job is to destroy evil. I have a very quick solution to the problem and it is spelled s-m-i-t-e. What the heck is the point of that picture? Is it trying to say that because someone is in love they can't be held accountable for their evilness? Hitler had a wife whom he supposedly loved. Genghis Khan was supposed to be very devoted to his mother. Of course this being the book of exalted deeds the paladin probably laid down her sword and apologized for intruding on the succubi who for some reason didn't slay her the minute her back was turned. That book is ridiculous.

Here's the problem with that. Have you ever been wrong before? You are becoming judge, jury, and executioner all in one. In small doses that can be fine, but let's face it: if you're not a god, then you aren't infallible. One day you'll see bat wings where there aren't any. Power corrupts, and the greater the power the faster the corruption. Power to deliver life and death in the name of judgment is one of the most important and irrevocable responsibilities anyone will ever wield, and if you wield it with the basis that you don't make mistakes that responsibility will burn you.

AgentPaper
2009-02-27, 05:24 AM
Tell the DM said player is playing a paladin. Consider him screwed. :smalltongue:

Narmoth
2009-02-27, 06:50 AM
Interesting roleplaying twist:
Since we started on ECL 10, I decided, after first thinking to play a paladin that almost falls all the time, to play a already fallen paladin: a blackguard.
He fell after a series of personal tragedies that made him tell his god, St.Cuhbert (the one it's hardest to be a paladin of, since the god is LN) to stick the stick up his most holy posterior. Still, he has retained his sence of honor, and will often fight for the cause of good, if he is confronted with the needs of other people.
Now, the twist: I'm planing to redeem him. Much harder than make a paladin fall. I'm going to turn him back to good from LE.
Not sure if he'll actually level in the paladin class, as there are better options for him mechanically.

This character has really given me an idea of what should be counted as evil:
- sacrificing people for the greater good? Evil
- punish people according to the law, not thinking of the motivations behind the deed, like a child stealing (after the law in the game, his hand should be cut off) - definitely evil
- not give opponents, even evil, and [Evil] opponents a chance to surrender? also evil.
- heal people you encounter and raise fallen henchmen? Your duty if you're good aligned.
- burn an empty temple? well, it's only a building. Not good, but certainly much less evil than other things mentioned

Xuincherguixe
2009-02-27, 07:02 AM
Could be the revenge turned the guy into something nasty.

Let's say... some Goblin tribe assaulted a village and killed the character's friends and/or loved ones. So he went out and started going after them.

Somehow, things spiralled out of control, and he ended up in a world of blood and murder.

The hardest part of the redemption, could be forgiving himself.


...Always a nice little theme there. Mind you there's some big gaps there, but hey, it's your story. You come up with the motivation for a revenge driven decent into a hellish nightmare of fire in which the entrails of the slain form the noose you hang yourself with.

Narmoth
2009-02-27, 07:09 AM
Actually, his family died to plague. Normal, non-magical one. He felt that his god should have saved them (he prayed, after all). He started drinking and killed some other nobles in duels (he's a high noble). Then again, he uses poison, beated up the dukes guards to get to talk to the duke. He assassinated some orc leaders on pay from another orc tribe. And he spends a tenth of his income on prostitutes.

Jayabalard
2009-02-27, 07:19 AM
A Paladin forced to do something does not Fall.

I'm of the school of thought that if a Paladin has no other choice (i.e; The DM has forced him into an arbitrary choice), such as the Archfiend possessing the baby, and the Paladin smiting the kid. What other choice does he have?It's still a choice... the fact that the choice sucks doesn't make it not a choice.

krossbow
2009-02-27, 07:35 AM
Tell the DM said player is playing a paladin. Consider him screwed. :smalltongue:





So true. While paladins are better in 4.0 as a class (being able to smite in a non-arbitrary way; as much as i dislike 4.0, the paladin did need to be changed), in 3.0/3.5 they just get nothing past their beginning levels.

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 07:49 AM
A very similar tale crops up in the Grail Quest as written by Malory; concerning the knight Bors de Ganis, one of the three Knights of the Round Table who eventually achieve the Grail.

Bors is given a choice by a woman he meets upon his travels. Either sleep with her, or she will leap from the highest peak of her tower, to her death. He tries to talk her out of it, but she's adamant, and even gets her seven maids to stand with her atop the balcony, ready to jump with her. Even though a friar nearby counsels Bors to commit the sin of lust in order to save them, his answer is that no, he's not going to. Not only because doing so would tarnish his soul enough for him to fail the Quest, but because frankly, the woman and her maids are all thinking, feeling beings, just as he is, and they bear the responsibility for what they're about to do, not him. He's done what he can to convince them otherwise, but if they're really set on jumping, it's not going to be on his conscience, but theirs.

At which point the woman, the maids and the friar turn into demons and vanish.

So, yeah. Fight the Archfiend, kill the kid. It's not the Paladin's fault the kid's in danger, it's the Archfiend's; it's not the Paladin's fault the kid has to be sacrificed, it's not the Paladin's fault the kid can't be saved. The Archfiend really killed the child, not the Paladin; and at least the Paladin can avenge the kid by doing his damndest to ensure the Archfiend's plan doesn't succeed. It's a shame, and the Paladin should pray upon it and seek counseling about it, but no-one said being a Paladin was going to be simple.

Talya
2009-02-27, 08:03 AM
A paladin's job is to destroy evil.

This is your misconception right there.

A paladin's job is not to destroy evil, but to make the world a more good place. Anything that's in love is likely redeemable. Love is a good quality. A paladin might be justified in destroying them, but might also find valid reason not to do so, which is rather the point.

Furthermore, in another direction, you can be evil without ever having done evil. It would be an evil act to destroy some innocent who had committed no crimes just because they had an evil alignment. Paladins are not entitled to smite you just because you have dark thoughts.

Narmoth
2009-02-27, 08:12 AM
A rather nice prestige class for the paladin is Ordained Champion of Hextor or Heironeus. You get smite anything, combat feats, and progression in spells after first lvl. Diehard is a nice feat you get on 2nd lvl as well
A lot of the levels stack for abilities, like turn/rebuke undead, and there's no code to fail


This is your misconception right there.

A paladin's job is not to destroy evil, but to make the world a more good place. Anything that's in love is likely redeemable. Love is a good quality. A paladin might be justified in destroying them, but might also find valid reason not to do so, which is rather the point.


Basically, he should kill the succubi because they, being of the [Evil] subtype, will always show up as evil on his detect evil scans. If they really are in love, then they can't be completely evil (then such emotions would be beyond them) and therefore he can't rely on his detec evil ability.
I'd rule that he shouldn't kill them He should join in.



Furthermore, in another direction, you can be evil without ever having done evil. It would be an evil act to destroy some innocent who had committed no crimes just because they had an evil alignment. Paladins are not entitled to smite you just because you have dark thoughts.

Actually, I have to disagree. I'd rule that evil actions, or evil inaction (not saving anyone who you had ability to help or save at little risk for yourself) should be necessary for evil alignment ([Evil]subtype excluded) to show up on a detect evil

Fortinbras
2009-02-27, 10:41 AM
This is your misconception right there.

A paladin's job is not to destroy evil, but to make the world a more good place. Anything that's in love is likely redeemable. Love is a good quality. A paladin might be justified in destroying them, but might also find valid reason not to do so, which is rather the point.

Furthermore, in another direction, you can be evil without ever having done evil. It would be an evil act to destroy some innocent who had committed no crimes just because they had an evil alignment. Paladins are not entitled to smite you just because you have dark thoughts.

I have disagree with you here. The succubi must have done something evil otherwise they wouldn't be evil. Detect evil would be a completely useless spell if it showed everyone who had ever had dark thoughts. I am all for fighting the succubi honorably, maybe even one at a time so they don't have to see each other killed but I don't think that paladin should just walk away. The paladin makes the choice of death over life, in an "executioner" all the time. You may as well say "don't smite the black guard he might have a girlfriend" That's why paladins have the ability to smite evil, wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, and have a good BAB. They also have the crappiest skill points in the game. The paladin is supposed to be a warrior. As I said before plenty of people that we consider evil in the real world, where things are rarely so black and white, have had loved ones. (BTW didn't Hitler marry Eva before they committed suicide?) The minute the paladin turns her back the succubi are going to pounce. Why? Because they are DEMONS. Now if they were humans you might have an argument there, but they are Demons. They are the essence of evil. The paladin should at least take them prisoner but probably kill them.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 10:53 AM
I have disagree with you here. The succubi must have done something evil otherwise they wouldn't be evil. Detect evil would be a completely useless spell if it showed everyone who had ever had dark thoughts.Actually, there's an LG Succubus Paladin out there that detects as strongly Evil, due to the type/subtype rules. Detect Evil on a Demon proves nothing beyond "it's a demon".
I am all for fighting the succubi honorably, maybe even one at a time so they don't have to see each other killed but I don't think that paladin should just walk away. The paladin makes the choice of death over life, in an "executioner" all the time. You may as well say "don't smite the black guard he might have a girlfriend" That's why paladins have the ability to smite evil, wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, and have a good BAB. They also have the crappiest skill points in the game. The paladin is supposed to be a warrior. As I said before plenty of people that we consider evil in the real world, where things are rarely so black and white, have had loved ones. (BTW didn't Hitler marry Eva before they committed suicide?)Truth. I agree with you that evil people can love and that love is no proof of good.
The minute the paladin turns her back the succubi are going to pounce. Why? Because they are DEMONS. Now if they were humans you might have an argument there, but they are Demons. They are the essence of evil. The paladin should at least take them prisoner but probably kill them.This I disagree with. You have no evidence that the Succubi have done any crimes, no evidence that they are going to attack you. I would support being wary and mistrustful, but no more than that. They may be Demons, but that doesn't mean they have any less right to life than you do.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-27, 11:11 AM
....
Basically, he should kill the succubi because they, being of the [Evil] subtype, will always show up as evil on his detect evil scans. If they really are in love, then they can't be completely evil (then such emotions would be beyond them) and therefore he can't rely on his detec evil ability.
I'd rule that he shouldn't kill them He should join in.

The idea that Evil creatures can't love strikes me as a bit unusual. So love automatically washes away evil, or does being evil make it impossible for one to truly love?

Also, sex with two succubi is a bad idea for anyone not immune to energy drain regardless of a paladin's class immunity to magical or non-magical STD's. Not to mention it's rude to burst into a bedchamber dressed in full combat armor. The mood has already been spoiled, I would think.


Actually, I have to disagree. I'd rule that evil actions, or evil inaction (not saving anyone who you had ability to help or save at little risk for yourself) should be necessary for evil alignment ([Evil]subtype excluded) to show up on a detect evil

A Succubus is a demon formed by the energies of the Abyss out of Raw Chaos and Elemental Evil. Outsiders with subtypes radiate their alignment at almost overpowering levels, because they're made of Good/Evil/Chaos/Law in the same sense that you and I are made of water, bones and meat. You can be evil without doing evil. In fact, the legendary succubus Paladin is simultaneously Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-27, 11:17 AM
I find it incredibly, horribly, stupidly ironic that being a being made of evil incarnate allows one to be more morally ambiguous than being a creature of flesh and blood.

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 11:36 AM
They may be Demons, but that doesn't mean they have any less right to life than you do.

Unless this confrontation occurs in the Abyss, then all the Paladin can do by attacking them is booting them off the material plane and banishing the two succubi back to their plane of origin.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 11:40 AM
Unless this confrontation occurs in the Abyss, then all the Paladin can do by attacking them is booting them off the material plane and banish the two succubi back to their plane of origin.You're still beating them to death, exiling them for a hundred years, and possbly throwing them to the wolves(Demons don't like LG Paladins). With no evidence. At all. Witout any knowledge a crime has been comitted, you're attempting to destroy them.

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 11:41 AM
You're still beating them to death, exiling them for a hundred years, and possbly throwing them to the wolves(Demons don't like LG Paladins). With no evidence. At all. Witout any knowledge a crime has been comitted, you're attempting to destroy them.

So be it. There's a reason these things are called 'outsiders' - they don't belong on the Material Plane.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 11:44 AM
So be it. There's a reason these things are called 'outsiders' - they don't belong on the Material Plane.They weren't born on the material plane. They're not native to the material plane. Doesn't mean they don't belong here, though.

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 11:48 AM
They weren't born on the material plane. They're not native to the material plane. Doesn't mean they don't belong here, though.

What would mean they do belong there?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 12:28 PM
What would mean they do belong here?No. You're the one trying to eliminate their right to live here, you need to be the one to provide evidence as to why they shouldn't. If they're willing to buy/rent a place to sleep and the local overlord doesn't object, then they have just as much right to be on the material plane as a native.

Talya
2009-02-27, 12:40 PM
I have disagree with you here. The succubi must have done something evil otherwise they wouldn't be evil. Detect evil would be a completely useless spell if it showed everyone who had ever had dark thoughts.

Well, it's a demon. It's almost assuredly done something evil. That's not the point. But on that side note: Alignment is not a measure of your actions. It's a measure of your attitudes, what you are in your heart. You may never have killed anyone because you are afraid of the consequences, but that doesn't mean you have any respect for life. You're still evil. That doesn't give the paladin carte blanche to go smiting. (The Holy Liberator may have better rationale in that regard, actually. We're treading more on the law-chaos axis there.)

As for the demons, redemption of evil is more good than destruction of evil. When an evil being shows good qualities, they show the potential for redemption. Its still not evil to destroy them if they have done something that warrants it, but it's not necessarily the most good action you can take.


I am all for fighting the succubi honorably, maybe even one at a time so they don't have to see each other killed but I don't think that paladin should just walk away. The paladin makes the choice of death over life, in an "executioner" all the time. You may as well say "don't smite the black guard he might have a girlfriend" That's why paladins have the ability to smite evil, wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, and have a good BAB. They also have the crappiest skill points in the game. The paladin is supposed to be a warrior. As I said before plenty of people that we consider evil in the real world, where things are rarely so black and white, have had loved ones. (BTW didn't Hitler marry Eva before they committed suicide?) The minute the paladin turns her back the succubi are going to pounce. Why? Because they are DEMONS. Now if they were humans you might have an argument there, but they are Demons. They are the essence of evil. The paladin should at least take them prisoner but probably kill them.


Once again, your view of the paladin as the inflexible executioner is treading closely to the Miko line. A paladin should be the epitome of goodness. Goodness respects life, all life. Even evil life. It's inherent in the alignment. The truly good paladin regrets when it is forced to take a life, even an evil one, but that doesn't mean that he'll hesitate. Sometimes it is necessary, sometimes one must unfortunately cut out the evil before it can spread or do greater evil. But the greatest good would be to bring them back into the light.

My bigger issue with the picture is the idea that a succubus --a demon-- even CAN fall in love. A being of pure evil is incapable of experiencing the pure good that love is. An evil person might love, but that represents the fact that they are not pure evil. I'm not sure how i feel about the embodiments of evil and chaos having traces of good in them.

Myrmex
2009-02-27, 12:53 PM
Thinking evil thoughts but not acting on them would make you neutral, not evil. Stephen King writing horror stories at his writing desk isn't going to transform it into a profane altar of terror and darkness.

Advocate
2009-02-27, 12:54 PM
Evil can't love? Nonsense! Granted, it's likely to be a 'me' oriented love such as 'I love coffee' but it's still there.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-27, 01:04 PM
This has to be the one thing about the English language that bugs me. We have speciality words for robe that come from several cultures and times, tunic kimono, sari, toga, among others, but only one word for love? A culture with several words for drinks brewed from roasted fruit pits, can't think of anything better then just, 'love'?

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 01:05 PM
No. You're the one trying to eliminate their right to live here, you need to be the one to provide evidence as to why they shouldn't. If they're willing to buy/rent a place to sleep and the local overlord doesn't object, then they have just as much right to be on the material plane as a native.

Well, while considering that, I'll also draw a quote from an above post.


Goodness respects life, all life. Even evil life.

This is the thinking that blinds us to the fact that Fiends are not 'life', as the Prime Material has it. They are sentient, but they are not living creatures. They are immortal, and they do not have souls. Thus, redeeming them means absolutely nothing, unfortunately; doing so does not reduce the net amount of 'evil' in the cosmos, and it does not save a soul from the Lower Planes. It's a shame; but there it is. Demons can't be saved from being Demons, no matter how hard anyone tries.

Coming back to STK's query, then: Because Fiends are not a form of life that is in any way recognisable upon the Material, they can't have any rights as an individual upon the Material. Worse, their collective 'race' as a whole (though 'race' is a misnomer when applied to a body of creatures formed from the stuff of an ethical/moral extreme) has been involved in a policy of malevolent terrorism upon the Material Plane, for as far back as the creation of the Material Plane. If they were citizens of a rival nation engaged in such acts, that would make their living there an issue fraught with harsh measures and uncomfortable diplomacy. As it is, because they are not, they have no possible grounds for a claim that they in any way deserve to exist on the Material.

That would be bad enough, but the very fact that the vast majority of Fiends exist for purely malevolent reasons means they just can't be given the freedom to remain on the Material, even if they're not doing anything. They aren't just evil, they ARE evil, literally; and there's a high possibility they'll attract or cause more evil just by being there. They have to go, for the safety of the whole area. Any fiend on the Material that thinks it can peacefully stay for long is being rather foolish.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that a Succubus Paladin would understand that Demons cannot be tolerated, as such a creature would understand exactly what Demons are, and also now would be on the side of the people who have to work to evict and banish them. The Celestials also understand that Outsiders have no real place on the Material; that's one of the reasons why they tend to stay out unless called.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 01:19 PM
This is the thinking that blinds us to the fact that Fiends are not 'life', as the Prime Material has it. They are sentient, but they are not living creatures. Can you think of a better definition for deserving rights than sapience? i don't want to get into a debate over the scientific definition of life, but Demons meet most of the criteria for that too, IIRC.
They are immortal, and they do not have souls. Thus, redeeming them means absolutely nothing, unfortunately; doing so does not reduce the net amount of 'evil' in the cosmos, and it does not save a soul from the Lower Planes. It's a shame; but there it is. Demons can't be saved from being Demons, no matter how hard anyone tries.Redeeming them takes a force for doing harm to others it changes it to a force for helping others. So what if they are still made out of Evil? As long as their hearts are good, what else matters? god that sounded cliche
Worse, their collective 'race' as a whole (though 'race' is a misnomer when applied to a body of creatures formed from the stuff of an ethical/moral extreme) has been involved in a policy of malevolent terrorism upon the Material Plane, for as far back as the creation of the Material Plane. If they were citizens of a rival nation engaged in such acts, that would make their living there an issue fraught with harsh measures and uncomfortable diplomacy. As it is, because they are not, they have no possible grounds for a claim that they in any way deserve to exist on the Material.This may be falling close to political, but...
During a war, you still accept in defectors. Every one that comes over weakens your enemie's side, and brings skills and intel to yours. You may be careful to avoid letting in spies/sabateurs, but you certainly don't send them back to be killed by their own people or lock them up for crimes commited by others that they might not even know about.

Myrmex
2009-02-27, 01:25 PM
Doesn't a slain demon still go back to the Abyss, regardless of how many puppies it saved in life?

Talya
2009-02-27, 01:33 PM
Thinking evil thoughts but not acting on them would make you neutral, not evil. Stephen King writing horror stories at his writing desk isn't going to transform it into a profane altar of terror and darkness.

Thinking of something for a story vs. thinking it'd be a good idea if only you could get away with it--they aren't the same thing.

Allignment is about what's inside, not what you do. Of course, a person good on the inside doesn't go around killing people, but a person rotten to the core might not necessarily be a murderer. (Yet.)

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 01:38 PM
Can you think of a better definition for deserving rights than sapience? i don't want to get into a debate over the scientific definition of life, but Demons meet most of the criteria for that too, IIRC.

I pointed out the most important one: having a soul. It's not just scientific definitions that matter here, but metaphysical ones as well.


Redeeming them takes a force for doing harm to others it changes it to a force for helping others. So what if they are still made out of Evil? As long as their hearts are good, what else matters?

What matters is that they are still there, and them being there is dangerous to others, even if they don't intend harm. There's plenty of places a 'good' fiend can go, and even do good/lawful works, without messing up the moral/ethical ambience of the Prime Material. Sigil, for example. If they really were good, they'd go there.


During a war, you still accept in defectors. Every one that comes over weakens your enemie's side, and brings skills and intel to yours.

You're still thinking of Fiends as citizens of another country, or just 'another kind of people'. Have your characters throw that thinking away - it's not true. If anything, dangerous fiends rely on that kind of thinking to further whatever agenda they've got. That's why many of them often appear in a form that resembles a mortal. Don't give them the same kind of consideration or thought you would give a being with a soul. If you do that, then you're cheapening what it is to have a soul.

Anyhow. The Prime Material isn't at war with, and can't effectively strike back against or conquer, the Lower Planes. Anything a Fiend could tell you isn't going to be that helpful. Worse, the existence of a 'redeemed' Fiend in the area is more likely to attract the attention of the Lower Planes than anything else, so even being there, they're a potential danger.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 01:54 PM
I pointed out the most important one: having a soul. It's not just scientific definitions that matter here, but metaphysical ones as well. Actually, they do. Read the creature type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType).
What matters is that they are still there, and them being there is dangerous to others, even if they don't intend harm. There's plenty of places a 'good' fiend can go, and even do good/lawful works, without messing up the moral/ethical ambience of the Prime Material. Sigil, for example. If they really were good, they'd go there.How does their presence affect the world negatively? I may be a bit out of date on the D&D cosmology, but I really don't see how having them here is harmful, especially if they help people.
Anyhow. The Prime Material isn't at war with, and can't effectively strike back against or conquer, the Lower Planes. Anything a Fiend could tell you isn't going to be that helpful. Worse, the existence of a 'redeemed' Fiend in the area is more likely to attract the attention of the Lower Planes than anything else, so even being there, they're a potential danger.I thought that was what adventurers were for, striking back. And beyond that, it is better that the fiends who are going to attack the PM go after those who can defend themselves, such as redeemed demons, rather than spending their time corrupting innocents.

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 02:22 PM
Actually, they do. Read the creature type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType).

I'm reading it, and it doesn't say, 'Outsiders have a soul'.

It says:

"An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane."

The 'partially' being there for the benefit of those who become Outsiders.

And

"Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose."

It does not say, though, that this unit-of-body-and-soul is the same as a soul. In fact, it says that it is not, in the case of pure Outsiders (fiends, celestials, elementals et al) by stating that a pure Outsider is composed of the essence of a Plane.

Any ambiguity in the entry is because the entry is trying to deal with both 'pure' Outsiders and 'native' Outsiders (who do have a soul, but it's an altered soul).


How does their presence affect the world negatively? I may be a bit out of date on the D&D cosmology, but I really don't see how having them here is harmful, especially if they help people.

A fiend can't overrule its' nature, unfortunately, because a fiend is its' nature. Even the Succubus Paladin was both Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good at the same time. It isn't possible for a Succubus to not inspire lust in others; they literally exist to tempt others, they can't avoid that. Other fiends are in a similar boat, they're going to spread evil wherever they go even though they may be fixated on doing good, mildly tarnishing the souls of the people they meet. It's just what they are.


I thought that was what adventurers were for, striking back. And beyond that, it is better that the fiends who are going to attack the PM go after those who can defend themselves, such as redeemed demons, rather than spending their time corrupting innocents.

I'm not sure I'd agree, looking from the point of view of whoever gets caught in the crossfire. It would seem simpler, more moral and less dangerous for all concerned for the 'redeemed' fiend in question to relocate itself somewhere not on the Material.

As for adventurers 'striking back' at the Abyss and other Lower Planes; I don't think that's what adventurers are 'for'. Defending people and thwarting the nefarious plans of powerful fiends (among others), sure, but striking back is going a bit far. Although I'm sure it's happened in some campaigns, trying to retaliate against the Abyss by going there is usually portrayed in the literature as the planar equivalent of spitting into a storm - and on top of that, it's just not a good idea, by any stretch of the imagination.

(Have I made a good enough case for the importance of evicting all Fiends from the Prime Material yet?)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 03:39 PM
I'm reading it, and it doesn't say, 'Outsiders have a soul'.

It says:

"An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane."

The 'partially' being there for the benefit of those who become Outsiders.

And

"Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose."

It does not say, though, that this unit-of-body-and-soul is the same as a soul. In fact, it says that it is not, in the case of pure Outsiders (fiends, celestials, elementals et al) by stating that a pure Outsider is composed of the essence of a Plane.

Any ambiguity in the entry is because the entry is trying to deal with both 'pure' Outsiders and 'native' Outsiders (who do have a soul, but it's an altered soul).Are you being intentionally obtuse? It says that outsiders have a soul directly in the section you quoted. It also refers to outsiders as living beings both with and without referencing the Native subtype. In fact, it talks about Outsiders with a soul, then goes on to talking about how those with the Native subtype differ.
A fiend can't overrule its' nature, unfortunately, because a fiend is its' nature. Even the Succubus Paladin was both Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good at the same time.That is because she was formed out of the stuff of CE, but her actual nature was LG. Her alignment had nothing to do with CE.
It isn't possible for a Succubus to not inspire lust in others; they literally exist to tempt others, they can't avoid that.A Succubus merely has 26 CHA. That's well within the reach of a mortal caster. Would you say that Sorcerers need to be banished from the PM for inspiring lust, too?
Other fiends are in a similar boat, they're going to spread evil wherever they go even though they may be fixated on doing good, mildly tarnishing the souls of the people they meet. It's just what they are.There is no evidence that a good fiend would tarnish the souls of everyone it meets. Evil fiends have to actively work to turn people Evil(look at Quarr), would it be easier for a good-aligned one?
I'm not sure I'd agree, looking from the point of view of whoever gets caught in the crossfire. It would seem simpler, more moral and less dangerous for all concerned for the 'redeemed' fiend in question to relocate itself somewhere not on the Material.So the people on those planes don't have the right to avoid being caught in the crossfire? The Abyss is going to hunt down and torture for eternity any Demon that escapes their clutches. Those that do should be offered sanctuary, not thrown out to seek shelter elsewhere.
As for adventurers 'striking back' at the Abyss and other Lower Planes; I don't think that's what adventurers are 'for'. Defending people and thwarting the nefarious plans of powerful fiends (among others), sure, but striking back is going a bit far. Although I'm sure it's happened in some campaigns, trying to retaliate against the Abyss by going there is usually portrayed in the literature as the planar equivalent of spitting into a storm - and on top of that, it's just not a good idea, by any stretch of the imagination.Why else would Orcus have stats? Yes, the average adventurer doesn't ever even see a Demon over CR 10. For those few who make it to Epic, though, there probably aren't too many challenges left besides joining the fight between Good and Evil on their home planes.
(Have I made a good enough case for the importance of evicting all Fiends from the Prime Material yet?)No. :smallwink:

Talya
2009-02-27, 04:14 PM
If being an outsider means you do not belong, and should be kicked out, you better expand your crusade to remove those Angels, Archons, Guardinals, and Eladrin from prime material, too. Not to mention the Djinni, Efreeti, Marid and Dao. And Slaad. And...

Narmoth
2009-02-27, 04:21 PM
A Succubus is a demon formed by the energies of the Abyss out of Raw Chaos and Elemental Evil. Outsiders with subtypes radiate their alignment at almost overpowering levels, because they're made of Good/Evil/Chaos/Law in the same sense that you and I are made of water, bones and meat. You can be evil without doing evil. In fact, the legendary succubus Paladin is simultaneously Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic.

Yeah, as I said, it's evil subtype, and therefore shows as evil on a detect evil, regardless of personal alignment

On the "the demon will be evil, since it's it's nature"-argumentation:
It's a question of free will. If demons don't have free will, then no Succubus paladins.
If they have free will, then no, nothing can force them them to go agains what's considered to be their nature. After all, most of human civilisation is agains the theoretical nature of Homo Sapiens

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 05:36 PM
In fact, it talks about Outsiders with a soul, then goes on to talking about how those with the Native subtype differ.

Let's look at this again.

'Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit.'

At this point, the paragraph is talking about both types of Outsider; both pure Outsiders and native Outsiders are without dual nature.

'When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life.'

There, it describes the ways in which a pure outsider differs from a mortal being.

'An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.'

And there, it defines how native outsiders are similar.

The inference one can make is that pure Outsiders don't 'have' a soul, they 'are' a soul - but that don't follow the same rules as a soul. When looked at in the context of the opening quote, what I said still seems a fair assumption.


There is no evidence that a good fiend would tarnish the souls of everyone it meets.

Think of it as a water elemental, and getting things wet. It just happens.


So the people on those planes don't have the right to avoid being caught in the crossfire?... Those that do should be offered sanctuary, not thrown out to seek shelter elsewhere.

They're used to it; they're on the Planes. Sigil especially.

As for a Fiend being offered shelter, why? They can't be redeemed, they're dangerous to be around both because of their nature and the whole Abyssal grudge - it is simply not worth it. You can change a human, or an elf, and save their soul from the Lower Planes, but you can't do the same to a fiend - you can only change their opinion, and is that worth the risk?


No. :smallwink:

Well, it was worth a try.


If being an outsider means you do not belong, and should be kicked out, you better expand your crusade to remove those Angels, Archons, Guardinals, and Eladrin from prime material, too. Not to mention the Djinni, Efreeti, Marid and Dao. And Slaad. And...

Celestials generally know how things stand, and don't hang around the Prime. And, they're often civilised enough to leave, if a strong enough case is made for them to go.

Elementals are a different case, as the Material Plane is physically formed in the centre of the tension of the six elements - so the presence of Elementals doesn't mess with anyone's spiritual wellbeing. (A druid might have something to say on their effect on the natural world, though.)

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-27, 05:43 PM
Yeah, as I said, it's evil subtype, and therefore shows as evil on a detect evil, regardless of personal alignment

On the "the demon will be evil, since it's it's nature"-argumentation:
It's a question of free will. If demons don't have free will, then no Succubus paladins.
If they have free will, then no, nothing can force them them to go agains what's considered to be their nature. After all, most of human civilisation is agains the theoretical nature of Homo Sapiens

Per RAW rules on subtypes, a Succubus Paladin detects as Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic.


Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment.

The wording for Chaotic subtype is identical.

Some people have trouble with the concept of there being 'good' fiends. When this is brought up, I have to point out that a large part of the Lower Planes is run by an 'evil' celestial. The mind can rise above the flesh, that's part of the definition of free will. I will concede it's going to be incredibly rare for that to happen to outsiders, since they have a much stronger connection to their alignment than any mortal does.

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 05:51 PM
When this is brought up, I have to point out that a large part of the Lower Planes is run by an 'evil' celestial.

Isn't this simply part of the nature of the Planes they're formed of? If you're a Celestial, you have the freedom to fall, but if you're a Fiend, you don't have the freedom to rise?

Starbuck_II
2009-02-27, 06:14 PM
Isn't this simply part of the nature of the Planes they're formed of? If you're a Celestial, you have the freedom to fall, but if you're a Fiend, you don't have the freedom to rise?

Pelor had the freedom to rise. He even became a god. People even think he is a good god.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-27, 06:15 PM
Isn't this simply part of the nature of the Planes they're formed of? If you're a Celestial, you have the freedom to fall, but if you're a Fiend, you don't have the freedom to rise?
Well that sucks. And is depressing. Good can be adulterated, but Evil cannot be redeemed? It's more difficult to rise then fall, I can see that. But flat out impossible?

SmartAlec
2009-02-27, 06:19 PM
Well that sucks. And is depressing. Good can be adulterated, but Evil cannot be redeemed? It's more difficult to rise then fall, I can see that. But flat out impossible?

Not impossible; you just have to redeem them while they're mortal. After a soul goes through the process of Soul->Petitioner->Essence of Plane->Outsider, it's a bit late.

Kris Strife
2009-02-27, 06:41 PM
Might I suggest the Disgaea series for the answer on the whole demons feeling love/able to do good? Good Demons: Adell, Rozalin Mid-Boss/Dark Adonis, best ending Laharl, Rasberyl and arguably Mao and Etna. They even have an evil angel: Vulcanus, an arch-angel who tries to conquer the universe.

kopout
2009-02-27, 06:48 PM
Pelor had the freedom to rise. He even became a god. People even think he is a good god.

Pelor used to be a fiend?

Advocate
2009-02-27, 07:13 PM
Kris, that really needs spoiler tags. I already knew that, but everyone does not.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-27, 07:17 PM
Pelor used to be a fiend?

Nothing directly says it no.
But there is a lot of evidence:
such as PHB Cleric Jozan casting evil spells, etc.

If you want the link: I, or someone else, can guide you there.

krossbow
2009-02-27, 08:04 PM
I would be interested in seeing the evidence to this; to my knowlege, pelor is a fairly primal and ancient deity, having created the sun itself.

chiasaur11
2009-02-27, 08:12 PM
And I would like your so-called evidence that he isn't secretly evil at this very moment!

krossbow
2009-02-27, 08:16 PM
And I would like your so-called evidence that he isn't secretly evil at this very moment!



OHHHHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYY GAWWWWWWWWWWWD! YOUR RIGHT!

It all makes sense now! He secretly created a church of believers through which to ensnare the weak minded; little do we know that our prayers are used to power an army of darkness, our souls lashed together into a machine of bone and flesh with which to tunnel through the dimensional boundaries, shattering reality as we know it and causing all of the cosmos to fall into a hell dimension of pain and chaos!



PELOR BE STEELING MAH SOUL! :smalleek:

*head explodes*

woodenbandman
2009-02-27, 08:28 PM
Well, according to BoVD, masochism, that is, inflicting pain on yourself, is evil, and casting a spell that let's you channel your pain into attack bonuses is an Evil spell (the capital "e" is intentional)
Also, there exist sleep poison. By the rules, it's still evil to use. But I could disarm a guard with no permanent harm, rather than kill him with the use of it? I'm saving lives, I go by the way of least harm, and it's more evil than cut him down if he doesn't surrender?

Ravages and afflictions, man. Ravages and afflictions.

chiasaur11
2009-02-27, 08:32 PM
OHHHHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYY GAWWWWWWWWWWWD! YOUR RIGHT!

It all makes sense now! He secretly created a church of believers through which to ensnare the weak minded; little do we know that our prayers are used to power an army of darkness, our souls lashed together into a machine of bone and flesh with which to tunnel through the dimensional boundaries, shattering reality as we know it and causing all of the cosmos to fall into a hell dimension of pain and chaos!



PELOR BE STEELING MAH SOUL! :smalleek:

*head explodes*

That's why your smart adventurers go with Boo, the miniature giant space hamster.

He is a wise and just being, perfect for your Cleric and or Paladin's devotion.

krossbow
2009-02-27, 08:44 PM
Ah yes boo! Patron deity of large angry rangers everywhere.

Myshlaevsky
2009-02-27, 08:46 PM
I would be interested in seeing the evidence to this; to my knowlege, pelor is a fairly primal and ancient deity, having created the sun itself.

Despair (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=846926).


Pelor hates undead as they cannot properly suffer in the same way as mortals.

This is my favourite part.

golentan
2009-02-27, 08:49 PM
That's why your smart adventurers go with Boo, the miniature giant space hamster.

He is a wise and just being, perfect for your Cleric and or Paladin's devotion.

What proof do you have to offer that Boo is not also evil? It seems to be skirting close to some chaotic and evil tendencies right there. Boo is a term for scaring people, and that hurts their feelings and is evil. At the same time "Miniature Giant Space Hamster?" I know they actually exist, but the number of contradictions makes it sound like something a Slaad would sing about to it's children (If they have them, never been clear on that).

As for screwing paladins: they do have the ride skill (I'll show you a divine mount :smallwink::smallredface:). And lawful good does mean orderly bringing of joy to the greatest number of people, while tying up the bad guys, right?

chiasaur11
2009-02-27, 09:45 PM
What proof do you have to offer that Boo is not also evil? It seems to be skirting close to some chaotic and evil tendencies right there. Boo is a term for scaring people, and that hurts their feelings and is evil. At the same time "Miniature Giant Space Hamster?" I know they actually exist, but the number of contradictions makes it sound like something a Slaad would sing about to it's children (If they have them, never been clear on that).

As for screwing paladins: they do have the ride skill (I'll show you a divine mount :smallwink::smallredface:). And lawful good does mean orderly bringing of joy to the greatest number of people, while tying up the bad guys, right?

Hey, if you're finding evil in Boo, who don't you think is evil?

Pretty soon all non-evil clerics will only be able to worship the companion cube.

krossbow
2009-02-27, 10:01 PM
Pretty soon all non-evil clerics will only be able to worship the companion cube.

the companion cube cannot be a god, for i have killed it, and mortals cannot kill gods.

pingcode20
2009-02-27, 10:16 PM
What proof do you have to offer that Boo is not also evil? It seems to be skirting close to some chaotic and evil tendencies right there. Boo is a term for scaring people, and that hurts their feelings and is evil. At the same time "Miniature Giant Space Hamster?" I know they actually exist, but the number of contradictions makes it sound like something a Slaad would sing about to it's children (If they have them, never been clear on that).

As for screwing paladins: they do have the ride skill (I'll show you a divine mount :smallwink::smallredface:). And lawful good does mean orderly bringing of joy to the greatest number of people, while tying up the bad guys, right?

You just lead with blade and boot. Boo will handle the details.

Kris Strife
2009-02-27, 10:39 PM
Kris, that really needs spoiler tags. I already knew that, but everyone does not.

Done. I thought it was past date on anything spoilery for 1 and 2 though.

kopout
2009-02-27, 10:47 PM
Fools all of you! Good Cat is the most Good god you will ever find

chiasaur11
2009-02-27, 11:08 PM
the companion cube cannot be a god, for i have killed it, and mortals cannot kill gods.

He died for YOU. And he got better. It was a Gandalf Obi Wan kinda thing.

Plus, who gets the cake, eh?

Narmoth
2009-02-28, 03:08 AM
As for a Fiend being offered shelter, why? They can't be redeemed, they're dangerous to be around both because of their nature and the whole Abyssal grudge - it is simply not worth it. You can change a human, or an elf, and save their soul from the Lower Planes, but you can't do the same to a fiend - you can only change their opinion, and is that worth the risk?


Any paladin of worth knows the answer to that. And yes, they are bound to risk it for the chance, how ever tiny, to redeem the person.


Per RAW rules on subtypes, a Succubus Paladin detects as Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic.
{Scrubbed}

Ravages and afflictions, man. Ravages and afflictions.
If you're thinking of the chapter in BoED, it's stated that:

Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of
taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness.

I prefer con-damaging poisons though

Berserk Monk
2009-02-28, 03:13 AM
How to screw a paladin? No, not gonna touch this. Far to easy.

LAWFUL and GOOD!!! Not to mention a whole bunch of other stuff that could cause them to fall.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-28, 08:48 AM
{Scrubbed}

hamishspence
2009-03-01, 05:42 PM
the comments about " a fiend does not have a soul" Actually, a fiend is a soul, or, at least, is made from one, generally (some exceptions exist)

A succubus is usually the soul of a CE mortal, reshaped by the Abyss.

(some get transformed into yochol by Lolth, and yochol in the books were very definitely priestesses of Lolth in life)

Now some fiends were never mortal, (erinyes, for example) Unless, the original "angels" with Asmodeus before he Fell, included in their number, ones who were once mortals.

Erinyes, interestingly, are among the few fiends that reproduce (male and female erinyes exist, raising their younge in eyries), and so, in that sense, the "baby monster" dilemma makes the most sense with these.

Agrippa
2009-03-01, 09:05 PM
Might I suggest the Disgaea series for the answer on the whole demons feeling love/able to do good? Good Demons: Adell, Rozalin Mid-Boss/Dark Adonis, best ending Laharl, Rasberyl and arguably Mao and Etna. They even have an evil angel: Vulcanus, an arch-angel who tries to conquer the universe.

Well I'd argue that Adell, Rosalin, Mid-Boss/Dark Adonis, Laharl, Rasberyl, Mao and Etna would all be fiends who replaced their Evil subtype with the Good subtype. By the same token Vulcanus would be an angel replacing the Good subtype with the Evil subtype and being to self-rigtheous to notice.

SmartAlec
2009-03-02, 12:37 AM
Any paladin of worth knows the answer to that. And yes, they are bound to risk it for the chance, how ever tiny, to redeem the person.

For a person, certainly, but not a fiend. A fiend is not a person; it's a thing. A fiend is stuff. It's a walking piece of evil with a mind.


the comments about " a fiend does not have a soul" Actually, a fiend is a soul, or, at least, is made from one, generally

This may have changed with editions, but the 2nd Ed planescape stuff explained this well. Souls become petitioners, and drift to the correct plane of their alignment. Over time they lose their sense of identity, and gradually become a part of the plane. A planar, like a fiend, is created from the fabric of the plane.

So, imagine this: get a hundred cubes of chocolate, and melt them in a pan. stir a little, until you have liquid chocolate. Then ladle out enough chocolate to fill a chocolate cube 'mould' and leave it in the fridge.

What you have there is a cube of chocolate, but it's not going to be one of the original cubes of chocolate - the liquid was too mixed-up for that. A demon would be like that. So rather than being a single soul given new shape, a demon would be a measure of processed 'soul' - the whole gloop has been so mixed up that there's nothing of the original owners of the bits of soul left.

golentan
2009-03-02, 12:53 AM
Well I'd argue that Adell, Rosalin, Mid-Boss/Dark Adonis, Laharl, Rasberyl, Mao and Etna would all be fiends who replaced their Evil subtype with the Good subtype. By the same token Vulcanus would be an angel replacing the Good subtype with the Evil subtype and being to self-rigtheous to notice.

No. They didn't change subtype because it's not possible to change subtype, short of having your soul violated by the forces of good for a year (BOED). And then you lose all abilities that made you useful.

Subtype doesn't make alignment. If general behavior for a species or type held true for all individuals, I would be very bored and wouldn't talk to anybody because of how humans typically are. And I'd be angry and murderous because of how Krynch-Atl typically are.

And how is Etna good, let alone good subtype? Especially after her role in the second game?

Edit: @^^ What is the difference between a "Person" and a "Thing with a Mind?" I look forward to your explanation. Also, since something without a soul (or which has it's soul destroyed on death) may still be sentient, it is more important to protect and correct them than those with souls. Sentience is valuable (having the potential to grow and make discoveries), it is aware and can feel pain, and can be snuffed out. Immortal souls cannot be snuffed out, and so have multiple chances to get it right and you don't have to worry about accidentally removing something valuable from the universe. My ruling as a GM is: If you are a paladin, and you destroy a demon: YOU FALL!!! (Just kidding... :smallsmile: )

Kris Strife
2009-03-02, 02:39 AM
I never claimed Etna was good, just that she can feel love, and considering she hacked her own title, changing subtypes is clearly easy. You only need 101 mana to change class/species/gender/etc.

And she became much less evil later in the game.

Also, Lamington and Gordon and Co need more screen time. Did anyone notice Vulcanus and the villan in 2 had the same mustache/nosehair style?

dyslexicfaser
2009-03-02, 04:12 AM
I'm not going to go hunting for the quote, but this thread has really opened my eyes regarding an interesting issue on the 'Animate Dead evil y/n?'.

Animate Dead is really just an extreme version of the organ donor card.

Why don't people who worship, oh, I don't know... not Pelor, but some other good diety... freely sign away their body when they're no longer using it for their god's cause? Zombies used to promote the cause of good and smite evil.

It really is the best option; you aren't risking good people's lives for the possible-good of destroying evil, you're just going to throw skeletons clutching swords at them until they die. Then Animate them and add them to your growing army of terrifying, un-hygenic righteousness.

Or what about buying corpses? People sell their bodies to science. Give that old beggar a few hundred gold, let him live it up for a few years, then reap him when he keels over from a heart attack or too much rich food or whatever.

Or what if a mighty paladin falls in the eternal quest for justice? Who wouldn't want to be able to return as a vampire or something, a far more powerful force for good?

...

*runs off to create said necromancer*

Narmoth
2009-03-02, 05:27 AM
Or what if a mighty paladin falls in the eternal quest for justice? Who wouldn't want to be able to return as a vampire or something, a far more powerful force for good?

Actually, that's a rather cool character concept

hamishspence
2009-03-02, 02:51 PM
Sources which stress the ex-mortal nature of (some) fiends- Fiendish Codex 1, Fiendish Codex 2, Dragon Magazine's Demonomocon of Iggwilv articles.

FC1: stresses that mortal souls manifest in the Abyss as manes, and manes can be promoted, though this process is somewhat random. It tells how Orcus began as a mane and ascended all the way to demon lord

FC2: stresses that most devils begin as lemures, which are created from soul shells (hellish petitioners)

Demonomicon- stresses that tanar'ri are all souls that were altered, transformed by the Abyss, with the first being Demogorgon. Kostitchie (sic) is another who is not that different in nature as a demon lord, from his original mortal form.

Yes, the Abyss might spontaneously produce demons, but also, demons are the modified souls of mortals.

Kris Strife
2009-03-02, 03:09 PM
Good aligned undead stuff?

From BoED: Risen Martyr class (Finish your last quest, then die for good), Deathless (Like liches, but Good), Crypt Warden (Good zombie/skeleton), and Sacred Watcher (Good ghosts).