PDA

View Full Version : Paladin falls?



nolispe
2010-02-21, 12:57 AM
Our D&D group recently came up with a situation in which we had disgreement over weather a paladin should fall.
The action was luring a lizardfolk tribe of a cliff, while said lizardfolk tribe was enthralled by simon and garfunkel (don't ask). This lizardfolk tribe had taken them prisioner some time before, and had been following them for some time. Given that the tribe mostly consisted of civillians, but had in fact taken them prisiner, and it could be construed would have killed them if they stopped the enthrallment, should the palidin have fallen due to suggesting and carrying trough with that action, and what would a LG solution have been?

Tanaric
2010-02-21, 01:07 AM
Firstly: Paladins falling has always been a silly idea, and it is far, far more often used as a (poorly planned) DM tool to punish the player for playing a class than for any real purpose.

That said, luring a group of enthralled sentient beings (and innocents too, for the most part) off a cliff is neither honorable nor good. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable for the Paladin to fall for that, if you insist on using the PHB rules for such a thing.

If you do, however, at least give the poor sod a chance to reroll, rather than playing a fighter without bonus feats.

I, personally, would have his god express displeasure for the act by temporarily cutting him off from the source of his power (in essence, revoking his class features, but for a limited time. A day at the most.) to get the message across. If he does something like that again, another, stronger message should be sent. Third time and he actually falls until he gets an Atonement spell.

tyckspoon
2010-02-21, 01:07 AM
Enthralling the lizards and running away: fine.
Enthralling the lizards and... taking and hiding all their weapons: fine.
Enthralling the lizards and... taking important tribe members hostage to secure own safe passage: not something a Paladin should do regularly, but not fall-worthy.
Enthralling the lizards and driving them off a cliff, resulting in the death of many more-or-less innocent sapient civilians: Evil. Falls as hard as if he'd jumped off the cliff himself. Player probably is not suited to being a Paladin.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 01:19 AM
Enthralling the lizards and running away: fine.
Enthralling the lizards and... taking and hiding all their weapons: fine.
Enthralling the lizards and... taking important tribe members hostage to secure own safe passage: not something a Paladin should do regularly, but not fall-worthy.
Enthralling the lizards and driving them off a cliff, resulting in the death of many more-or-less innocent sapient civilians: Evil. Falls as hard as if he'd jumped off the cliff himself. Player probably is not suited to being a Paladin.
First one doesn't work very well and doesn't remove their threat to peaceful, (hopefully) Good society.
Second one still leaves them as a threat, after a short delay.
Third one would probably just make 'em angrier at everyone else, because they threatened important tribe members. Not only a stupid thing to do, but probably also an Evil (or Neutral, at best) act.
Fourth one isn't a Good act, but it removes a threat to Good society, helps establish Order (Law, according to the alignment system), and saves the paladin's rear. His god will probably give him a stern talking-to (or take away his powers for a day to get the point across that he should have thought of a more Good way to do it), but it's still not fall-worthy, IMHO. A paladin shouldn't have to be stupidly short-sighted.

tonberrian
2010-02-21, 01:22 AM
Are you by any chance referring to this story? (Simon and Garfunkel seemed awfully specific.)


My last session was... interesting.

So there we were, a Spontaneous Cloistered Cleric (Me), a Paladin (played by a moderately stupid player), a Rogue (played by someone who doesn't really know the rules well yet), a Wizard, a Sorcerer and a Ranger (who muck about instead of playing). We had just been through a serious fight last session, and the last conscious party member (the Wizard) had to drag us 500 feet up the road to an inn. A week later, everyone wakes up in the middle of the night, and the inn is deserted. After some mucking about in the bar, we hear the door being broken down. A fight with three kobolds, who we take down easily, ensues, and that's the point when my Detect Thoughts (cast pre-fight for a reason that seemed like a good idea at the time) showed dozens of them just out the door. I surrendered in Undercommon, and the whole party got led off to the cave and stripped of weapons.

Here is where it gets interesting.

I sit down in a corner, shrug off my heirloom lyre, and start playing Simon and Garfunkel songs (I like them, OK?). The kobolds start worshipping me as long as I play. Once everyone works this out (and I was playing those songs on my harp the whole time) we all march out of the cave like the pied piper and friends. A long, looong time later we arrive at a small town. We ask the guards to help us (my character has been playing for 14 hours straight by now!) and the kobolds promptly slaughter them all to "protect the music". A little bit of exploring later we find a cliff, and I stand at the top while the sorceror goes down the bottom. I shut up and the Sorc starts singing at the same time, and the kobolds run over the cliff to the sound of "Scarborough Fair".

So Yeah. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoYeah)

In this case, I'd argue that while it's certainly not an ideal solution to the encounter, but at this point, you're already out of options - no rest for more than half a day and one encounter in a town gone terribly wrong. Not good, but not evil (as long as the Paladin showed some wrestling with the moral issues at hand), and while perhaps a violation of his Code of Conduct, certainly not a gross one (which would cause a fall).

Tavar
2010-02-21, 01:23 AM
Ah, but Paladins aren't even supposed to do acts that are evil, even if it would result in a Greater Good. One of the reasons that it's impossible to play a Paladin if the Dm really wants to mess you up.

tonberrian
2010-02-21, 01:48 AM
Ah, but Paladins aren't even supposed to do acts that are evil, even if it would result in a Greater Good. One of the reasons that it's impossible to play a Paladin if the Dm really wants to mess you up.

My current definition of an "evil" action is an act that causes suffering done out of malice or with gross disreguard of the consequences, whether through negligence or intent, and I don't believe that this falls under said definition.

That being said, good is more than not evil, and a good character, particularly a Paladin, should feel a certain amount of guilt over an action like this, no matter how limited his options were at the time - which would be an excellent chance for development as a character, rather than as a character sheet.

Fortuna
2010-02-21, 01:50 AM
Yes, that's the same story. To be fair to the paladin, he technically only told us the cliff was there. With his (*goes to check*) Wisdom of 6 that might (IMHO) be excusable. Then again, he's got 17 Int...

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 02:08 AM
Ah, but Paladins aren't even supposed to do acts that are evil, even if it would result in a Greater Good. One of the reasons that it's impossible to play a Paladin if the Dm really wants to mess you up.
Evil acts are ones that show a lack of respect for life.
Lizardfolk are normally neutral. As such, the tribe could easily be run by war-like (which would result in a greater amount of death) or Evil (which is defined as a lack of respect for life) leaders. Getting rid of a tribe that has either of those would be saving lives in the long run, and as such showing a long-term respect for life by destroying a more than necessary in the short term.
Thus, it's arguably a good act. The emphasis is very heavy on "arguably".
If it's a tribe of kobolds (as Random_person said), it's almost definitely a Good act. Kobolds are "usually Lawful Evil." Killing a lot of kobolds would primarily kill Evil creatures.

Grumman
2010-02-21, 02:30 AM
Unless the kobolds had a legitimate reason to attack you in the inn, I say the Paladin gets a pat on the back. If you want to be treated like a non-combatant, you have to act like a non-combatant.

Fortuna
2010-02-21, 02:55 AM
Sorry, it was lizardfolk not kobolds. Small lizardy people who poked us with spears for no good reason, so same-diff.

Superglucose
2010-02-21, 03:04 AM
Enthralling the lizards and running away: fine.
Enthralling the lizards and... taking and hiding all their weapons: fine.
Enthralling the lizards and... taking important tribe members hostage to secure own safe passage: not something a Paladin should do regularly, but not fall-worthy.
Enthralling the lizards and driving them off a cliff, resulting in the death of many more-or-less innocent sapient civilians: Evil. Falls as hard as if he'd jumped off the cliff himself. Player probably is not suited to being a Paladin.
Agreed. Luring them off a cliff to their deaths was evil. Remember that "always evil" means "usually evil" and that "usually evil" means "predilection towards evil." In other words, you can even redeem a succubus.

nolispe
2010-02-21, 03:06 AM
Actually, They never asked why they poked them with spears. And, they certainly stopped when they surrendered, and did not kill them but took them captive. Alos, the paladin did in fact come up with the plan, and certainly was there listening to all of them discussing it. From memory, he even inserted changes at several points. also, in the fight at the inn? the lizards run in- sorcerer kills one and hurts the other with a burning hands spell. they attacked first.

Tanaric
2010-02-21, 03:09 AM
Give him a warning from his god not to misbehave again, then. Straight to Fighter Without Bonus Feats is just stupid.

Also, recommend a Phylactery of Faithfulness, since he seems to have moral issues.

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 03:16 AM
Paladin falls. But then, I have my own take on this stuff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205#post7577205). Basically, even if the end goal was good, the Paladin used an evil method (killing people who could not fight back and posed no immediate threat) in pursuit of it. What he did was not self-defense, even if it might have saved his life in the long run, and he knowingly allowed innocents to be caught in the crossfire. He falls.

Now, if he can persuasively argue that his actions were in the greater good, that it was necessary at the time, and that he legitimately feels remorse for his actions, an atonement should be fairly cheap.

Fortuna
2010-02-21, 03:19 AM
For the record, my character is borderline insane, so don't mind me if I forget stuff. Even though I'm borderline insane, though, I still didn't a) attack first or b) have the cliff idea - hang, I'm the one who surrendered!

tonberrian
2010-02-21, 03:21 AM
(killing people who could not fight back and posed no immediate threat)

I fail to see how a group of lizardfolk who are only kept acquiescent by music who already killed some people to prevent the music from being stopped does not pose an "immediate threat".

nolispe
2010-02-21, 03:23 AM
Random Person, you are not a paladin. He, on the other hand, is supposed to be an incarnation of law and good.

Fitz
2010-02-21, 03:29 AM
when i saw the thread title i thought it would be the name of a town :smallbiggrin:

more seriously, the paladin falling thing is the hardest one to make a call on, since everyone has a somewhat different view on what should make a paladin fall. personally i think the best way is to have them lose powers temporarily to give warning signs, however anyone playing a paladin should talk OOC with the DM beforehand to agree what is acceptible, so nothing is made to feel too unfair. that said the point of playing a paladin in my opinion is so you can roleplay out the moral dilemas. anyone clearly roleplaying these gets some credit if i am DM

Fitz

Fortuna
2010-02-21, 03:29 AM
Y'know, funny thing: I looked over his character sheet, and I saw nothing that said he had to be lawful. The paladin variant we're using is only limited to good, and abolishes the code of conduct.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 03:33 AM
Actually, They never asked why they poked them with spears. And, they certainly stopped when they surrendered, and did not kill them but took them captive. Alos, the paladin did in fact come up with the plan, and certainly was there listening to all of them discussing it. From memory, he even inserted changes at several points. also, in the fight at the inn? the lizards run in- sorcerer kills one and hurts the other with a burning hands spell. they attacked first.
Keep in mind the difference between out-of-character input and in-character input. Punishing the paladin for his out-of-character actions is not part of the game. Was the plan formulated in character? If so, was the paladin's player helping formulate the plan as his paladin or as himself?
Punishing the paladin because he, out-of-character, helped come up with a plan would be akin to punishing him for making jokes about trying to sleep with a barmaid. No, a paladin shouldn't do that. But, it also wasn't an in-character action.

Grumman
2010-02-21, 03:40 AM
Actually, They never asked why they poked them with spears. And, they certainly stopped when they surrendered, and did not kill them but took them captive.
Doesn't matter. It's up to the lizardmen to justify imprisoning innocent people, not the other way around.


also, in the fight at the inn? the lizards run in- sorcerer kills one and hurts the other with a burning hands spell. they attacked first.
Why wouldn't you attack first in that situation? Do lizardmen that go around breaking into inns usually have good intentions in your world?


Punishing the paladin because he, out-of-character, helped come up with a plan would be akin to punishing him for making jokes about trying to sleep with a barmaid. No, a paladin shouldn't do that. But, it also wasn't an in-character action.
What? I'm pretty sure there's nothing in their code of conduct about being prudes.

nolispe
2010-02-21, 03:41 AM
One more clarification: the guards attacked them, and they simply defended themsleves. The guards "helped you" by coup-de-graceing a bunch of lizardfolk.
and also, the lizardfolk *might* have had good intentions. No-one ever asked. Intresting that there was no-one else in the inn at the time; also, should probably have gathered more infomation, instead of killing them.

And, does "unlawful imprisionment" and perhaps tresspassing/breaking and entering count as legitimate reasons to wipe out the whole tribe? Including children.

tonberrian
2010-02-21, 03:57 AM
At this point, I still see the Paladin's God/Ideal/99% Fat-free Religious Substitute as more like :smallannoyed: or :smallmad:, but he shouldn't fall until it's more like :smallfurious: or perhaps :smalleek:. (BTW, making a god go :smalleek: would be awesome.)

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 04:12 AM
Doesn't matter. It's up to the lizardmen to justify imprisoning innocent people, not the other way around.


Why wouldn't you attack first in that situation? Do lizardmen that go around breaking into inns usually have good intentions in your world?


What? I'm pretty sure there's nothing in their code of conduct about being prudes.
Yeah, but I doubt sleeping around is a Lawful or Good thing to do. And, y'know, being LG is kinda what they do.
I mean, it certainly wouldn't make them fall for sleeping with a random girl on occasion, but if they make a habit of it, they might end up in a very bad situation (FWoBF, or with an STD if BoEF is in use). As I said, it's not something they should do, but sleeping with a random girl won't make 'em fall. It was just an example of something that's not consistent with being LG (depending on your view, of course; it's just the first thing that popped into my head) that could be said out-of-character, and shouldn't end in punishment.
Alternative, better examples:
Joking about grave robbing.
Joking about stealing from the temple of a Good deity.
Suggesting (out-of-character) good thing for a different character to take from the same temple.

If actually done, these are things that are definitely against the paladin code (I, at least, would interpret them as Evil acts). However, if done completely out-of-character, there should be zero punishment in-game.

Grumman
2010-02-21, 04:21 AM
Yeah, but I doubt sleeping around is a Lawful or Good thing to do. And, y'know, being LG is kinda what they do.
Wrong. Paladins do lots of things that aren't Lawful or Good - sleeping, breathing, talking about the weather... there's nothing wrong with a Paladin doing Neutral things, they're just not allowed to do Evil things. As long as the random girl knows it's just a one night stand and is happy with the arrangement, I see nothing wrong with it.


I mean, it certainly wouldn't make them fall for sleeping with a random girl on occasion, but if they make a habit of it, they might end up in a very bad situation (FWoBF, or with an STD if BoEF is in use).
I'm not sure what the first acronym means (Fall Without something something?), but Paladins are immune to STDs, thanks to their Divine Health ability. :smallbiggrin:

ericgrau
2010-02-21, 04:22 AM
Third time and he actually falls until he gets an Atonement spell.
Wait, why not just fall until he gets an atonetment spell period? Find a major cleric, pay him 450 gp. Problem resolved yet not without penalty.

tonberrian
2010-02-21, 04:24 AM
FWoBF, or I presume more accurately, FW/oBF, would be Miko Fighter Without Bonus Feats.

Unless I'm mistaken. Which is entirely possible when you've been up for around 20 hours in a row.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 04:45 AM
Wrong. Paladins do lots of things that aren't Lawful or Good - sleeping, breathing, talking about the weather... there's nothing wrong with a Paladin doing Neutral things, they're just not allowed to do Evil things. As long as the random girl knows it's just a one night stand and is happy with the arrangement, I see nothing wrong with it.


I'm not sure what the first acronym means (Fall Without something something?), but Paladins are immune to STDs, thanks to their Divine Health ability. :smallbiggrin:
He's a paladin, so he would probably be able to get away with not telling her it's a one night stand. And there are other ways he could go about doing the deed without it being fun for both of 'em...

And he's not immune if he's missing class features for misbehaving :smallwink:


FWoBF, or I presume more accurately, FW/oBF, would be Miko Fighter Without Bonus Feats.

Unless I'm mistaken. Which is entirely possible when you've been up for around 20 hours in a row.
You got it right. I felt like the forward slash would interrupt the flow of the acronym, so I left it out. It looks nicer that way (IMO, of course).

Frankly, if the paladin is going to get punished, it shouldn't be a full-on fall. Yet. If he continues to allow and/or partake in Evil stuff, then he should fall eventually. But falling for a one-time thing? That's just mean.

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 04:45 AM
I fail to see how a group of lizardfolk who are only kept acquiescent by music who already killed some people to prevent the music from being stopped does not pose an "immediate threat".
It (likely) wouldn't satisfy the legal standards of self-defense.

From wikipedia, "when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack".

At the time the offence was committed, the Lizardfolk were "restrained". They may have broken that restraint later, and at such time it would have been perfectly justifiable to use lethal force in self defense, but at the time the situation appears to have been under control and peaceful. It's just like how you can't tie a robber up and then shoot him in the head, and claim self-defense on the premise that he was probably going to slip out and try to hurt you again eventually.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 04:54 AM
It (likely) wouldn't satisfy the legal standards of self-defense.

From wikipedia, "when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack".

At the time the offence was committed, the Lizardfolk were "restrained". They may have broken that restraint later, and at such time it would have been perfectly justifiable to use lethal force in self defense, but at the time the situation appears to have been under control and peaceful. It's just like how you can't tie a robber up and then shoot him in the head, and claim self-defense on the premise that he was probably going to slip out and try to hurt you again eventually.
The paladin is a variant that's only required to be Good, so the law isn't especially important.

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 04:58 AM
The paladin is a variant that's only required to be Good, so the law isn't especially important.
I'd counter that D&D seems to rest on a foundation of roughly Kantian ethics, and by Kantian standards I believe the Paladin committed an evil act. The legal example was merely to demonstrate the argument a bit more clearly and explain what I meant by an "immediate" threat and how that might apply to the situation at hand.

absolmorph
2010-02-21, 05:00 AM
I'd counter that D&D seems to rest on a foundation of roughly Kantian ethics, and by Kantian standards I believe the Paladin committed an evil act. The legal example was merely to demonstrate the argument a bit more clearly and explain what I meant by an "immediate" threat and how that might apply to the situation at hand.
Ah.
I still say the worst that the paladin should get is a temporary fall, as a warning (with their power source explicitly stating that if they keep it up they'll actually fall).

Grumman
2010-02-21, 05:08 AM
He's a paladin, so he would probably be able to get away with not telling her it's a one night stand. And there are other ways he could go about doing the deed without it being fun for both of 'em...

And he's not immune if he's missing class features for misbehaving :smallwink:
You're moving the goalposts. Don't.


It (likely) wouldn't satisfy the legal standards of self-defense.
The modern legal standard of self-defense is meaningless in a setting where you can't rely on law enforcement to come look after your unwilling prisoners.


At the time the offence was committed, the Lizardfolk were "restrained". They may have broken that restraint later, and at such time it would have been perfectly justifiable to use lethal force in self defense, but at the time the situation appears to have been under control and peaceful.
There is no "may" about it. They were going to escape, within an hour, and while the party was no more than 50 metres away. Being Stupid Good about it is just going to get people killed.

tonberrian
2010-02-21, 05:17 AM
I still disagree on the immediacy (is that a word?) of the threat. I think the more accurate metaphor is a standoff - remember, Random_Person was continuing to play for over 14 hours here, and I think it was implied that his character, at least, would have been kept by the Lizardfolk to continue playing. Choosing not to act != being restrained, and there was no magical effect on the lizardfolk (that I know of) - fascinate only lasts 1 round/level, so even in the statistical miracle that the entire tribe failed every saving throw, Random_Person would have to have been level 92 to keep up consecutive fascinates that long.

Furthermore, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes - how stupid must an entire tribe be to walk off a cliff with no compulsions to do so? I'm almost tempted to say that they did the rest of the lizardfolk race a favor when they killed this tribe, serving as the selection process in Darwinian selection, but that'd be evil. :smallwink:

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 05:20 AM
Ah.
I still say the worst that the paladin should get is a temporary fall, as a warning (with their power source explicitly stating that if they keep it up they'll actually fall).
Agreed. Specifically, I think they should fall but not be given much hassle around the Atonement. If they're too far from a cleric/paladin of the appropriate faith, an Archon or somesuch might be dispatched within three to five business days to "look into" the matter.

Falling should happen. It shouldn't be forced by arbitrary dilemmas, but if the player "goofs" and makes an ethically poor choice, the paladin should fall. The ease of getting it back, though, depends on the severity of the crime and extenuating circumstances, ranging from "freebie" to "massive epic quest for redemption".



There is no "may" about it. They were going to escape, within an hour, and while the party was no more than 50 metres away. Being Stupid Good about it is just going to get people killed.
An hour is far from "immediate". With that amount of time, there were other avenues available. At absolute minimum, he could have weeded out the specific ones involved in taking him captive, rather than genociding the entire tribe.

Also, from what I've gathered here, there's also reason to suspect that the Lizardfolk's intentions were not necessarily lethal at the time. They had been taken prisoner "some time before" and left unharmed.

In either case, there was not a clear and present threat of harm, there was other options (including disarming them and tying them up, or just plain fleeing), and it was an evil act (though a small one that shouldn't be judged too harshly by his order when he goes to atone)

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-21, 05:25 AM
Paladins are required to be good, not goody-two-shoes.

Justice is also a sticking point for them. If it's construed that they are evil creatures in the commission of evil acts (such as kidnapping), and the paladin believes that the hostages are in danger?

The paladin has every right to pass judgement in the wilderness. Execute.

No need to let live even those that surrender, provided that you can show that they are evil, and have committed evil acts which directly harmed others.

In that case, walk em off a cliff, you're fine. It's not HONORABLE, but it's not evil, and the rules do make a distinction. Killing evil creatures to protect others is not evil by any measure of D&D rules.

Grumman
2010-02-21, 05:40 AM
An hour is far from "immediate". With that amount of time, there were other avenues available. At absolute minimum, he could have weeded out the specific ones involved in taking him captive, rather than genociding the entire tribe.
By what means?


Also, from what I've gathered here, there's also reason to suspect that the Lizardfolk's intentions were not necessarily lethal at the time. They had been taken prisoner "some time before" and left unharmed.
They need not have had immediately lethal intent to justify lethal retaliation. Nobody argues that it's wrong to exterminate slavers, for instance.


In either case, there was not a clear and present threat of harm, there was other options (including disarming them and tying them up, or just plain fleeing), and it was an evil act (though a small one that shouldn't be judged too harshly by his order when he goes to atone)
They could not flee. If they tried, as soon as they got 30-50 metres away the Enthrall effect wears off, and the lizardmen go back to normal.

ApatheticDespot
2010-02-21, 05:55 AM
I want to point out that if no one so much as asked the Kobolds why they were kidnapped it's clear that the paladin made no attempt at all to resolve the situation peacefully. I fully agree that it's dumb for a paladin to fall for taking the lesser of two evils, but to commit even a small evil act (and frankly this one wasn't particularly small) without even trying to find a better way seems like a pretty unambiguous falling offence to me.

Edit: This is entirely unrelated, but Grumman: in the southern U.S. in 1850 between a quarter and a third of families owned slaves. That's an awful lot of people who's extermination no one would say was wrong, don't you think?

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 06:18 AM
They could not flee. If they tried, as soon as they got 30-50 metres away the Enthrall effect wears off, and the lizardmen go back to normal.

30-ft movement speed. Better yet, get some horses. I doubt anyone would force them to pay for it. Trot a ways away from anything that the lizardfolk might attack, then gallop. They might even get a surprise round, and then they'd be well out of range. It's the paladin's job to find a creative way to fulfill his alignment, not creative excuses to break it.

If the paladin wasn't actively involved with the plan in-character, have his deity or a lackey show up to yell at him about standing by while evil was done, leaving him shaken or with some other penalty for a while. If he was, sonofzeal has the right of it. Letting the paladin off scot-free for this smacks of Protagonist-Centered Morality--what if the Order of the Stick had killed Miko at their first meeting? I see no more compelling justification for killing the lizardfolk. Not even the killing of the townsfolk, as they were under the influence of the song by that point.

Melamoto
2010-02-21, 06:30 AM
To be honest, there are 3 different angles I see to this.

The first is the PHB angle, in which the Paladin falls. Not only is he knowingly killing a large number of beings who are innocent, which directly conflicts with the paladin code, but he also does it in a method of trickery, which also conflicts (Although not directly) with the Paladin's ideals.

The second is my personal angle, in which the Paladin falls. Genocide is never a lawful good act, even against an evil race. It might be able to slide in as a chaotic good act, but chaotic a paladin is not. This is especially so when you consider that most of the Lizardfolk probably weren't evil, leading to a large number of needless deaths.

The third is the angle of certain gods, in which the Paladin does not fall. Although the means may be questionable, ultimately the act is done in the name of good without the purposeful killing of innocents, and it is done to help serve the greater good even at great risk to the Paladin himself.

Overall, I'd say "Let the sucker fall", but it is open to interpretation.

potatocubed
2010-02-21, 06:35 AM
Luring an entire tribe of (probably?) TN creatures over a cliff is an evil act. Not something a paladin should be doing.

The suitably paladin-friendly solution could be something like... teaching the lizardfolk to play their own musical instruments. Or finding something else to keep them happy while the musicians are spirited away. Killing everything is very rarely the heroic solution, even if it is the easiest one.

J.Gellert
2010-02-21, 06:38 AM
It's not honorable, but I don't see why a paladin would fall because of this. If my DM told me "No, you have to remove the enchantment and fight them all on honorable combat, or you fall" I would smack him with my Player's Handbook.

Going a step further, it would mean that paladins can never team up with bards, wizards, illusionists, and so on, because they fight dishonorably. Sleep spell! For shame!

But I guess it depends on your world-view. In a cynic's world, that's just everyday combat, and not all paladins are perfect examples of paladin-hood in the same sense that not all medieval knights were perfect examples of knighthood.

In the idealistic world of Prince Charming, a paladin wouldn't do that. Incidentally, in such a story, a paladin wouldn't even be faced with this choice. He would only be fighting clearly evil orcs, demons, dragons.

Leaving paladins aside for a moment. Throwing women and children in the mix is a sign of bad DMing. You are placing your players in front of a clearly stupid choice: Don't lizardfolk women have claws and teeth? Won't lizardfolk children go up to eat people? So why are you asking me to treat them any differently?

So anyway, an imperfect world calls for imperfect heroes, and the opposite is also true. But paladins falling is much like wizards losing their spellbooks - DM going to get smacked by a Player's Handbook.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-21, 06:46 AM
The second is my personal angle, in which the Paladin falls. Genocide is never a lawful good act, even against an evil race. It might be able to slide in as a chaotic good act, but chaotic a paladin is not. This is especially so when you consider that most of the Lizardfolk probably weren't evil, leading to a large number of needless deaths.This isn't genocide, unless this represents most or all of the world's lizardfolk population. That's a very strong word.

Mass-murder? Only if it's murder. It could be construed as "group execution for kidnappers and accomplices".

magic9mushroom
2010-02-21, 06:48 AM
Paladin falls if he did it, Paladin doesn't fall if he suggested it.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-21, 06:54 AM
Personally, I don't see how this could be viewed as chaotic.

Order is imposed, everyone receives the same punishment. It's harsh, it's gritty, but it's not chaotic.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-21, 06:58 AM
Personally, I don't see how this could be viewed as chaotic.

Order is imposed, everyone receives the same punishment. It's harsh, it's gritty, but it's not chaotic.

It's not chaotic, no.

It is evil, though. BoED makes it clear that killing innocents to save yourself is always Evil (the example they give is saving yourself by climbing a mountain if you knew there was a possibility that doing so would cause an avalanche that would kill others).

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 07:08 AM
It's not honorable, but I don't see why a paladin would fall because of this. If my DM told me "No, you have to remove the enchantment and fight them all on honorable combat, or you fall" I would smack him with my Player's Handbook.

Um, nobody suggested anything close to that...:smallconfused:


Going a step further, it would mean that paladins can never team up with bards, wizards, illusionists, and so on, because they fight dishonorably. Sleep spell! For shame!

And that's pretty clearly "going a step further," since now you are no longer considering good vs. evil, but honorable vs. dishonorable. Again, nobody is suggesting this.


But I guess it depends on your world-view. In a cynic's world, that's just everyday combat, and not all paladins are perfect examples of paladin-hood in the same sense that not all medieval knights were perfect examples of knighthood.

In the idealistic world of Prince Charming, a paladin wouldn't do that. Incidentally, in such a story, a paladin wouldn't even be faced with this choice. He would only be fighting clearly evil orcs, demons, dragons.

My, you are fond of your binary oppositions, aren't you? Paladins do not have to be Prince Charming, but they shouldn't be the cynical pragmatist either. (Or, rather, they can be as pragmatic as they like, but they should *know* they're walking the fine line.) If they do not even make the *least* effort to fulfill their ideals, then they do not have any and should be treated accordingly.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-21, 07:19 AM
It's not chaotic, no.

It is evil, though. BoED makes it clear that killing innocents to save yourself is always Evil (the example they give is saving yourself by climbing a mountain if you knew there was a possibility that doing so would cause an avalanche that would kill others).

Every lizardfolk in that tribe is either a kidnapper or an accomplice. Claiming innocence is stretching it a bit.

And they're not saving themselves. They're saving others, who were kidnapped.

So, what would killing those who commit evil to protect the lives of the innocent be?

J.Gellert
2010-02-21, 07:25 AM
Stuff about opinions

Congratulations, for completely missing the point.

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 07:26 AM
Every lizardfolk in that tribe is either a kidnapper or an accomplice. Claiming innocence is stretching it a bit.

And they're not saving themselves. They're saving others, who were kidnapped.

So, what would killing those who commit evil to protect the lives of the innocent be?

There were others kidnap victims to save? That's not in the scenario I saw. The only evil that was committed in that scenario is fighting the party, accepting their surrender, and killing townsfolk while under an Enthrall spell. If there are additional factors we don't know about, now is the time to add them...


Congratulations, for completely missing the point.

:smallconfused: So, you weren't talking about how the paladin shouldn't fall because such idealistic reasoning is unrealistic?

magic9mushroom
2010-02-21, 07:36 AM
Every lizardfolk in that tribe is either a kidnapper or an accomplice. Claiming innocence is stretching it a bit.

And they're not saving themselves. They're saving others, who were kidnapped.

So, what would killing those who commit evil to protect the lives of the innocent be?

Hmm, maybe I didn't interpret what the OP was asking correctly.

Melamoto
2010-02-21, 07:38 AM
This isn't genocide, unless this represents most or all of the world's lizardfolk population. That's a very strong word.

Actually, international law defines genocide as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", along with 5 other requirements.


(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
While the last 2 of those didn't actually happen, saying a paladin shouldn't fall because he only fulfilled 2/3rds of the criteria for genocide isn't enough to convince me.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-21, 07:39 AM
There were others kidnap victims to save? That's not in the scenario I saw. The only evil that was committed in that scenario is fighting the party, accepting their surrender, and killing townsfolk while under an Enthrall spell. If there are additional factors we don't know about, now is the time to add them...

The paladin isn't saving himself. An entire party of his comanions is being held captive against their will.

It is justified in that the other party members are victims. You're not saving yourself. You're saving the lives of Bob the Bard, Randy the Rogue, and Willy the Wizard.

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 07:45 AM
The paladin isn't saving himself. An entire party of his comanions is being held captive against their will.

It is justified in that the other party members are victims. You're not saving yourself. You're saving the lives of Bob the Bard, Randy the Rogue, and Willy the Wizard.

There are scenarios where the paladin would be justified in killing an entire tribe of lizardfolk to 'save his companions'. Being held captive after having their surrender accepted? Not one of them. Particularly not when the sorcerer has provided numerous additional options (like the escape on horses I mentioned above).

However, on a somewhat related note, there IS an additional factor to consider, though not an in-game one, that being:


You know what was freaky? My DM had planned that as the only option!

So yeah, if the DM planned/railroaded the entire scenario, making the paladin fall for it would be incredibly unfair.

Grumman
2010-02-21, 07:51 AM
Actually, international law defines genocide as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", along with 5 other requirements.

While the last 2 of those didn't actually happen, saying a paladin shouldn't fall because he only fulfilled 2/3rds of the criteria for genocide isn't enough to convince me.
You have got to be kidding me.

First, criminal groups are not protected by international law against genocide. The fact that they all happen to be lizardmen is less important than the fact that they're all kidnappers or their accomplices.

Second, at least three of those four types of group would not be universally protected in a fantasy setting anyway. No sane individual is going to complain about genocide against an ethnical or racial group if that group is "Mindflayers", or a religious group if that group is "Followers of Tharizdun".

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 08:05 AM
You have got to be kidding me.

First, criminal groups are not protected by international law against genocide. The fact that they all happen to be lizardmen is less important than the fact that they're all kidnappers or their accomplices.

Except that the scenario does not demonstrate that they are kidnappers or accomplices of kidnappers. Moreover, such disproportionate retribution for kidnapping the party is hardly "respect for life" and "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." The uncertainty of the retribution only highlights the injustice.


Second, at least three of those four types of group would not be universally protected in a fantasy setting anyway. No sane individual is going to complain about genocide against an ethnical or racial group if that group is "Mindflayers", or a religious group if that group is "Followers of Tharizdun".

This is true.

Azernak0
2010-02-21, 08:28 AM
Yeah, slaughtering innocent civilization is usually not what Paladins do. It certainly is fall worthy.

To the comments that the Lizardfolk were a threat and hiding their weapon or tying them up and running away would still leave them as a threat, I direct you to Lord Dark Helmet. "Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb."

Yes, it is inconvenient to take the BBEG Wizard hostage and carry him back to the jail to stand trial because you know that he can Teleport or Plane Shift out as soon as he gets the chance. However, killing the BBEG Wizard after he surrenders in combat is an act of evil, though no fall worthy. This is why Undead and Demons are generally thrown at Paladins; there is no morality when it comes to chopping off the heads of vampires.

On a side note, I will clue you in on an interesting little thing that happened in one of the campaigns I was in. We break into this weird room and find a Erinyes. We fight her a little bit and she has charmed like half of the party into trying to stop the fight. We manage to basically get her down and she tells us to stop. She releases the charms and informs us that she is a prisoner being held by a cult that was hoping to transform themselves into Demons by using Devils to fuel the magic. All her friends have been killed and she is the last one on the block. She is bound can can not Teleport out and she is willing to help us if we swear to let her leave after the Cult Leader is killed. We agree after like 35 minutes of deliberation during lunch.

We kill the cult leaders and find the Orb that was controlling the 'prison.' The Erinyes helped us navigate the trap infested labyrinth and now demands her release by shattering the Orb and insuring that no other Devil could be bound. This is where the Paladin and the Cleric have a serious problem. The Paladin swore an oath to release the creature so it is evil to backstab her but on the other hand he is allowing the release of an Evil Outsider that is currently contained for all eternity. It ended when the TN Druid shattered the Orb and the Erinyes popped out.

The moral of the story is that Paladins have huge, huge problems. Their fluff, which is awesome, gets in the way of their primary mechanic.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 08:56 AM
Until it is proven that the Lizardmen were innocent: they are not innocent and the Pally has every right to kill them to defend his friends/kidnapped people.

Zergrusheddie
2010-02-21, 09:02 AM
Until it is proven that the Lizardmen were innocent: they are not innocent and the Pally has every right to kill them to defend his friends/kidnapped people.

By throwing them off of a cliff while they are defenseless? "The ends justify the means" is actually the fastest way to becoming evil.

Red Villager: "The Reds and the Blues have been killing each other for years. The war has killed countless people."
"Good" Paladin: "Are there more Blues or Reds?"
Red Villager: "There are about 50% more Reds."
"Good" Paladin: "Ok, I'm off to kill every single Blue villager, including the children. By doing this, I will save the lives of many innocent bystanders that are at risk because of the war. It's for the Greater Good."

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 09:12 AM
By throwing them off of a cliff while they are defenseless? "The ends justify the means" is actually the fastest way to becoming evil.

Red Villager: "The Reds and the Blues have been killing each other for years. The war has killed countless people."
"Good" Paladin: "Are there more Blues or Reds?"
Red Villager: "There are about 50% more Reds."
"Good" Paladin: "Ok, I'm off to kill every single Blue villager, including the children. By doing this, I will save the lives of many innocent bystanders that are at risk because of the war. It's for the Greater Good."

Red Villager: Are you sure the gods will be okay with that?
"Good" Paladin: "If not, they're next!"

Math_Mage
2010-02-21, 09:34 AM
Until it is proven that the Lizardmen were innocent: they are not innocent and the Pally has every right to kill them to defend his friends/kidnapped people.

What in the...what? No one was 'kidnapped'. The party fought lizards, surrendered to more lizards, was taken captive in the lizard cave, and then enthralled the lizards. The DM forcing the scenario on rails to the point where the lizards went off the cliff was sketchy, but the Paladin still doesn't have the right to kill a bunch of enthralled lizards just for capturing the party. That's protagonist-centered morality, murder is the best solution-type thinking. The appropriate descriptor for that? Evil.

Kish
2010-02-21, 09:36 AM
No sane individual is going to complain about genocide against an ethnical or racial group if that group is "Mindflayers", or a religious group if that group is "Followers of Tharizdun".


This is true.
The second half is. The first half is completely wrong. (Player's Handbook: Judging by race rather than individuals is Lawful Evil behavior.)

Nero24200
2010-02-21, 10:26 AM
Killing potential innocents is evil. If the paladin saw a way to get out of the situation without harming someone who could have been innocent, they should have used that way.


Until it is proven that the Lizardmen were innocent: they are not innocent and the Pally has every right to kill them to defend his friends/kidnapped people.

Just because "they're lizardfolk" doesn't mean it's okay (though I find this part of the debate a little unusual, since lizardfolk are normally neutral). Paladins are meant to be the epitome of good, not D'n'D's equivilent of the KKK.

Judging creatures based on their race is evil - in fact, despite some of the ambigiality of alignment, judging a creature based on race is something specifically labelled as evil in the PHB. Now, if it's something like a Lich or a celestial-turned devil (who can only get where they are by performing evil acts) then fair enough, but unless a race has a "Always evil" tag, you're safe to assume that there are members of that race who arn't evil, and therfore it's irresponcible and rash to simply judge such races as a whole.

But back to the main topic.

I personally, think the paladin should fall. Even if he had his reasons there were better ways to handle the situation. Remember that an atonment spell is always an option. Better yet, it could be turned into a quest - have a cleric send a paladin on a quest to help a developing lizardfolk tribe as payment for the spell. Having to be near a developing tribe would give the paladin a chance to see that lizardfolk are people too.

Though this quote worries me


So yeah, if the DM planned/railroaded the entire scenario, making the paladin fall for it would be incredibly unfair.
If the DM planned this out, it's a big no-no. If the paladin does something fall worthy, fair enough, but the DM should never put the paladin in a no-win situation. I don't see how forcing someone to lose all their class features is fun. Would he do the same to a druid? or cleric?

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 10:32 AM
Killing potential innocents is evil. If the paladin saw a way to get out of the situation without harming someone who could have been innocent, they should have used that way.

What definition of innocent do thee lizardfolk qualify?
They kidnapped people, killed people, and meant harm on a Paladin.


Just because "they're lizardfolk" doesn't mean it's okay (though I find this part of the debate a little unusual, since lizardfolk are normally neutral). Paladins are meant to be the epitome of good, not D'n'D's equivilent of the KKK.

Please, they could be humans for all I care. They tried to harm you (kidnapping is harming as well). You have a right to stop them. Now the killing part by cliff... well that is a little extreme, but how else would 1 guy beat 30 or 20 guys?

DragoonWraith
2010-02-21, 11:08 AM
My opinion is that people should stop playing with Paladins. They're poorly designed and the falling mechanic has always been stupid. Easily, far and away, my least favorite base class in the game.

hamishspence
2010-02-21, 11:13 AM
It's a tribe- not a warband. The OP stated very clearly that there were civilians involved.

Add in that the tribe were (temporarily) prisoners of the heroes (a being under magical control, such as Enthrall, is morally equivalent to a being in handcuffs, according to BoED) and it looks even worse.



It is evil, though. BoED makes it clear that killing innocents to save yourself is always Evil (the example they give is saving yourself by climbing a mountain if you knew there was a possibility that doing so would cause an avalanche that would kill others).

Actually, thats BoVD- still, the point stands.

On "greater good morality"- the is a case for some of it in D&D, but only up to a point. PHB2 on paladins- "an ethical code, outside of moral absolutes, is one based on the greatest good of the greatest number"

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 11:15 AM
It's a tribe- not a warband. The OP stated very clearly that there were civilians involved.

Add in that the tribe were (temporarily) prisoners of the heroes (a being under magical control, such as Enthrall, is morally equivalent to a being in handcuffs, according to BoED) and it looks even worse.

Hey, to be fair, the party was temporarily prisoners of the tribe. I say kill all but the innocent children: drop them off at an orphanage.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 11:16 AM
And here I thought paladins were duty-bound and obligated to eat evil babies.

They are...right?

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 11:17 AM
Yes, but Only evil babies.

I said innocent children to orphanage not infants.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-21, 11:18 AM
Yes, but Only evil babies.

I said innocent children to orphanage not infants.But they have green skin.

That's color-coding-for-our-convenience, yes?

And greenskins are greenskins, no matter how small.

Gnaeus
2010-02-21, 11:21 AM
My answer to this question is usually "What would Thor do?". If the paladin worships a god of mercy, he falls. If he follows a god that hates lizardfolk, he's ok. In my mind, following the tenets of his faith is the most important part.

Fortuna
2010-02-21, 12:50 PM
I'm seeing a lot of debate about whether these lizardmen were innocent. Let me make one thing clear: my character got his lyre grabbed out of his hands and was hustled to an executioner's block for playing a few bars of Bach. I asked if we could discuss food, water etc.? "In eight hours or so. Now play!"

So definitely not as innocent as they could be.

tyckspoon
2010-02-21, 01:10 PM
I'm seeing a lot of debate about whether these lizardmen were innocent. Let me make one thing clear: my character got his lyre grabbed out of his hands and was hustled to an executioner's block for playing a few bars of Bach. I asked if we could discuss food, water etc.? "In eight hours or so. Now play!"

So definitely not as innocent as they could be.

Also yer DM's a ****. I still say it was a fall-worthy action, especially with the Paladin suggesting and encouraging it, but if this kind of thing happens with any regularity your DM also runs very Paladin-unfriendly games. With what has been said so far the only practical escape was some kind of "screw it, kill them all in a surprise round" tactic, which is always going to be a bad place to be a Paladin when you're dealing with morally-capable creatures.

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 01:27 PM
By what means?
If none of them were actively engaged in the process of attempting to harm you, I think that pretty much kills any argument of "immediate threat". If all of them were, well that's a little different and the scenario could have specified. If it's just hard telling them apart, how about the ones holding spears?


They need not have had immediately lethal intent to justify lethal retaliation. Nobody argues that it's wrong to exterminate slavers, for instance.
Okay - it's (at least sometimes) wrong to exterminate slavers. Slavery is a cultural practice. In a culture that looks down on slavery, someone who owns slaves or captures people for slavery is almost certainly evil and probably worthy of being killed. But in a culture where slavery is the norm (and that's possibly economically dependent on having large quantities of manpower), individual slave owner and trader might be fine upstanding citizens who treat their charges well, and don't misuse their power, and don't resort to immoral methods to acquire slaves. It depends where you are.

Now, a Paladin is not expected to be omniscient. If there's a very high probability in one direction or the other, taking the appropriate action should be treated as okay even if it turns out he was wrong. Killing a slaver might be questionable but justifiable... but killing his entire extended family just by crime of association? Yeah, no. Sorry, I can't go that far.


They could not flee. If they tried, as soon as they got 30-50 metres away the Enthrall effect wears off, and the lizardmen go back to normal.
Order all the Lizardfolk to turn one way and plug their ears, then hoofs it the other way since Lizardfolk are no faster than humans. Or, order all the Lizardfolk to march over a bridge instead of that cliff, then cut the ropes when they're done. Or, tie them up then get away while they free themselves. Or, disarm all of them and hide their spears before running. Or, get creative with the other tools at hand.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 01:44 PM
Order all the Lizardfolk to turn one way and plug their ears, then hoofs it the other way since Lizardfolk are no faster than humans. Or, order all the Lizardfolk to march over a bridge instead of that cliff, then cut the ropes when they're done. Or, tie them up then get away while they free themselves. Or, disarm all of them and hide their spears before running. Or, get creative with the other tools at hand.

As soon as you touch their spoears you are a threat and it ends the effect. Fascinate doesn't let you hold weapons.

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 01:52 PM
As soon as you touch their spoears you are a threat and it ends the effect. Fascinate doesn't let you hold weapons.
I believe the relevant words here are "any obvious threat". One can easily pick up spears without "drawing" them, or holding them in a threatening manner. Heck, failing that, if we've got enough control that you can march them off a cliff, you could probably get them to chuck their spears off the cliff for you and save yourself that little bit of ruleslawyering. How does that sound?

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 01:55 PM
They still have claws- (basically daggers), but yes they would be easier to keep from harming people then.

The Glyphstone
2010-02-21, 02:03 PM
I'm more intrigued by the coincidence that two completely different groups somehow managed to come up with a Bard singing Simon+Garfunkel tunes to lure a horde of enemies off a cliff completely independently.

taltamir
2010-02-21, 02:04 PM
Ah, but Paladins aren't even supposed to do acts that are evil, even if it would result in a Greater Good. One of the reasons that it's impossible to play a Paladin if the Dm really wants to mess you up.

exactly!
Paladins are an impossible class to play unless your opponents are self disposing villains who play villain ball hardcore.
whether the action was justified, moral, and overall for the "greater good" doesn't change the action itself involves killing of innocents. Which by paladin code means falling.
Paladins are extra screwed, they don't have to be paragons of lawfulness and good, they ALSO have to follow the paladin code itself, wherein "cowardly" acts like stabing someone in the back, using poison, or using a bow causes them to fall.

The only way you could really play a paladin is if you reworked it to be a holy avenger of a specific god type of thing, where the only way to "fall" is to go against your god's wishes. And that your god is A-Ok with you killing a bunch of innocents to serve the "greater good".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainBall

tyckspoon
2010-02-21, 02:11 PM
Paladins are extra screwed, they don't have to be paragons of lawfulness and good, they ALSO have to follow the paladin code itself, wherein "cowardly" acts like stabing someone in the back, using poison, or using a bow causes them to fall.

The only one of those actually *in* the code is poisons, because Poisons Are Evil, they Just Are, Ok?! Ranged attacks and flanking are perfectly ok for Paladins (betrayal is not, but that's a rather more figurative sense of "stabbing someone in the back".) You may be getting mixed up with the Knight's code, which is more about chivalric combat.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-21, 02:14 PM
Plus, only 144 poison uses make a Pally fall: it is gross violations not just violations (unless Pathfinder where any violation makes you fall)

sonofzeal
2010-02-21, 02:25 PM
Plus, only 144 poison uses make a Pally fall: it is gross violations not just violations (unless Pathfinder where any violation makes you fall)
Unless poison in an evil act (which is it, according to BoED at least), in which case you fall immediately. Which is kind of stupid, granted.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-21, 02:27 PM
Sorry, but that's bull, taltamir. While I don't like being put in a situation where I am being railroaded to a fall, but who likes being railroaded, period? The ability to fall gives your character the ability to rise up and help the world. Cartoon morality is one way to play a paladin. A Knight templer verging, oh so verging, on evil in their pursuit of good is another. A simple soldier blessed by the gods to do good in the world is also a way to play, read The Deed of of Paksenarrion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deed_of_Paksenarrion) And a sword of justice and a hand of mercy is still yet another way to play them. Paladins have chosen a difficult path.
Good is not stupid, but good is also not easy.
A nasty DM can screw you over, but when can they not? Druids. . .autumn for owning most metal weapons. Clerics can also lose even more if they displease their god. Wizards can lose their spell books. Fighters can have their favourite sword sundered. A paladin is not alone in being hurt by dickitude in dungeon mastering.

hamishspence
2010-02-21, 03:26 PM
It might be interesting to compare the hero of Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, famous for partially inspiring the D&D paladin class, to the behaviour people advocate as correct for a paladin here.

Among other things, when confronted with a werewolf problem, and having narrowed in down to one family- the townsfolk want him to kill them all.

He does not. Instead, he defends them. And even when the werewolf reveals itself, he recognizes that the human is not responsible for what the wolf form does- and has the werewolf sent away from the high magic zone- since it is high levels of magic, in this setting, that causes the transformation.

Fortuna
2010-02-21, 11:35 PM
Further clarification, since it seems needed.

1) Worship was probably the wrong word. Actually it was more along the lines of following me mindlessly.

2) No magic involved, just them following me around. And killing the guards and so forth.

nolispe
2010-02-22, 01:49 AM
Three things:
Originally Posted by Random_person
You know what was freaky? My DM had planned that as the only option
Not true. you could have simply rode away, leaving them in the wilderness. You came up with the "wipe them all out" system. I expected you to resole it peacefully, see above.

Originally Posted by
Until it is proven that the Lizardmen were innocent: they are not innocent and the Pally has every right to kill them to defend his friends/kidnapped people.
Guilty till proven innocent? Yeah....

I did not railroad it. And how is it that 2 year olds can be "accomplices"? The question is, was it evil for the paladin to kill 1000ish lizardfolk, including children, which simply had to include some good individuals, as "usually neutral" is the same as humans. ipso facto, treat them as if they were humans. would wiping out a small town because you got mugged on the street be evil.

absolmorph
2010-02-22, 02:11 AM
Three things:
Originally Posted by Random_person
You know what was freaky? My DM had planned that as the only option
Not true. you could have simply rode away, leaving them in the wilderness. You came up with the "wipe them all out" system. I expected you to resole it peacefully, see above.

Originally Posted by
Until it is proven that the Lizardmen were innocent: they are not innocent and the Pally has every right to kill them to defend his friends/kidnapped people.
Guilty till proven innocent? Yeah....

I did not railroad it. And how is it that 2 year olds can be "accomplices"? The question is, was it evil for the paladin to kill 1000ish lizardfolk, including children, which simply had to include some good individuals, as "usually neutral" is the same as humans. ipso facto, treat them as if they were humans. would wiping out a small town because you got mugged on the street be evil.
Did the paladin actually wipe them out?

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 02:39 AM
Frankly, they did the lizardfolk genepool a favor by removing 1000+ lizardfolk who were willing to be lemmings after a sorcerer humming a few bars at the bottom of a cliff. The lizardfolk god should reward the party with exp.

Kris Strife
2010-02-22, 05:38 AM
A nasty DM can screw you over, but when can they not? Druids. . .autumn for owning most metal weapons. Clerics can also lose even more if they displease their god. Wizards can lose their spell books. Fighters can have their favourite sword sundered. A paladin is not alone in being hurt by dickitude in dungeon mastering.

This is true, but more people are willing to call foul on those than with a Paladin. Some people (who I think are insane) say the point of playing a paladin, or having one in the party, is for them to fall. We even had a thread about this several months ago, something with GNS theory.

After all, if a Wizard's spell book is sundered, thats the DM personally choosing to be a ****. If a Fighter's favorite sword is stolen, broken or lost, thats the DM choosing to be a ****. If a Paladin falls its either the players fault, the DM being a **** or the group wanting to do a 'no one can be that good' bit. As for the other two, when was the last time you even heard about them happening?

absolmorph
2010-02-22, 05:53 AM
This is true, but more people are willing to call foul on those than with a Paladin. Some people (who I think are insane) say the point of playing a paladin, or having one in the party, is for them to fall. We even had a thread about this several months ago, something with GNS theory.

After all, if a Wizard's spell book is sundered, thats the DM personally choosing to be a ****. If a Fighter's favorite sword is stolen, broken or lost, thats the DM choosing to be a ****. If a Paladin falls its either the players fault, the DM being a **** or the group wanting to do a 'no one can be that good' bit. As for the other two, when was the last time you even heard about them happening?
I seem to recall a thread not too long ago about sending a rust monster against a party that was almost entirely melee...
The first mostly occurs when an inexperienced DM runs into a highly optimized blaster wizard. Or if someone needs a tactic to help keep a wizard PC in check.

Kris Strife
2010-02-22, 05:54 AM
I seem to recall a thread not too long ago about sending a rust monster against a party that was almost entirely melee...
The first mostly occurs when an inexperienced DM runs into a highly optimized blaster wizard. Or if someone needs a tactic to help keep a wizard PC in check.

I was referring to the Druid and Cleric falling as "the other two." Sorry for the confusion.

MickJay
2010-02-22, 08:24 AM
As for the original question, did the party know why the tribe was following them? Besides, it should have been fairly easy for the party to simply leave a whole friggin' tribe behind them and cover their tracks. I would expect a whole tribe with its civilians would be much slower to move than a party of four or five adventurers.

I have to agree that wiping out hundreds of people, including children, for being imprisoned by some of the members of the group is as Evil as it gets.

Honestly, the whole plan looks like something that was devised by a Blackguard, or at least a fighter lacking any sense of morality, definitely not what a Paladin should be doing. For people who think it was the right thing to do: what would you say a neutral (or evil) Fighter would have done in the same situation? If the answer is "the same thing", then what's, in your opinion, the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter?

As I see it, when someone decided to play a paladin, they are aware that they should always seek the "best" solution possible, where "best" includes avoiding unnecessary killing, limiting violence to where it's really necessary and avoiding conflict with non-evil beings in general. Killing hundreds of beings, many of them innocent, cannot be really justified, especially not in such a situation.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-22, 10:01 AM
For people who think it was the right thing to do: what would you say a neutral (or evil) Fighter would have done in the same situation? If the answer is "the same thing", then what's, in your opinion, the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter?

As I see it, when someone decided to play a paladin, they are aware that they should always seek the "best" solution possible, where "best" includes avoiding unnecessary killing, limiting violence to where it's really necessary and avoiding conflict with non-evil beings in general. Killing hundreds of beings, many of them innocent, cannot be really justified, especially not in such a situation.

The Neutral and evil Fighter would have personally slaughtered them all: man, womasn, and child. The cliff thing is a darwin award method and is rather nice way to do it. Less pain and trauma.
I still do not find them innocent: they did nothing that shows innocence.

Nicolas Cage had bees thrown at him and was burned by seemingly innocent children: "not the bees!" on the Wicker Man. The innocent ones are the most dangerous-they lit him on fire!

Volkov
2010-02-22, 10:06 AM
Lizardfolk are typically neutral, and as everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a fair court, this makes you fall, especially because you killed innocent adults and children. Plus, semuanya is going to be pissed at you, very, very pissed.

Felyndiira
2010-02-22, 10:54 AM
This leads to other problems, though, such as:

[hr]
* adventurers raid a [creature here] camp *
Paladin walks up to first [creature here].
:miko:: Are you a combatant?
:redcloak:: *stab*
:miko:: *1d4 damage* A combatant, then. *kills*

Paladin walks up to second [creature here].
:miko:: Are you a combatant?
:redcloak:: *stab*
:miko:: *1d4 damage* A combatant, then. *kills*

Paladin walks up to third [creature here].
:miko:: Oh, screw this. *kills*
:cool:: [Creature here] dies.

Paladin walks up to fourth [creature here].
:miko:: Are you a combatant?
:redcloak:: *stab*
:miko:: *1d4 damage* A combatant, then. *kills*

Paladin walks up to fifth [creature here].
:miko:: Alright, all of these [creature here]are fighters. *kills*
:cool:: That one's a noncombatant. You can't assume that all of these [creature here] are evil because some of them attacked you.
:miko:: What, but...
:cool:: Sorry man, look. I have it written down in the notes - this [creature here] is a civilian. It's not something I made up on the fly. You should have waited to assert whether it's aggressive before you attack it. You take a hit - do it again and you fall.
:miko:: $%@%@#%@

Party is swarmed by [creature here].
:durkon:: Too many of them. We're getting swarmed. Paladin, we need you to actually fight!
:miko:: Sorry, no can do until I can be sure that they're aggressive. Don't want to fall.

[hr]
Attempting to justify the act as "very evil" by saying that the tribe that has previously initiated hostile actions against the group may include civilians is like pidgeon-holing the paladin into a state of inability to act. By that precedent, any random encounter may include non-hostile targets even if there are clearly frontline warriors shooting arrows at the party, and the paladin is obligated to wait until an enemy shows explicit aggression before attacking to defend his party members. From what I've experienced, that sort of thing tends to lead to wipes.

I wouldn't call what the paladin did here as a good action, but he seemed to be acting with the benefit of the group in mind. Thus, as long as he feels some reprisal at the possibility of killing innocents and isn't doing it for the evulz, he shouldn't fall for something like this.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 11:00 AM
Actually I'd like to point out that the lizardfolk slaughtered the company of guards to "protect the music". I'm not sure you would've been able to successfully escape without sacrificing one person to keep them "fascinated".

Volkov
2010-02-22, 11:19 AM
This leads to other problems, though, such as:

<hr>
* adventurers raid a [creature here] camp *
Paladin walks up to first [creature here].
:miko:: Are you a combatant?
:redcloak:: *stab*
:miko:: *1d4 damage* A combatant, then. *kills*

Paladin walks up to second [creature here].
:miko:: Are you a combatant?
:redcloak:: *stab*
:miko:: *1d4 damage* A combatant, then. *kills*

Paladin walks up to third [creature here].
:miko:: Oh, screw this. *kills*
:cool:: [Creature here] dies.

Paladin walks up to fourth [creature here].
:miko:: Are you a combatant?
:redcloak:: *stab*
:miko:: *1d4 damage* A combatant, then. *kills*

Paladin walks up to fifth [creature here].
:miko:: Alright, all of these [creature here]are fighters. *kills*
:cool:: That one's a noncombatant. You can't assume that all of these [creature here] are evil because some of them attacked you.
:miko:: What, but...
:cool:: Sorry man, look. I have it written down in the notes - this [creature here] is a civilian. It's not something I made up on the fly. You should have waited to assert whether it's aggressive before you attack it. You take a hit - do it again and you fall.
:miko:: $%@%@#%@

Party is swarmed by [creature here].
:durkon:: Too many of them. We're getting swarmed. Paladin, we need you to actually fight!
:miko:: Sorry, no can do until I can be sure that they're aggressive. Don't want to fall.

<hr>
Attempting to justify the act as "very evil" by saying that the tribe that has previously initiated hostile actions against the group may include civilians is like pidgeon-holing the paladin into a state of inability to act. By that precedent, any random encounter may include non-hostile targets even if there are clearly frontline warriors shooting arrows at the party, and the paladin is obligated to wait until an enemy shows explicit aggression before attacking to defend his party members. From what I've experienced, that sort of thing tends to lead to wipes.

I wouldn't call what the paladin did here as a good action, but he seemed to be acting with the benefit of the group in mind. Thus, as long as he feels some reprisal at the possibility of killing innocents and isn't doing it for the evulz, he shouldn't fall for something like this.
Killing children of any race that doesn't have an evil subtype is always an evil act. It is in fact one of the worst acts one can do.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 11:29 AM
Killing children of any race that doesn't have an evil subtype is always an evil act. It is in fact one of the worst acts one can do.Better than leaving potential Tykebombs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tykebomb) that hate you around...

MickJay
2010-02-22, 11:44 AM
I don't get it. Playing a Paladin entails making tough choices, adhering to code and being good. What's the point of playing a Paladin, if the player does everything he wants, and then just tries to justify whatever mass killing he commited only so he doesn't lose his powers?

Killing everyone personally would be most likely a Chaotic Evil act, and one perpetrated by someone particularly bloodthirsty, too (and would require a serious personal effort). Sending hundreds to their deaths without having to wave a finger and watching them die is a much more calculated (not to mention efficient) act, and even more evil for all its premeditation - either a NE or LE act, depending on character's motivations.

Killing off children so they don't become avengers may be pragmatic, but there's not a single culture that would not recognize it as very evil. A proper action on the part of the Paladin would have been separating AT LEAST all of the children from the tribe, and then trying to secure them a decent future where they would have a chance of growing up as Good (or at least Neutral). This could count as a partial atonement for indiscriminate killing of all of the adults.

Again, if you don't like moral requirements that playing a Paladin forces on you, why not play a different class? Or even one of the "Paladin" variants that don't have such a strict code?

Felyndiira
2010-02-22, 11:46 AM
Killing children of any race that doesn't have an evil subtype is always an evil act. It is in fact one of the worst acts one can do.

Then, a question. You've been chasing the BBEG for a while, and has the upper hand. In an unexpected move, he plants himself in the middle of a village threatening to kill himself if you don't surrender; as a rule, the BBEG is an unique species type that explodes upon death, so if you don't surrender, you will have caused the death of the entire village, which may include many innocent children and good-aligned commoners.

If left unchecked, however, the BBEG has a personal grudge against both you and your friends/allies, and will enact a plan to utterly humiliate/torture/kill both them and their loved ones. Thus, if you surrendered, all of your friends will be dragged down with you. In this situation, do you kill the BBEG and sacrifice the village, or do you surrender? Assume there's no third option.

Killing Children may be an evil act according to BoVD (I think, didn't really have the time to read through it again), but to enact it as an absolute "you fall" condition is no less of a horrible role-play mechanic as hiding civilians inside war camps to bait a paladin. Under this rule, what if you, by unique foresight, realized without error that a child is the unwilling reincarnation of all evil? Is your fate, then, doomed to "you fall" by killing or indirectly killing the child (or face the destruction of life as we know it)?

Everything has to be evaluated by the situation at hand. If killing the entire tribe of lizardman is the only possible way to save the party, the paladin has made the right decision, and any god (irrespective of what SRD happens to say) that makes him fall is pretty much a jerk. There might be a word of reprimand or the need for a forgiveness prayer, but ultimately, any good god would understand the necessity of the situation. If there is an alternate option that the group considered, and the paladin caused the deaths anyway, then it would be a precedent to falling.

Volkov
2010-02-22, 11:51 AM
Then, a question. You've been chasing the BBEG for a while, and has the upper hand. In an unexpected move, he plants himself in the middle of a village threatening to kill himself if you don't surrender; as a rule, the BBEG is an unique species type that explodes upon death, so if you don't surrender, you will have caused the death of the entire village, which may include many innocent children and good-aligned commoners.

If left unchecked, however, the BBEG has a personal grudge against both you and your friends/allies, and will enact a plan to utterly humiliate/torture/kill both them and their loved ones. Thus, if you surrendered, all of your friends will be dragged down with you. In this situation, do you kill the BBEG and sacrifice the village, or do you surrender? Assume there's no third option.

Killing Children may be an evil act according to BoVD (I think, didn't really have the time to read through it again), but to enact it as an absolute "you fall" condition is no less of a horrible role-play mechanic as hiding civilians inside war camps to bait a paladin. Under this rule, what if you, by unique foresight, realized without error that a child is the unwilling reincarnation of all evil? Is your fate, then, doomed to "you fall" by killing or indirectly killing the child (or face the destruction of life as we know it)?

Everything has to be evaluated by the situation at hand. If killing the entire tribe of lizardman is the only possible way to save the party, the paladin has made the right decision, and any god (irrespective of what SRD happens to say) that makes him fall is pretty much a jerk. There might be a word of reprimand or the need for a forgiveness prayer, but ultimately, any good god would understand the necessity of the situation. If there is an alternate option that the group considered, and the paladin caused the deaths anyway, then it would be a precedent to falling.
One should never kill children of a species lackiing the evil subtype unless there is absolutely no other choice. A child who is the reincarnation of evil itself would logically have the evil subtype.

Grumman
2010-02-22, 12:05 PM
One should never kill children of a species lackiing the evil subtype unless there is absolutely no other choice.
Personally, I'd say one should never kill children unless it's unavoidable or they deserve it, and children can deserve it. If they run around in a gang attacking people and robbing them, I'm going to Fireball the little bastards.

Fortuna
2010-02-22, 12:07 PM
Another thing worth remembering: with the paladin variant we're using (which nolispe OK'd without actually looking over, it seems) he will only fall if he actually changes alignment.

DSCrankshaw
2010-02-22, 12:07 PM
This reminds me of a situation my party faced once.

The party is raiding The Sunless Citadel. I'm playing a lawful good dwarf fighter who wants to be a paladin (but is not one). In a difficult fight against goblins, our female elf cleric of Corellon goes to negative hp. We try to retrieve her, but we're quickly facing a TPK, and the cleric's player tells us not to risk it for the character. So we retreat and the character is presumed dead.

When we return the next day (game time--later in real-life time), we fight the goblins and win, and in the confusion, the cleric, who's alive, escapes on her own. She's been badly abused (yes, in that way), and has gone a little bit crazy--okay, a lot crazy. She's adopted a completely new personality and refers to her old self in the third person, as someone who's died. She picks up a mace and starts slaughtering the goblins, including the non-combatants. My wannabe-paladin stops her and asks her to explain. Then she tells her whole gory tale--about her abuse, and how even the goblins that didn't participate egged on those who did, so she plans on slaughtering them all.

My fighter then says, "Do what you will to the adults, but spare the children." She refuses, and the rest of the party takes her side. Only by physically interposing himself, weaponless, and saying, "If you want to kill them you'll have to kill me first," was he able to get her to relent and remove the children to safety.

Of course, then I had to find homes for eight goblin kids, which severely hurt my dwarf's reputation with the village and cost about a third of my take from the treasure from the adventure so far. And the rest of the party started to regard him as naive and idealistic. So, fun. (Got some nice roleplaying XP from it though, so I'm not complaining about the DM's handling of it.)

So, quick thought experiment: suppose my dwarf was a paladin. Would he have fallen for his compromise? Would he have fallen if he'd let the cleric slaughter the goblins? Would he have fallen if he'd fought the cleric, and possibly the rest of the party, in order to stop it?

EDIT:

Missed this while I was typing:

Killing off children so they don't become avengers may be pragmatic, but there's not a single culture that would not recognize it as very evil. A proper action on the part of the Paladin would have been separating AT LEAST all of the children from the tribe, and then trying to secure them a decent future where they would have a chance of growing up as Good (or at least Neutral). This could count as a partial atonement for indiscriminate killing of all of the adults.

So there's someone who thinks my solution was a good one.

Zeful
2010-02-22, 12:21 PM
Then, a question. You've been chasing the BBEG for a while, and has the upper hand. In an unexpected move, he plants himself in the middle of a village threatening to kill himself if you don't surrender; as a rule, the BBEG is an unique species type that explodes upon death, so if you don't surrender, you will have caused the death of the entire village, which may include many innocent children and good-aligned commoners.

If left unchecked, however, the BBEG has a personal grudge against both you and your friends/allies, and will enact a plan to utterly humiliate/torture/kill both them and their loved ones. Thus, if you surrendered, all of your friends will be dragged down with you. In this situation, do you kill the BBEG and sacrifice the village, or do you surrender? Assume there's no third option.

"assume no third option"? There's always a third option, always. It's generally much, much harder than the two presented, but it's still there.


Remember that "always evil" means "usually evil" and that "usually evil" means "predilection towards evil."
No. The alignment thing is the creature's Nature. Always X means just that, always. Every member of that race has an instinctive urge to either protect or conquer others (Good/Evil), it's a matter of Nurture that determines if they change alignments later. Even a redeemed Pit Fiend still followed his race's inclinations at one point.

Volkov
2010-02-22, 12:25 PM
In the case of the explosive bbeg, you knock him out and drag him far, far away from any civilians then kill him. I did this once to a balor, and it worked without a hitch.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 12:27 PM
In the case of the explosive bbeg, you knock him out and drag him far, far away from any civilians then kill him. I did this once to a balor, and it worked without a hitch.If you've got the capabilities to do that before he can self destruct, he probably wasn't much of a BBEG in the first place.

Volkov
2010-02-22, 12:30 PM
If you've got the capabilities to do that before he can self destruct, he probably wasn't much of a BBEG in the first place.

Balors cannot explode at will, they can only do so upon being killed.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-22, 12:33 PM
Then, a question. You've been chasing the BBEG for a while, and has the upper hand. In an unexpected move, he plants himself in the middle of a village threatening to kill himself if you don't surrender; as a rule, the BBEG is an unique species type that explodes upon death, so if you don't surrender, you will have caused the death of the entire village, which may include many innocent children and good-aligned commoners.

I'd laugh.
"You don't understand how alignment works do you, BBEG.

It is not the you that can cause I to act evil, but the me that can cause the I to be evil. Killing you ends your evil. You cause the death of the children not I. For me and myself, we are fine."

Then yell "Who the Hell Do you Think I am!" as I cut him down.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 12:33 PM
Balors cannot explode at will, they can only do so upon being killed.The BBEG in the hypothetical situation was not expressly stated to be a balor, so while a balor might be the closest analog, I don't think it'd be quite the same situation, since, as you said, balor cannot self destruct, and self CdGing is not possible, so therefore the BBEG in question must have some sort of innate suicide ability, probably one that can be triggered in a single round, else it's rather worthless as a threat. Granted all this extrapolation just puts us back in a no-win scenario and I hate those, but it was simply to point out the differences between the hypothetical scenario and a balor.

Felyndiira
2010-02-22, 12:36 PM
One should never kill children of a species lackiing the evil subtype unless there is absolutely no other choice. A child who is the reincarnation of evil itself would logically have the evil subtype.

You didn't answer my first question, nor the rest of my post about practical roleplaying mechanics ^^.

However, let me generalize what you're saying here. Killing a human child is evil. Killing a human child with 14 levels in sorcerer and waving his disintegrate spell at you is evil. Killing a human child with 14 levels in sorcerer and waving his disintegrate spell at your loved ones is evil. Killing an adult that threatens your life may not be evil. Killing an adult with a mental condition and an int score of 5 that threatens you may not be evil. Killing an adult with a mental condition and an int score of 5 that kills someone else due to a lack of understanding of his crimes may or may not be evil.

Questions: would killing an innocent that's dominated to do bad things be evil when you have no way of determining whether the innocent is dominated? (If so, what would be the correct action?) (If so, how can you be sure the BBEG isn't dominated with an aura suppressing epic magic on him to prevent proper detection and trick detect evil spells?) (If so, is killing a child that has been altered into an adult and dominated into killing villagers in front of you be evil if you have no means at detection?) (If so, I can probably ask a ton of obnoxious questions until any strictly-defined morality becomes impractical.)

But yeah, the strict "this is evil with capital letters regardless of the practical situation at hand" is a bit stretching the morality system, and can easily hamper gameplay if used carelessly by a DM. For instance, your paladin can only look on while a bratty human kid with ridiculous sense motive checks and magically-shielded alignment destroys entire cities, due to killing children being inherently evil.


"assume no third option"? There's always a third option, always. It's generally much, much harder than the two presented, but it's still there.
I appreciate it if you don't use TVTropes as a full rebuttal. That said, please come up with one to the above situation. EDIT: That isn't the one that Volvov came up with, because we're assuming that the BBEG can and will kill himself if you make an attack against him.


I'd laugh.
"You don't understand how alignment works do you, BBEG.

It is not the you that can cause I to act evil, but the me that can cause the I to be evil. Killing you ends your evil. You cause the death of the children not I. For me and myself, we are fine."

Then yell "Who the Hell Do you Think I am!" as I cut him down.
Am I to assume that Gurren Lagann is a paragon of practicality, then XD?

Either way, if we are to use this argument, playing the flute and leading the lizardmen to their deaths isn't evil, since you're only playing a non-magical flute (a neutral action). It's the lizardmen that chose to follow you to their dooms.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 12:39 PM
Luckily, in order to prevent the DM from springing funny things on the Paladin, Gygax gave us the Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) for all of your code of conduct needs.

Nero24200
2010-02-22, 12:40 PM
In the case of the explosive bbeg, you knock him out and drag him far, far away from any civilians then kill him. I did this once to a balor, and it worked without a hitch.

This is just one example. Theres plenty of other options too. If you have a mage with you, throw up some wall of forces around him. Or use illusions to make him think the townsfolk are there while you secretly evacute them.

And again, look at the simple premise. I don't think any DM should ever put a paladin in a "no-win" situation like this. In fact, I don't think DM's should put any characters in a no-win situation.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-22, 12:40 PM
You didn't answer my first question, nor the rest of my post about practical roleplaying mechanics ^^.

However, let me generalize what you're saying here. Killing a human child is evil. Killing a human child with 14 levels in sorcerer and waving his disintegrate spell at you is evil. Killing a human child with 14 levels in sorcerer and waving his disintegrate spell at your loved ones is evil. Killing an adult that threatens your life may not be evil. Killing an adult with a mental condition and an int score of 5 that threatens you may not be evil. Killing an adult with a mental condition and an int score of 5 that kills someone else due to a lack of understanding of his crimes may or may not be evil.


Cast Holy Word: non-good children are killed. Plus, [Good] so a good act. Better yet, cast in a nursery.

Volkov
2010-02-22, 12:42 PM
You didn't answer my first question, nor the rest of my post about practical roleplaying mechanics ^^.

However, let me generalize what you're saying here. Killing a human child is evil. Killing a human child with 14 levels in sorcerer and waving his disintegrate spell at you is evil. Killing a human child with 14 levels in sorcerer and waving his disintegrate spell at your loved ones is evil. Killing an adult that threatens your life may not be evil. Killing an adult with a mental condition and an int score of 5 that threatens you may not be evil. Killing an adult with a mental condition and an int score of 5 that kills someone else due to a lack of understanding of his crimes may or may not be evil.

Questions: would killing an innocent that's dominated to do bad things be evil when you have no way of determining whether the innocent is dominated? (If so, what would be the correct action?) (If so, how can you be sure the BBEG isn't dominated with an aura suppressing epic magic on him to prevent proper detection and trick detect evil spells?) (If so, is killing a child that has been altered into an adult and dominated into killing villagers in front of you be evil if you have no means at detection?) (If so, I can probably ask a ton of obnoxious questions until any strictly-defined morality becomes impractical.)

But yeah, the strict "this is evil with capital letters regardless of the practical situation at hand" is a bit stretching the morality system, and can easily hamper gameplay if used carelessly by a DM. For instance, your paladin can only look on while a bratty human kid with ridiculous sense motive checks and magically-shielded alignment destroys entire cities, due to killing children being inherently evil.


I appreciate it if you don't use TVTropes as a full rebuttal. That said, please come up with one to the above situation.
Beat the BBEG into unconciousness with two high level rogues with saps pulling off a full attack with sneak attack damage on each hit. Then drag him away and coup de gras him. That or get the party wizard to turn him into a frog, then cook him and eat him.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-22, 12:44 PM
Beat the BBEG into unconciousness with two high level rogues with saps pulling off a full attack with sneak attack damage on each hit. Then drag him away and coup de gras him. That or get the party wizard to turn him into a frog, then cook him and eat him.

Won't eating the frog blow up the wizard?

hamishspence
2010-02-22, 12:45 PM
While BoVD doesn't make it clear what counts as "innocent", BoED suggests that intentionally targeting "children and noncombatants" in a fight, is evil.

Volkov
2010-02-22, 12:47 PM
Won't eating the frog blow up the wizard?

Nah, I the party fighter will eat him, I'll be able to easily survive the blast, albiet injured. Does baleful polymorph let you keep supernatural powers?

Starbuck_II
2010-02-22, 12:49 PM
Nah, I the party fighter will eat him, I'll be able to easily survive the blast, albiet injured. Does baleful polymorph let you keep supernatural powers?

Right he does lose those when changed.

Felyndiira
2010-02-22, 12:52 PM
Beat the BBEG into unconciousness with two high level rogues with saps pulling off a full attack with sneak attack damage on each hit. Then drag him away and coup de gras him. That or get the party wizard to turn him into a frog, then cook him and eat him.

Yes, of course, and my cleric casts an epic DC 700 million spell to instantaneously remove all evil from existence and rewrite the player's handbook. So, yeah, why was the situation suddenly changed to include two high level rogues and/or a cleric with access to seventh level spells and/or a mage?

Of course there's a third option when you start adding extra variables to the story. Maybe the BBEG is also enclosed in a Resilient Sphere, is polymorphed into a rat, and was spontaneously sent to the abyss with a Plague of Nightmares auto-cast on him by a third party. Oh, and we'll gate a few celestials there, and they'll only attack the BBEG and ignore the demons. The point is that within the constraints of the scenario [paladin, alone excepting for villagers and enemy, exploding BBEG with lots of HP and ability to suicide], there's nothing else that the paladin could have logically done to protect both the villagers and his friends from harm. Does the paladin automatically become evil if he chooses to sacrifice the villagers over his friends, then?

My argument is simply this: mechanics are great and all, but too much emphasis on them ropes the paladin into an unplayable state should he be given one serious moral challenge. If there was somehow another way that the obviously weaker party could have taken out the lizardmen (remember: they tried contacting guards, so they did consider other options) given their psychological state, then the paladin should fall because of an evil act. If there isn't something that the party would have been able to logically think up, then any logical god would look at it and realize that the paladin is between a rock and a hard place - he has no choice but to commit the act to save his comrades.

Whether the act is evil hinges on unpleasant alignment debates that tend to get nowhere, but arguing from a sense that the group had no other choice given the scenario, it would have been prudent to let the paladin off with a warning if he's truly remorseful. In my opinion.

Grumman
2010-02-22, 12:56 PM
So, quick thought experiment: suppose my dwarf was a paladin. Would he have fallen for his compromise? Would he have fallen if he'd let the cleric slaughter the goblins? Would he have fallen if he'd fought the cleric, and possibly the rest of the party, in order to stop it?
Personally, the only reason I would object to the cleric killing the goblins is if I believed it would hurt her recovery. I wouldn't have you fall for either option, but Moradin would probably not be happy with your decision to rescue evil-aligned enemies of dwarfkind, even if they are below whatever passes for the goblin age of majority.

Volkov
2010-02-22, 12:56 PM
Yes, of course, and my cleric casts an epic DC 700 million spell to instantaneously remove all evil from existence and rewrite the player's handbook. So, yeah, why was the situation suddenly changed to include two high level rogues and/or a cleric with access to seventh level spells and/or a mage?
Of course there's a third option when you start adding extra variables to the story. Maybe the BBEG is also enclosed in a Resilient Sphere, is polymorphed into a rat, and was spontaneously sent to the abyss with a Plague of Nightmares auto-cast on him by a third party. Oh, and we'll gate a few celestials there, and they'll only attack the BBEG and ignore the demons. The point is that within the constraints of the scenario [paladin, alone excepting for villagers and enemy, exploding BBEG with lots of HP and ability to suicide], there's nothing else that the paladin could have logically done to protect both the villagers and his friends from harm. Does the paladin automatically become evil if he chooses to sacrifice the villagers over his friends, then?
Tell them to run in one direction and run away in the opposite direction. By the time the spell wears off you'll be so far away that they will have no hope of catching up.

Felyndiira
2010-02-22, 01:00 PM
Tell them to run in one direction and run away in the opposite direction. By the time the spell wears off you'll be so far away that they will have no hope of catching up.

We all know that BBEGs are just robots, and they won't notice a paladin shouting or villagers - your only tool of revenge against the paladin - running in all sorts of directions away from your blast radius. Also, what spell is wearing off here?

The situation is presented as a scenario of "choose the deaths of innocent children or your friends" from which the paladin cannot validly make a choice without falling (much like, as far as I can see, the scenario presented); arguing the mechanics with wizards and square movements is just bringing a strawman into the situation.

Zergrusheddie
2010-02-22, 01:23 PM
Short answer: Absolutely he should fall. I do like the analogy of burning down an entire city because you were mugged.

Longer answer: Absolutely he should fall, but even though that DnD has one of the better versions of Good and Evil, the Alignment System still sucks. Let's take some of the hardest questions that Humans have had to deal with:

1. Is violence an acceptable means to do good? If carpeting bombing an entire city that had no real military advantage will end the war faster, is it acceptable? Simply saying "War has casualties" is a cop-out because it doesn't address the primary question and just ignores it.

2. Is going against your moralist principles worth it if it leads to good things? Ever see the old classic "Wizards"? The bad technology guy is too powerful for the good magic guy to kill with magic.

Bad guy: "The trouble with you, my brother, is that you've always been too good."
Good guy: "Haha, well that may be."
About a minute of dialog
Good guy: "Let me tell ya; I ain't practiced much magic in a long time. I want to show you a trick that mother showed me when you weren't around"

At this point, the good magic guy pulls out a gun and shoots the evil technology guy. Now, technology was supposed to be all evil. However the bad guys were literally like 2 steps away from controlling the world, so was it just for the good guy to break his own codes about not using technology in order to ensure that good would triumph?

Now, there is a difference between Vaarsuvius Disintegrating Daimyo or Belkar killing the Hobgoblins as they attacked the city and pacifying a large village and then marching them off of a cliff. Remember that it it Lawful Good and not Lawful Stupid. The child throwing a rock at the Peacekeeping Paladin is not a worthy target of Smite Evil.

DSCrankshaw
2010-02-22, 01:25 PM
Personally, the only reason I would object to the cleric killing the goblins is if I believed it would hurt her recovery. I wouldn't have you fall for either option, but Moradin would probably not be happy with your decision to rescue evil-aligned enemies of dwarfkind, even if they are below whatever passes for the goblin age of majority.

Just because he's a dwarf doesn't mean his god is Moradin. In this particular case, he wanted to be a paladin of Heironeous.

Grumman
2010-02-22, 01:45 PM
Just because he's a dwarf doesn't mean his god is Moradin. In this particular case, he wanted to be a paladin of Heironeous.
That removes the "enemies of dwarfkind" angle, but they were still egging on a bunch of rapists (assuming that's what you meant by "yes, in that way"). So I stand by my previous statement - neither stopping her if you realised it might cause her further harm nor not stopping her because you didn't would make you fall, in my book.

On the other hand, if you weren't motivated by concern for the victim, and were trying to protect the goblins for their own sake, I can't see any reason why either Heironeous (LG god of justice, valour, chivalry and honour) or Moradin (LG god of dwarfkind and protection) would want you as a paladin.

Fitz10019
2010-02-22, 02:25 PM
Does this paladin variant have Detect Evil? If he had taken the time to sort the crowd by Evil in front, Neutral in the middle, and Innocent/Good to the rear, the music could have been timed to switch back to the bard after the Evils were airborne.

This goes to the point that the responsibility of being a paladin requires going the extra mile to find another way to accomplish the goal.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-02-22, 03:23 PM
Then, a question. You've been chasing the BBEG for a while, and has the upper hand. In an unexpected move, he plants himself in the middle of a village threatening to kill himself if you don't surrender; as a rule, the BBEG is an unique species type that explodes upon death, so if you don't surrender, you will have caused the death of the entire village, which may include many innocent children and good-aligned commoners.

If left unchecked, however, the BBEG has a personal grudge against both you and your friends/allies, and will enact a plan to utterly humiliate/torture/kill both them and their loved ones. Thus, if you surrendered, all of your friends will be dragged down with you. In this situation, do you kill the BBEG and sacrifice the village, or do you surrender? Assume there's no third option.

What about yelling for everyone to run? I'd say that's a pretty solid third option, unless the BBEG is capable of forcing everyone to remain within the potential blast radius.

One an unrelated note, if you, as a Paladin (a tier 5 class, remember) would be capable of taking this guy down single-handedly in a straight fight, I don't think the BBEG would have that much control over the situation.

Fortuna
2010-02-22, 09:41 PM
Volkov and Fitz: We couldn't control them. They followed the music and killed stuff threatening them, that was all.

nolispe
2010-02-22, 10:12 PM
Random Person: You never tried. Infact, you never tried to talk to them, find out why they broke into the inn, or find any solution apart from killing the entire tribe.

And finally, the party attacked the lizardfolk, not the other way around. frankly, that is like starting a fight, getting arrested, and then killing everyone in the city, and claiming it was not evil, 'cause the guards attacked you, the party, when trying to arrest you. After you had killed several guards.

awa
2010-02-22, 10:43 PM
wow i just read through this entire thread and almost no one seems to actually read what happened in this situation since when does surrendering to the enemy make them kidnappers? Particularly since it seems the party started the fight.

Kylarra
2010-02-22, 10:50 PM
I'd say that we barely have any information at all, but given that the entire tribe of 1000 walked off a cliff like lemmings to a sorcerer humming a few bars of nonmagical humming, it can't really qualify as killing sentient beings.

Noedig
2010-02-22, 10:55 PM
Well that was fun.

After reading all that, I'm in favor of a stern warning, like "You lose your powers for a week, which you must spend the entirety of in prayer as penance. No food, water only yadda yadda."

What he *allowed to happen* was clearly not good. He may have come up with the plan and that nets him some evil points, but he did not actively participate in the destruction of the lizards, nor did he act in a way that would've kept the lizards from saving themselves. As the OP stated, they were not in control. The lizards *chose* to walk off that cliff, and the gene pool is a better place for it. However, the paladin in question did not prevent the destruction of innocents, nor did he attempt to provide an alternate means of conflict resolution, and that nets him a few more evil points, enough for the week penalty I feel.

So yeah go for stern warning.

2xMachina
2010-02-22, 10:55 PM
Personally, the only reason I would object to the cleric killing the goblins is if I believed it would hurt her recovery. I wouldn't have you fall for either option, but Moradin would probably not be happy with your decision to rescue evil-aligned enemies of dwarfkind, even if they are below whatever passes for the goblin age of majority.

Paladin of a Dwarf god saving enemies of Dwarves? YOU FALL!

EDIT: Just read, not Moradin. Though for justice/honour/chilvary, nothing is really there? Don't think it'll have an effect either way.


I'd say that we barely have any information at all, but given that the entire tribe of 1000 walked off a cliff like lemmings to a sorcerer humming a few bars of nonmagical humming, it can't really qualify as killing sentient beings.

It's not killing. It's the bloody idiots doing suicide.

Sliver
2010-02-23, 12:41 AM
Random Person: You never tried. Infact, you never tried to talk to them, find out why they broke into the inn, or find any solution apart from killing the entire tribe.

And finally, the party attacked the lizardfolk, not the other way around. frankly, that is like starting a fight, getting arrested, and then killing everyone in the city, and claiming it was not evil, 'cause the guards attacked you, the party, when trying to arrest you. After you had killed several guards.

If an armed man brakes into your house while you sleep and wakes you up, do you give him a chance to attack first just to make sure he wants to harm you and not just talk?

Also, it's more like getting your house broken into, defending it and getting captured, witnessing your captors kill others to keep you under arrest, and then killing everyone in the city.

Kylarra
2010-02-23, 01:58 AM
You could even argue self defense given that they'd proved willing to kill to "keep the music playing" already, Random_Person's character was in clear danger.

chiasaur11
2010-02-23, 02:19 AM
By throwing them off of a cliff while they are defenseless? "The ends justify the means" is actually the fastest way to becoming evil.

Red Villager: "The Reds and the Blues have been killing each other for years. The war has killed countless people."
"Good" Paladin: "Are there more Blues or Reds?"
Red Villager: "There are about 50% more Reds."
"Good" Paladin: "Ok, I'm off to kill every single Blue villager, including the children. By doing this, I will save the lives of many innocent bystanders that are at risk because of the war. It's for the Greater Good."

At times like this, I ask myself "What would Sarge do?"

And the answer, as always, is kill the dirty, treacherous, blues. I don't see the downside here.

Fortuna
2010-02-23, 02:26 AM
Random Person: You never tried. Infact, you never tried to talk to them, find out why they broke into the inn, or find any solution apart from killing the entire tribe.

Emphasis mine. Wrong. We tried, and you made us roll diplomacy and told us we failed. So there was, apparently, no super-boost, let alone total control. "Go away" was, I believe, what I asked them to do.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-23, 02:52 AM
Maybe you (nolispe and Random_person) should take this to PM, because a lot of personal drama is spilling over into this thread.
And writing the environmental impact statements for toxic angst spills are not my idea of a good time.:smallsigh:

Killer Angel
2010-02-23, 03:03 AM
1. Is violence an acceptable means to do good? If carpeting bombing an entire city that had no real military advantage will end the war faster, is it acceptable? Simply saying "War has casualties" is a cop-out because it doesn't address the primary question and just ignores it.


It is an acceptable way to end the war, which is different from doing good.
The consequences of your actions are a burden you must carry 'til forgiveness (Atonement).
If you slay a bunch of civilians without remorse just to minimize the casualties in your army, you'll have a hard time justifying your action as morally acceptable.