PDA

View Full Version : Issue of conduct (re: Paladin and Succubus)



Sir_Chivalry
2011-09-26, 01:40 PM
An idea for a cool npc and/or character came to me yesterday. In short:

A paladin character who freely associates with a succubus. The succubus is a source of information on the criminal underworld/fiend cult scene, and is not doing much of anything Evil, as far as the paladin knows. She is a contact, and the paladin provides little assistance to her besides whatever a contact is due (be it money, small tokens, the occasional bottle of fine wine)

Now, does the paladin fall for this?

Alternative 1- if this was anything other than a paladin, such as a knight or crusader, would the character change alignment for these actions?

Alternative 2- if a physical relationship is occuring, does that change the answer? Combine with above alternative as well.

I'm looking more for how to approach this idea now that I've had it, so actual class crunch isn't as necessary, hence putting it here.

Mando Knight
2011-09-26, 01:53 PM
If he's a Grey Guard, he'd probably not fall so long as he's using her information to fight Evil.

As a normal Paladin, however, it's debatable. Under a fairly strict interpretation of the standard Paladin code of conduct, he'd fall... unless he was trying to also turn her Good (or at least Neutral), where it's possible that he'd keep his abilities. A looser interpretation (particularly one that encourages more cunning Paladins) may allow this kind of relationship.

If there's a sexual relationship, there's probably enough interaction that all but the loosest interpretations would have him fall unless he's been actively converting her to the side of Good.

In none of these cases would I kick a character off of LG, so long as they are otherwise fairly consistent with the LG alignment. There is enough wiggle room in the alignment to allow for those who try to use Evil beings for Good ends, after all (see also: Roy).

If the Succubus turns Good but continues to dwell in the underworld so she can keep up her services, that's her issue. A Paladin usually doesn't fall if his acquaintances use less than totally honest means to achieve their goals. If he does fall, it's because the DM is a jerk or the Paladin was foolish enough to take a rather strict pledge of conduct.

GungHo
2011-09-26, 01:58 PM
I'm pretty sure that there's a rule in the Paladin's "No-No Book" against knowingly boinking an Evil creature of the Lower Planes. He's a Paladin, not the Witcher. His "Holy Avenger" should probably stay sheathed.

I also doubt that his faith would look kindly upon his paying off said creature as well. There may be debate on whether or not he knows what evil the succubus is committing and whether or not that'd consitute a violation. I'd definitely say he'd be pretty naive to believe that it will end well for him.

Anteros
2011-09-26, 02:47 PM
Eh. It could be an interesting plot. If the paladin genuinely loves her and is actively trying to turn her from her evil ways then I would rule he shouldn't fall regardless of whether the relationship is physical or not. If he's just boinking her because "hey, she's a hot sexy succubus!" then that's a bit more of a gray area. It's a bit chaotic, but no more inherently evil than bumping uglies with a good aligned character. He's allowed to associate with evil, but only as long as he is actively trying to redeem them.

It's all about intent.

Frosty
2011-09-26, 02:56 PM
Eh. It could be an interesting plot. If the paladin genuinely loves her and is actively trying to turn her from her evil ways then I would rule he shouldn't fall regardless of whether the relationship is physical or not. If he's just boinking her because "hey, she's a hot sexy succubus!" then that's a bit more of a gray area. It's a bit chaotic, but no more inherently evil than bumping uglies with a good aligned character. He's allowed to associate with evil, but only as long as he is actively trying to redeem them.

It's all about intent.I thought in DnD intent has nothing to do with Good and Evil. there are clearly defined, objective definitions of Good acts and Evil acts yes?

hamishspence
2011-09-26, 03:00 PM
For a few acts (casting evil spells, rebuking undead) yes- but the BoVD also says that for many acts, intent and context do matter.

So there is a certain amount of room for "not evil if the intent and context are right".

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-26, 03:02 PM
I thought in DnD intent has nothing to do with Good and Evil. there are clearly defined, objective definitions of Good acts and Evil acts yes?

Yep. And the devs were stupid about that. Seriously, using DROW POISON is an evil act! And just a flat-out swift kill is neutral or even good when used against evil!


OT, if this is a paladin, that depends on how strict the DM is. If its a gray guard or a lawful good with no code of conduct, it doesn't fall, period.

Anderlith
2011-09-26, 03:12 PM
He should be fine. Just because he's getting some...information, doesn't mean he's helping her do anything evil. Is a cop a criminal if he pumps the local gangs for information? Short answer; No.

drakir_nosslin
2011-09-26, 03:52 PM
He should be fine. Just because he's getting some...information, doesn't mean he's helping her do anything evil. Is a cop a criminal if he pumps the local gangs for information? Short answer; No.

The problem isn't that the paladin is using an evil character for information, the problem is that the character has the [Evil] subtype. That's Evil with a capital E and its very existence should be removed according to some readings of the paladin code.
Me? I've always felt that the paladin code is ridiculous, but if the player is actually using it I'd say that s/he's on the way to falling. Allowing a succubus to roam free is... well, not good at least.

jindra34
2011-09-26, 04:13 PM
Yep. And the devs were stupid about that. Seriously, using DROW POISON is an evil act! And just a flat-out swift kill is neutral or even good when used against evil!

And that kill stays that way even if its solely due to someone else using DROW POISON. 3.5 alignment system is another thing that goes into the good thought, horrible non-sense execution bin.

Mando Knight
2011-09-26, 04:18 PM
The problem isn't that the paladin is using an evil character for information, the problem is that the character has the [Evil] subtype. That's Evil with a capital E and its very existence should be removed according to some readings of the paladin code.
On the other hand, WotC published a bit about a Succubus Paladin and how it would likely work. Just because you have the subtype doesn't mean you actually have the alignment, though a Paladin can successfully smite a good Succubus anyway.

YPU
2011-09-26, 04:32 PM
If indeed intent is important one should also question how actively pursue turning her good. I think we can all imagine such a relationship turning to a comfortable stalemate, the paladin in his hart wants to turn her to the good side, but any attempt at it is rebuked with a sly smile and "not today handsome" Should he actively pursue turning her good, and if it begins to show it doesn't work shouldn't he try differently/ give up and smite her anyway?

deuxhero
2011-09-26, 04:37 PM
PHP Paladin code user falls to the Earth's core (You are associated with an evil creature knowingly). This reinforces how inane the PHP code is and that it is ultimately a suggestion, with the player and DM are meant to work out a code for a specific Paladin.

Ravens_cry
2011-09-26, 04:43 PM
"They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." is a good motto for a Paladin who desires to destroy evil by converting it to good. Which is a nicely none-Miko way to play a Paladin, though harder to get away with for some DM.
That being said, he is walking a fine line here if he isn't working to turn her to good. She is a succubus, she is pretty much literally made of Evil. While there is an exception (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)and possibly others, he should be careful. Just because he does not see evil been done does not mean it isn't been done.
It's why a paladin can not simply leave the room in the torture scene.

gkathellar
2011-09-26, 05:21 PM
As long as it's done well, I think it could work fine.

There was this amazing, extremely roleplay-heavy campaign record I saw a couple of years ago along relatively similar lines. The party's paladin discovered a disguised succubus, and she convinced him to spare her life by pleading with him to redeem her — and as a totally honorable, noble soul, he agreed (and had a convent give her temporary residence, I think). She was apparently sincere about this, it turned into this weird, awesome mix of political/religious upheaval and knightly courtship. I think it was on ENWorld? (It also had an extremely specific breakdown of how a 15th-level druid brought down an entire army, a psychotic alienist PC, and some of the coolest Outsiders I've ever read.)

Anyway, it played the paladin archetype much straighter than what you're suggesting, yet managed to work a similar angle. (The DM was obviously playing fast and loose with the Code, but the player was the model of a paladin so no one could reasonably complain about that.) As long as the story's interesting and the paladin is genuinely paladin-ish, stories like this can be really interesting.

Arbane
2011-09-26, 06:16 PM
As long as it's done well, I think it could work fine.

There was this amazing, extremely roleplay-heavy campaign record I saw a couple of years ago along relatively similar lines. The party's paladin discovered a disguised succubus, and she convinced him to spare her life by pleading with him to redeem her — and as a totally honorable, noble soul, he agreed (and had a convent give her temporary residence, I think). She was apparently sincere about this, it turned into this weird, awesome mix of political/religious upheaval and knightly courtship. I think it was on ENWorld?

I forget the name, but I know the campaign you're talking about - ISTR it involved the big Lawful Good god trying to work out the "Lawful or Good?" dilemma for himself via the Paladin's actions, or some such... And it was indeed quite a good read.

Anyway, as for the OP's question, it's... extremely iffy.

:sabine:"There's 'friendly contact with an evil Outsider' and then there's 'friendly contact with an evil Outsider..."

Sir_Chivalry
2011-09-27, 12:36 AM
So would everyone agree it would be in the interests of this character to pursue other paths? Like in 3.5, become a Shadowbane Inquisitor?

brann miekka
2011-09-27, 02:01 AM
well im thinking of it like how the cleric cadderly from the drizzt series acts, givin hes not a paladin but he does constantly deal with lower planes creatures such as imps and even balor, yet he always retained his allignment because he used those as contacts to further his gods (whos name i cant remember) will, and assist drizzt and his companions. if you dont know him, hes on the wiki if you do then you understand what i mean.

as for relations with a succubus...well bad paladin bad *hits with a rolled up newspaper*

hamishspence
2011-09-27, 02:55 AM
Yep. And the devs were stupid about that. Seriously, using DROW POISON is an evil act! And just a flat-out swift kill is neutral or even good when used against evil!


Incorrect- using drow poison is a non-evil act according to BOED- unlike using other poisons, which for some reason cause "excessive suffering".

Also- killing someone who is evil can still be murder, depending on the situation- it requires good intentions, and is context-sensitive.

Zombimode
2011-09-27, 05:37 AM
It really boils down to how you treat demonic entities like a succubus.

If your general outlook is that demons are people, maybe a bit more prone to brutal and "evil" action, but can otherwise make choices based on contemplative thought processes etc., then this relationship is in its core not any more problematic than a relationship to a human that may or may not be a criminal (from what the paladin knows).

Both relationships have three elements to them, that could be discussed seperately:

1: Obtaining information
There is not problem with that at all, regardles of the source.
The source of the information comes into play when evalueating the trustworthynes of the information. But this is a responsiblity on the Paladins part, and is true for any information. With a succubus he may have to be a bit more careful. But again this is the paladins responsibility and the relationship itself is not relevant.

2: The "Payment"
You mentioned that the paladin receives the information not for free. In both cases, the maybe-criminal and the succubus, any return-services may be used for ends the paladin may not approve. If this is the case it might be a reason for him falling. But again, it is all in the responsibility of the paladin. If he chooses gifts of only personal value, or has reasons to trust that his money/goods are not beeing used for "evil" ends, then he will be fine.

3: Sexual/romantic relationship
Since romance and sex are unrelated to moraltiy, or "good" and "evil", there is no problem with that at all.
Of course, if in the setting every time someone bumps uglies with a succubus, a newborn baby's soul is sucked into the Abyss or something, things might change :smallwink:

In the end, the relationship with a maybe not trustworthy beeing is a risk for the paladin, but it is in his responsibility to evaluate this risk. If he makes mistakes, then it might be a reason for falling. If he is careful and considerate enough, he is fine.

Of course, if you choose to uphold the PHB paladin code, you will fall for associating with an evil character. But you probably know this and the reason for this thread is that you choosed to ignore that part.


On the other hand, a different aproach to what demonic entities are will not change any of these points. Instead, it will influence the possibilities of relationships with demons. If you see demons more as embodiments of a cosmic force, then a relationship you described will either be not possible, or the paladin would better not trust anything coming out of its* mouth.

Bottom line: if you view demons as persons, then treat this situation like any other situation with persons.

*Under this view, a demon is not a person anymore and doesnt have a gender, despite a female appearance.

gkathellar
2011-09-27, 06:44 AM
If you see demons more as embodiments of a cosmic force,

Of course, redeeming a cosmic embodiment of evil could be just about the coolest story you could get out of the Power Of Love trope. (It could also be the dumbest story, depending.)

Calmar
2011-09-27, 07:39 AM
Normally I'm against overly strict limitation of a paladin's behaviour, but a succubus is a demon. A paladin, the archetype of the good and chivalrous holy warrior, does not fraternise with demons, the embodyment of evil. Imagine people like the knights of the Round Table, Saladin, or Jeanne D'Arc hanging out with demons - wouldn't work.

For some kind of ecclesiastical investigator I'd personally go with cleric/rogue.

hamishspence
2011-09-27, 07:48 AM
If angels can fraternize with demons in places like Sigil, why not paladins?

Calmar
2011-09-27, 08:05 AM
If angels can fraternize with demons in places like Sigil, why not paladins?

A paladin strives to achieve and maintain a state of full lawfulness and goodness, while an angel by nature already is purely good. The angel's insight in these matters is complete, so s/he can rather safely interact with evil. Someone who already has a finely cultivated garden may take a day off, someone who lives in untamed wilderness must ceaselessly work to achieve that state.

hamishspence
2011-09-27, 08:15 AM
Being "purely good" by nature, doesn't make one immune to Falling- which is how devils came to be in the first place.

Certainly paladins should be very cautious- but it's not that unusual for there to be situations where one must interact with fiends without using violence.

Urpriest
2011-09-27, 08:15 AM
Normally I'm against overly strict limitation of a paladin's behaviour, but a succubus is a demon. A paladin, the archetype of the good and chivalrous holy warrior, does not fraternise with demons, the embodyment of evil. Imagine people like the knights of the Round Table, Saladin, or Jeanne D'Arc hanging out with demons - wouldn't work.

For some kind of ecclesiastical investigator I'd personally go with cleric/rogue.

Eh. Morgan Le Fay.

gkathellar
2011-09-27, 08:21 AM
Normally I'm against overly strict limitation of a paladin's behaviour, but a succubus is a demon. A paladin, the archetype of the good and chivalrous holy warrior, does not fraternise with demons, the embodyment of evil. Imagine people like the knights of the Round Table, Saladin, or Jeanne D'Arc hanging out with demons - wouldn't work.

For some kind of ecclesiastical investigator I'd personally go with cleric/rogue.

I read that book. Didn't she make this long, complicated case for why one should be kind and forgiving toward the servants of the devil?

Mr.Bookworm
2011-09-27, 08:41 AM
I forget the name, but I know the campaign you're talking about - ISTR it involved the big Lawful Good god trying to work out the "Lawful or Good?" dilemma for himself via the Paladin's actions, or some such... And it was indeed quite a good read."

Anyone know where this campaign record is? I'd like to give it a read.

Anyway:


A paladin character who freely associates with a succubus. The succubus is a source of information on the criminal underworld/fiend cult scene, and is not doing much of anything Evil, as far as the paladin knows. She is a contact, and the paladin provides little assistance to her besides whatever a contact is due (be it money, small tokens, the occasional bottle of fine wine)

Now, does the paladin fall for this?

I'd say no. I mean, it's kind of toeing the line a bit for a Paladin, maybe, but I wouldn't make him fall for it.


Alternative 1- if this was anything other than a paladin, such as a knight or crusader, would the character change alignment for these actions?

Most definitely not.

I mean, unless the Succubus is draining babies right in front of them or otherwise being evil beyond just existing, no, the Paladin wouldn't fall and the alignment wouldn't change.


Alternative 2- if a physical relationship is occuring, does that change the answer? Combine with above alternative as well.

Uh. That's a thornier issue. If the Paladin is doing it out of genuine love and desire for redemption on the Succubus' part, I'd say no.

If it's purely physical, that's probably a one-way ticket to Fallsville, Population: You.

The Random NPC
2011-09-27, 09:17 AM
If I remember correctly Asmodeus was charged with punishing wicked and he and his celestials kind of mutated into devils. In that case, why shouldn't a paladin try to reclaim a good soul that has strayed from the path? By RAW, however, he falls for associating with an evil creature.

GodGoblin
2011-09-27, 09:26 AM
Its states in the Book of Exalted deeds that Fiends are being of pure evil and the simple existance of one on the Material Plane blights the land and helps evil, allowing one to exist makes your Paladin fall.

Thats RAW in The BoED, not common sense or very fun to play but you want an official ruling, thats it. Using it and making the Paladin fall to Greyguard would be fun though actually, being in love with an evil being but still fighting for good is a rather cool concept IMO.

Or you could take a more Ebberon style take on Alignment, or my personal favorite of The End Justifies The Means, always leads to some great Anti-Hero characters.

Hope that helps!

Edit:
In that case, why shouldn't a paladin try to reclaim a good soul that has strayed from the path? By RAW, however, he falls for associating with an evil creature.

This is cool, its like to work for the Greater Good you cant be Lawful Good.

Reluctance
2011-09-27, 09:26 AM
Come on. Playing sweet redeemable damsels is one of the classic succubus tricks. Do-gooders fall for it every time.

Still, I'd allow the paladin to keep his powers, despite the RAW bit about associating with evil. Partly because I'm pretty lenient about allowing players to play the sort of character they envision, so long as it doesn't throw the campaign off its rails. Mostly, though, because the scene where the paladin finds out just how badly he got played is the sort of drama moment you don't turn down.

gkathellar
2011-09-27, 09:48 AM
Its states in the Book of Exalted deeds that Fiends are being of pure evil and the simple existance of one on the Material Plane blights the land and helps evil, allowing one to exist makes your Paladin fall.

Of course, there's some flavor text in the same book that entirely contradicts that. Obviously I'm not saying flavor text amounts to a ruling, just pointing out that the writers of BoED didn't have their collective act together and didn't begin to deal with the massive weirdness and inconsistency they produced.

GodGoblin
2011-09-27, 10:10 AM
Of course, there's some flavor text in the same book that entirely contradicts that. Obviously I'm not saying flavor text amounts to a ruling, just pointing out that the writers of BoED didn't have their collective act together and didn't begin to deal with the massive weirdness and inconsistency they produced.

Couldnt agree more, the book is one huge mess and dont get me started on Ravages...

Ravens_cry
2011-09-27, 10:35 AM
Couldnt agree more, the book is one huge mess and dont get me started on Ravages...
I don't even own that book and Ravages tee me off.:smallyuk:

gkathellar
2011-09-27, 11:20 AM
I don't even own that book and Ravages tee me off.:smallyuk:

The Dev Team conversation must have gone like this:

A: So on our list of evil things, we've got arson, poison, ham—

B: Wait, poison is evil? Golly, that seems unfair to good PCs.

A: But ... isn't being good supposed to be hard? Isn't that the whole point of this book?

C: No, no, in D&D good and evil are exactly identical reskinned versions of one another.

B: That's why we created Deathless!

C: And near-exact duplicates of the BoVD classes!

B: And Good Mindra—I mean Sanctify the Wicked!

C: And why we reassure players constantly the xenocide is okay as long as it's against species that are "Usually Chaotic Evil."

A: Oh, okay, I get it. I know! We'll create special, good aligned poison! We'll call them "ravages."

B: Brilliant!

C: Brilliant!

Mr.Bookworm
2011-09-27, 12:26 PM
C: And why we reassure players constantly the xenocide is okay as long as it's against species that are "Usually Chaotic Evil."

This annoys me and tells me that you haven't actually read the Book of Exalted Deeds, because it explicitly calls out stuff like that, multiple times, as being not okay.

Really, the Book of Exalted Deeds is pretty decent, overall. I like it. There are some stupid things there, but if you can't use a splat that has stupid things in it, you're playing the wrong game.

I mean, hell, I could even see using ravages. They seem right up the alley of a particularly zealous cleric of Cuthy. That's not how they're presented in the book at all, of course, but I can still see an use for them.

EDIT: And I will forever give a pass to the Deathless for their inclusion in Eberron.

gkathellar
2011-09-27, 12:52 PM
This annoys me and tells me that you haven't actually read the Book of Exalted Deeds, because it explicitly calls out stuff like that, multiple times, as being not okay.

The xenocide comment wasn't targeted so much at BoED as at D&D in general. Having read it, I'm aware that BoED manages to be slightly better than is typical of this game, but the attitude behind Ravages and Deathless and all the duplicate PRCs (Anointed Knight, I'm looking at you) is the same one you see elsewhere.

My point, and I do have one, is that you can't really take the BoED too seriously for the same reason you can't take D&D's general definition of Good too seriously: it seems to be laboring under the assumption that Good and Evil are just wearing hats of opposite color.

So, to steer back on topic, the question shouldn't necessarily be what the BoED or the Code of Conduct say, but rather how a paladin should actually behave in this situation. That appears to be highly context sensitive, as other posters have discussed.

Mando Knight
2011-09-27, 12:59 PM
That appears to be highly context sensitive, as other posters have discussed.

And part of the context is the DM. Rule #1 of playing characters with codes of conduct: know your DM. Rule #2 is to know your fellow players.

Treblain
2011-09-27, 01:52 PM
A thought: if a [Evil] creature, which is defined by its evilness, consistently acts in a non-evil way in a campaign, then can't you assume that the DM is applying Rule 0, not following the rules strictly, and therefore the printed designation of [Evil] is already being ignored by this specific campaign setting? In which case the succubus is not evil at all, so the paladin can do what he wants.

Lawful Stupid comes up in situations where a DM's story contradicts the printed rules. In those cases, the DM is always correct. Therefore, it is nonsensical for that DM to try to apply the strict paladin code in that situation, since clearly the code has been taken out of the context that it was written in.

Telonius
2011-09-27, 02:14 PM
Eh. Morgan Le Fay.

Merlin, for that matter. (Depending on the source, of course).

Arbane
2011-09-27, 02:21 PM
Imagine people like the knights of the Round Table, Saladin, or Jeanne D'Arc hanging out with demons - wouldn't work.

Joan of Arc did hang around with Gilles De Rais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais).

Just sayin'...

Mando Knight
2011-09-27, 03:11 PM
Joan of Arc did hang around with Gilles De Rais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais).

Just sayin'...

And she may or may not have weighed as much as a duck.

Agrippa
2011-09-27, 03:33 PM
Joan of Arc did hang around with Gilles De Rais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais).

Just sayin'...

I'd say that the key word should be knowingly associated. And Gilles De Rais commited all of his crimes after Jeane d'Arc's death.

flumphy
2011-09-27, 04:01 PM
Merlin, for that matter. (Depending on the source, of course).

And besides, a lot of Arthur's knights wouldn't qualify as LG anyway, even if you ignore who they hang out with.

Back on topic, as others have said, this is highly dependent on your DM. I personally would allow a non-evil succubus, but whether a paladin would fall for having ties with the criminal underworld would be highly dependent on his actions in game. He would be on thin ice, for sure. Whether a physical relationship would effect anything would depend on the character's diety and code of conduct. If his god advocated chastity, he'd be in trouble succubus or not, but if he was a paladin of say, Sune, then it wouldn't matter.

Chilingsworth
2011-09-27, 05:06 PM
but if he was a paladin of say, Sune, then it wouldn't matter.

Heck, if he's a paladin of Sune, he might be in trouble for not having a relationship!

Lord.Sorasen
2011-09-27, 05:29 PM
I'm going to suggest that a paladin can be human and still be a paladin and LG. You did say she wasn't doing anything too evil at the time, right? A paladin could be overcome with lust, and maybe even with love. He knows he's probably wrong to make the choices he is making, but he refuses to deny the feelings he has. In my head I sort of want the succubus to remain evil. It feels more proper to me. But either way I don't see that being enough to remove a paladin of his powers. Remember, people don't learn to be paladins, even if they learn to act like them. The forces of righteousness select paladins. Considering how specific this selection is, it seems silly that anything other than a gross violation should lose the paladin his powers. The forces which gave those powers to him have already judged his heart and know its capabilities. And in this case, he's not even doing evil. He's just not going that extra light-year by killing a lover.

Of course now that I reread it I see that it's really about the paladin using a demon for information, and that it being a succubus is inconsequential. In this case it sort of breaks my suspension of disbelief. A devil revealing the secrets of the underworld to a paladin? That's nothing short of being a spy. And a high ranking demon isn't likely to risk their very existence for "minor trinkets or some wine". If he has such a contact, this contact is either a good character, or one with a hidden motive. Which would, naturally, complicate the issue.

Zale
2011-09-27, 05:54 PM
Heck, if he's a paladin of Sune, he might be in trouble for not having a relationship!

Paladin of Sune?

"Be fruitful sexy and multiply share your sexiness with the world!" -First commandment of the code of the paladins of Sune.

As for this.. I doubt you would fall for it just because it's a demon. Even though it has probably done evil in the past, and may do so in the future.

Mostly because if he does fall, the Succubus will insure he never atones..

Frosty
2011-09-27, 10:28 PM
Paladin of Sune?

"Be fruitful sexy and multiply share your sexiness with the world!" -First commandment of the code of the paladins of Sune.
The second commandment: "Thou shalt attain the level of three with thrice-devoted haste, then make full use of thy goddess-given Immunity to Disease." :smallwink:

hamishspence
2011-09-28, 04:46 AM
Its states in the Book of Exalted deeds that Fiends are being of pure evil and the simple existance of one on the Material Plane blights the land and helps evil, allowing one to exist makes your Paladin fall.

Incorrect- that's the Book of Vile Darkness (3.0, and written by a different author).

BoED only has "Fiends are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them".

However, as illustrated in WoTC's Succubus paladin article- sometimes naive fools succeed.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 03:01 PM
Incorrect- that's the Book of Vile Darkness (3.0, and written by a different author).

BoED only has "Fiends are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them".

However, as illustrated in WoTC's Succubus paladin article- sometimes naive fools succeed.

Paladins ARE naive fools. Otherwise they would have been crusaders or clerics.

hamishspence
2011-09-28, 03:15 PM
Making it in-character for some to try and redeem what "common wisdom" tells them is irredeemable. :smallamused:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 03:28 PM
Making it in-character for some to try and redeem what "common wisdom" tells them is irredeemable. :smallamused:

Okay, but seriously, why WOULDN'T they be a cleric? You can get combat power with DMM: Persisted Divine Power, and Death Ward to del with negative levels, Divine Favor if you have enough turn attempts left, and then use Righteous Might and Shield Other and such when in combat. Plus you're better at the healing aspect of paladins, and Holy Smite would be the Smite Evil replacement.

gkathellar
2011-09-28, 03:28 PM
Paladins ARE naive fools. Otherwise they would have been crusaders or clerics.

Huh? I thought "paladin" was just a word for crusaders if they were LG? Are you telling me there's some kind of paladin class?

*checks PHB*

Nope. The only class I see in there is the Bard, with a whole bunch of empty white pages between that and the next chapter. Isn't it great having a core rulebook that's so balanced and well-designed?

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 03:36 PM
Huh? I thought "paladin" was just a word for crusaders if they were LG? Are you telling me there's some kind of paladin class?

*checks PHB*

Nope. The only class I see in there is the Bard, with a whole bunch of empty white pages between that and the next chapter. Isn't it great having a core rulebook that's so balanced and well-designed?

I also see barbarian, ranger, and rogue classes. But it says you'll be a bit weaker if the bard plays smart and you don't use ACFs.

Frosty
2011-09-28, 04:43 PM
In Pathfinder, Paladins can dump Wis (spellcasting is CHA based), so this situation works even better!

Calmar
2011-09-28, 05:43 PM
Being "purely good" by nature, doesn't make one immune to Falling- which is how devils came to be in the first place.

Certainly paladins should be very cautious- but it's not that unusual for there to be situations where one must interact with fiends without using violence.

Of course angels can fall. But such an event should - in my opinion - be a very rare and important event, not daily routine; just as the "rising" of a fiend.

A paladin should not feel guilty when she commits a mistake by following her conscience when reacting to a situation, but actively seeking the proximity of a creature of pure evil is another matter. A paladin also would not be permitted to commit "lesser" crimes such as theft in order to gain the trust of a more criminal, because she would thus willingly commit evil deeds.


Eh. Morgan Le Fay.
According to the legends I've read and heard, Morgan successfully pretends to be a good woman. If everybody knew she wished to bring down King Arthur's kingdom, she would be treated differently.


And besides, a lot of Arthur's knights wouldn't qualify as LG anyway, even if you ignore who they hang out with.
The question whether the knights of the Round Table, or anyone from the pre-Enlightenment- times qualifies as even remotely good according to our modern moral standards is an entirely different matter - Arthur's knights do not ally with demons.


Joan of Arc did hang around with Gilles De Rais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais).

Just sayin'...

Ok, I admit, using Jeanne as an example might have been unwise, because if you would ask contemporary Englishmen they would tell you she is a fiendish witch and no saint. I was assuming we would agree upon the modern assumption that she was a rather saintly heroine.

Now I can't tell whether Gilles de Rais indeed commited the crimes he was accused of, or if he was just blackmailed by his enemies. And I sure don't know if Jeanne - in case Gilles was in fact a criminal - knew of his crimes. The article isn't even clear on how close he actually was to her... if she'd have fallen from grace for every scoundrel in the French army*, she'd indeed be damned into the bleakest pit of hell. :smalltongue:

*Not saying that the French were all rascals, but the Hundred Years War in general had a abundance of such.

Sir_Chivalry
2011-09-28, 06:46 PM
Okay, but seriously, why WOULDN'T they be a cleric? You can get combat power with DMM: Persisted Divine Power, and Death Ward to del with negative levels, Divine Favor if you have enough turn attempts left, and then use Righteous Might and Shield Other and such when in combat. Plus you're better at the healing aspect of paladins, and Holy Smite would be the Smite Evil replacement.

While a theory I agree with, that defeats the purpose of the question.

So all this being said, which of these is best to use as a DM or player?

#1 Have it be a paladin/greyguard/shadowbane inquisitor/something that's a pally, and have the contact not be a succubus, but some other mortal fiendish creature, an alu-demon or tiefling, but still deeply connected to the underworld of crime. This brings up an important question because other evil creatures might also manifest themselves in this scenario (rakshasas and other fiends of intrigue), if faced with completely unrepentant fiends, is the deal off?

#2 Make him a cleric/crusader/zhentarim dungeoncrasher fighter/whathaveyou, and do the scenario in the OP

#3 Combine the above two

Secret fourth option
One of the ideas for what to do with this character was that he redeems the contact, but in turn slowly shifts to evil himself. Just a weird little idea

Chronos
2011-09-28, 07:06 PM
According to the RAW,
Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. Using a demon as an information source like you describe is a real stretch of this-- At most, I could see arresting her and then offering her a reduced sentence in exchange for information. And sleeping with her is Right Out.

Now, it's quite possible for different paladins to have different codes of conduct. I can certainly imagine a code of conduct that would allow buying off underworld informers, or even (in the hands of an extremely skilled role-player) an intimate relationship with a fiend. But to do that, the player should sit down with the DM at the beginning of the campaign and hash out exactly what that code of conduct is. Lacking that, I'd assume the default one.

This behavior would not, in itself, be grounds for an alignment shift (though a succubus sleeping with a hero is probably trying to coax him into activities that would be); the paladin's code is considerably stricter than the requirements to be LG. And I don't think any of the other code-of-conduct classes have a rule against associating with evil, so those should be OK.

Urpriest
2011-09-28, 09:40 PM
According to the legends I've read and heard, Morgan successfully pretends to be a good woman. If everybody knew she wished to bring down King Arthur's kingdom, she would be treated differently.


Well her desire to bring down Arthur's kingdom isn't particularly relevant. The point was more to the effect that she was a spellcaster. As someone else pointed out, Merlin is also debatably an example. They're both people who get their power from some rather unchristian sources, sources that the knights themselves would probably get into trouble for associating with.

deuxhero
2011-09-28, 10:59 PM
Eh. Morgan Le Fay.

Merlin is half-fiend at times as well.

Shadow of the Sun
2011-09-29, 06:56 AM
Now, my general opinion here is: depends on the god. A really hardline god would probably make this paladin fall like a stack of bricks. A more liberal one? Well...

Also, if the information the succubus was giving was accurate, I'd more or less say she was moving towards the neutral part of the spectrum anyway. I mean, she's giving the paladin something for personal gain, and is by doing so actively helping said paladin in his thingy against evil. Not something a pure evil being would do; otherwise she'd be all "MWAHAHAHA eat babies!".

He'd probably have other contacts to establish whether she's doing anything evil, and if she was doing something especially evil would probably do his paladin thing and take her down, too. A cop is only as good as his informants; you could probably say the same for paladins.

hewhosaysfish
2011-09-29, 07:55 AM
Also, if the information the succubus was giving was accurate, I'd more or less say she was moving towards the neutral part of the spectrum anyway. I mean, she's giving the paladin something for personal gain, and is by doing so actively helping said paladin in his thingy against evil. Not something a pure evil being would do; otherwise she'd be all "MWAHAHAHA eat babies!".

He'd probably have other contacts to establish whether she's doing anything evil, and if she was doing something especially evil would probably do his paladin thing and take her down, too. A cop is only as good as his informants; you could probably say the same for paladins.

I largely agree. Given she's a fiend, the natural assumption is that she is committing Evil somewhere, somehow; but it is an assumption.

How safe does an assumption have to be before a paladin can get away with killing someone based on it? I don't have an answer for that.
How safe does an assumption have to be before a paladin is obliged to kill someone based on it? I don't have an answer for that, either.

But the OP does say that "is not doing much of anything Evil, as far as the paladin knows". Which suggests he does have some information and so can base his decisions on this specific succubusindividual rather than on generalities about fiends.

What is "not much of anything Evil"? Is it "not much" in terms of the magnitude of the Evil (e.g. shoplifting every week) or in terms of the frequency of the act (e.g. she sacrifices babies to dark gods - but only once a year)?
The former could perhaps be pardoned as a recurring weakness in someone who is otherwise trying to be good; the latter shows more that just weakness (even if is just once a year) and is really a believable trait in someone who is genuinely contrite*.

None of this is dependent on her being a fiend. If 99.99% of fiends are Evil, it's because 99.99% of fiends don't care about the wellbeing of other creatures and are willing to destroy others to improve their own situation - NOT because the Ineffable Cosmic Forces of Alignment have arbitraily set the bar for Good behaviour a bit higher for fiends.

*Unless, of course, you believe the Fiendish Codex that you can just total up the accumulated "Evil Points" and find out that the two are apparently equivalent. And can both be cancelled out giving out candy to enough orphans. Fiendish Codex can go jump off a bridge and die.

Mastikator
2011-09-29, 08:03 AM
The succubus is a source of information on the criminal underworld/fiend cult scene, and is not doing much of anything Evil, as far as the paladin knows. She is a contact, and the paladin provides little assistance to her besides whatever a contact is due (be it money, small tokens, the occasional bottle of fine wine)

This depends entirely on the DMs interpretation of how fiends work and their definition of "Always", as in "Always Evil".
If I were the DM it wouldn't be a question IF the succubus is doing something evil, but WHAT that evil is. Evil deeds is like breathing to them, they simply can't do without it.
Now, the Paladin may not know this, not all paladins are gonna spend points in Knowledge (The Planes). But the paladin should be very distrustful of a succubus, and probably keep an eye on her to make sure she doesn't use that innate drain life ability, much less conspire other greater evil deeds.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 08:28 AM
This depends entirely on the DMs interpretation of how fiends work and their definition of "Always", as in "Always Evil".
If I were the DM it wouldn't be a question IF the succubus is doing something evil, but WHAT that evil is. Evil deeds is like breathing to them, they simply can't do without it.

3.5 MM, page 305:

Always: The creature is born with the listed alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.

Often: The creature tends toward the listed alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

WoTC seems to agree with the possibility of there being exceptions, what with the Succubus Paladin article. Before that there was the LN succubus Fall From Grace in Planescape Torment.

Some fiends (cambion demons from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) despite having the Evil subtype are only Usually Evil (with 10% being Neutral or Good).

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 08:58 AM
Before that there was the LN succubus Fall From Grace in Planescape Torment.

Emphasis mine. I agree with you, mind, but that whole setting sort of laughed at the whole alignment system and played it entirely straight at exactly the same time, which makes it a little non-standard. And of course, that particular game is from Black Isle, the staff of which have basically spent their entire careers subverting standard RPG tropes. Take their stuff with a grain of brilliant, beautifully written salt.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 09:25 AM
She was mentioned in Dragon Magazine too- in an article (Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet) written by James Jacobs, a WoTC staffer.

So, it may be canon in that sense.

Mike_G
2011-09-29, 09:29 AM
Why is it only the hot, sexy fiends who might be exceptions, or be redeemed? Why no Balor Paladin? Why no Pit Fiend druids?

As to the actual OP, by the strict reading of the rules, (which I never think is a good idea) the Paladin should probably have problems due to the associating with Evil. If he's trying to redeem the succubus, he maybe gets a pass for the association.

If I were the DM, it would all depend on his actions, his intentions and his knowledge of what the succubus is actually doing. If he ignores evil acts, provides her with payments that abets those evil acts, or shields her from the consequences of those acts, he's in danger of a fall.

It's not just his LG status. It's his Paladin status, which is a stricter standard. A LG fighter could cut a deal with a minor evil being to stop a great evil being, or to save innocents or whatever with little to fear. Paladins should feel the need to Do the Right Thing. even when it's not the easy or practical thing.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 09:32 AM
There is a Neutral ultraloth in Eberron- (I think Explorer's Handbook) but he doesn't have the evil subtype so is not, technically, a fiend anymore. He's a ship captain.

There's also a Neutral half-fiend gargoyle (again, not technically a fiend, though it is an Outsider and its template does come with "Always Evil") in Epic Handbook. He's a shopkeeper.

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 09:36 AM
She was mentioned in Dragon Magazine too- in an article (Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet) written by James Jacobs, a WoTC staffer.

So, it may be canon in that sense.

Oh, I'm pretty sure all of Torment is canon. I'm just pointing out that the people who wrote her (and all of that game, as well as the people who wrote that setting) were more interested in subverting genre expectations than anything else. Nothing wrong with that.


Why is it only the hot, sexy fiends who might be exceptions, or be redeemed? Why no Balor Paladin? Why no Pit Fiend druids?

I once played a Lawful Neutral Druid/Planar Shepherd who claimed (never figured out if he was lying) to be a former Duke of Hell trapped in mortal form, working to regain his true devilish form through Wild Shape.

Mastikator
2011-09-29, 09:41 AM
@hamishspence, interesting, I did not know that. Either way, if they're exceptionally rare then it would be incredibly stupid to ever just assume it. But since the paladin has detect evil as a class ability he would know with a high level of certainty if the succubus is evil or not.
If she is evil he should be restrained his killing her only by needing her for information as a last resort. There shouldn't be any possibility of friendship of alliance between them, he only spares her life because he needs her.
Alternatively, she could be manipulating him, and actually being more powerful than the paladin, it's after all what succubus's do.

Yes, that is the way I would go, she is the one in control of the relationship and attempting to turn him into evil, using manipulation to make him believe allowing her to live and using her information isn't an incredible risk.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 09:43 AM
@hamishspence, interesting, I did not know that. Either way, if they're exceptionally rare then it would be incredibly stupid to ever just assume it. But since the paladin has detect evil as a class ability he would know with a high level of certainty if the succubus is evil or not.

Nope, all creatures with the evil subtype, all clerics of evil deities, and all undead, detect as evil. Even when they are neutral or good.

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 09:50 AM
If she is evil he should be restrained his killing her only by needing her for information as a last resort. There shouldn't be any possibility of friendship of alliance between them, he only spares her life because he needs her.

Or we could proceed from the assumption that ruthless pragmatism isn't necessarily one of the attributes a champion of good and law upholds. While the paladin is first and foremost a holy warrior, attacking a fiend simply for existing is really no different than murdering someone for pinging on his Detect Evil, especially if fiends can become good. Not only is his behavior vaguely psychopathic and unprovoked, but moreover lacks the essential idealism of the paladin archetype.

So, yeah, what you're talking about really seems more like Grey Guard behavior to me.

legomaster00156
2011-09-29, 09:50 AM
Why is it only the hot, sexy fiends who might be exceptions, or be redeemed? Why no Balor Paladin? Why no Pit Fiend druids?

Well, for one, succubi interact with the mortal realm on a daily basis, while other fiends for the most part only travel to the mortal realm when they've got a plan in action. Because of this, succubi are more likely to be influenced by the goody-two-shoesness of those pesky paladins and clerics.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 09:52 AM
While the paladin is first and foremost a holy warrior, attacking a fiend simply for existing is really no different than murdering someone for pinging on his Detect Evil, especially if fiends can become good. Not only is his behavior vaguely psychopathic and unprovoked, but moreover lacks the essential idealism of the paladin archetype.

Pretty much. BoVD seems more supportive of this than later books like BoED.

Tiki Snakes
2011-09-29, 10:04 AM
For my money, the implications of Good and Evil being objective and concrete as they are supposed to be, as well as the weirdness of the Paladin's Code always interested me on some level. The idea that the Paladin could do the right thing, take the best, most good option and conceivably fall for it because good and evil fail to exactly line up with Good and Evil is facinating.

Likewise, the idea of a Paladin who has a Succubus as a stool-pidgeon with or without an awesomely 'complicated' relationship on top of that seems like gold-dust really, so it boils down to whether the player would mind having to atone every few days or if he'd be happier with a paladin-like class taking the in-universe role of the Paladin but free from the insanity of the Paladin's code.

That or assuming the DM is nice enough to fudge around it or even work with the player on a much more logical code tailored to the PC's actual God, perhaps?

Because as silly as it is, the RAW seems pretty open-and-shut on this matter.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 10:13 AM
In Dragon Magazine's paladin guide (late 3.5), it mentions that they may associate with evil beings on a limited basis with the intention of redeeming them.

Defenders of the Faith says the same- suggesting they have to weigh the risks of personal corruption vs the reward of furthering the cause of Good, and redeeming an evildoer.

So, there's some fluff there to encourage DMs to fudge the "associating" clause- especially since "associating" isn't mentioned in the Falling section- though it might come under "grossly violating the paladin code".

Ayedi_Star
2011-09-29, 10:18 AM
I would think the real issue comes down to just two questions:

Has the paladin used all good means at his disposal to discern if the succubus is, in fact, performing evil deeds? or if she is allowing other evil to continue knowingly?

the big question is best summed up as "how is the paladin handling this situation?" with great care? with ensuring the woman (demon made from the planes of hell itself or not) is actually being a good person? or just acting like this woman is an informant and sleeping with her as an added benefit? because one would not cause a fall regardless of the individual, the other almost certainly would.

knowingly laying with an evil being and not punishing or bringing her to justice would be a fall.

knowingly using a possibly-evil woman without care would be a massive conflict against his code that would most likely be a fall.

knowingly entering a possible relationship with a possibly evil woman - but taking care to see who she is, what she's doing with herself, despite the reputation and nature of her kind, and THEN trying to ensure she is either redeemed for minor evil or is guided along the right path if she is honestly good, would not entail a fall in my mind.

EDIT because it's another idea and I just had to, after thinking about it:
Hell, roleplay it as a point of contention between the paladin and his god, if possible:

"My god Helm, I know you hate the lies and evil her race perpetuate, but I truly believe that goodness is inheret in her soul; I have watched her dealing with the weak with mercy and kindness, and seen her strength used to further the cause of good; You may not be able to find redemption possible for one such as her, but I can, and I will show you it even if I must risk your anger. I will serve your cause with or without your blessing and While I may not convert her to your cause - even though you would never accept her in your realm - I will show the planes that goodness and love exists even in the pits we enter to banish evil - If we are blind to it, are we not as heartless and evil as they that dwell within?"

Of course, whether or not the paladin's player actually comes out with that depends on how much you all like roleplaying. lampshade it, but the points made can still stand and demonstrate that he's trying to keep to his code.

hamishspence
2011-09-29, 10:23 AM
That's a pretty fair summary. BoED does say Good characters should avoid entering into exploitative relationships- so if the paladin is being exploitative, he should be in danger of Falling.

"Good characters are not Users" so to speak.

Mastikator
2011-09-29, 11:46 AM
Or we could proceed from the assumption that ruthless pragmatism isn't necessarily one of the attributes a champion of good and law upholds. While the paladin is first and foremost a holy warrior, attacking a fiend simply for existing is really no different than murdering someone for pinging on his Detect Evil, especially if fiends can become good. Not only is his behavior vaguely psychopathic and unprovoked, but moreover lacks the essential idealism of the paladin archetype.

So, yeah, what you're talking about really seems more like Grey Guard behavior to me.

So demons are to be held to the same standards as mortals, then?
I know OOTS may not be D&D canon authority, but if we check here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) (second comic, third row, first panel), the deva hints that mortals shouldn't be held to a perfect standard of beings of pure alignment. Now if we were to take that and reverse it, then demons should not be held to the same standard as mortals. I mean, monsters certainly aren't, a wight wouldn't be given due process, even though it's technically an intelligent being, one would suspect a fiend to be even eviler than a wight. The very presence of a demon that feeds on life force puts the entire city at risk. Yes, it's racial profiling, but it's always evil, always may not mean literally always, but it is pretty much guaranteed.
At the very least it seems incredibly stupid to trust a fiend if you're a paladin, knowing what fiends are capable of.

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 12:10 PM
So demons are to be held to the same standards as mortals, then? ... Yes, it's racial profiling, but it's always evil, always may not mean literally always, but it is pretty much guaranteed.

No, demons are to be held to their own, unique standards — which are undoubtedly higher than those applied to most mortals if the paladin isn't an idiot. But they have to be standards, not racial profiling, or else the paladin is taking the easy, practical path rather than the genuinely good one.


I mean, monsters certainly aren't, a wight wouldn't be given due process, even though it's technically an intelligent being, one would suspect a fiend to be even eviler than a wight. The very presence of a demon that feeds on life force puts the entire city at risk.

False equivalency. Wights are an explosive infection. Succubi can level drain, but it's not a biological necessity for them.


At the very least it seems incredibly stupid to trust a fiend if you're a paladin, knowing what fiends are capable of.

Choosing not to kill something just for existing is different from "trusting" it, and no one said or implied that trust should be freely given. And I have difficulty imagining a genuine paladin who sees violence as the preferable means of good's triumph over evil.

The Succubus
2011-09-29, 12:42 PM
I'm enjoying this debate immensely. It's a thought that crossed my mind a while back as well but never really followed up on it.

For my money, I don't think I could ever see a succubus as being truly *Good* but a partial redemption to chaotic neutral or even lawful neutral might not be beyond the realms of possibility.

As for the relationship, according to wikipedia, legend has it that one of the Vatican's Popes was helped to his position by a succubus.


Not all succubi were malevolent. According to Walter Mapes in De Nugis Curialium (Trifles of Courtiers), Pope Sylvester II (999–1003) was involved with a succubus named Meridiana, who helped him achieve his high rank in the Catholic Church. Before his death, he confessed of his sins and died repentant.

..taken from the wiki page on succubi.

If God's representative on Earth can fraternise with a hot sexy fiend and get away with it, I'm pretty sure a policeman of God should be able to form a relationship.

Calmar
2011-09-29, 02:27 PM
Well her desire to bring down Arthur's kingdom isn't particularly relevant. The point was more to the effect that she was a spellcaster. As someone else pointed out, Merlin is also debatably an example. They're both people who get their power from some rather unchristian sources, sources that the knights themselves would probably get into trouble for associating with.

From such a point of view neither the knights of the round table, nor Saladin, nor Jeanne D'Arc could possibly qualify as knights or paladins, because neither of them historically fulfilled the requirement of being a Christian fighting man. Also, actual knighthood appeared during the 11th century, a time when king Arthur already was a mythological figure of ages long gone by.
Figures with Celtic origin, such as Morgan or Merlin were often regarded as fiendish becausye their stories were written down by Christian monks.

Now I wonder, how we can possibly know how an exemplary knight should behave, when close examination is used to deconstruct every shining example of chivalry... :smalltongue:

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 03:15 PM
Now I wonder, how we can possibly know how an exemplary knight should behave, when close examination is used to deconstruct every shining example of chivalry... :smalltongue:

I've never played a paladin whom I thought of as any kind of knight or expected to obey the code of chivalry, personally. But if I had, I could certainly draw on characters like Galahad, Captain America or Paksenarrion for inspiration — all of whom are reconstructed characters meant at least in part to show how a genuinely good and honorable warrior would behave once you get past the "chivalric knight" point.

Mike_G
2011-09-29, 03:33 PM
Now I wonder, how we can possibly know how an exemplary knight should behave, when close examination is used to deconstruct every shining example of chivalry... :smalltongue:

Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch.

About as perfect a Paladin as I've ever read.

Frosty
2011-09-29, 04:10 PM
Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch.

About as perfect a Paladin as I've ever read.
He needs to put more ranks in Detect Sarcasm and Sense Motive :smalltongue:

Calmar
2011-09-29, 04:36 PM
I've never played a paladin whom I thought of as any kind of knight or expected to obey the code of chivalry, personally. But if I had, I could certainly draw on characters like Galahad, Captain America or Paksenarrion for inspiration — all of whom are reconstructed characters meant at least in part to show how a genuinely good and honorable warrior would behave once you get past the "chivalric knight" point.

How do you view your paladins?

Ravens_cry
2011-09-29, 05:00 PM
He needs to put more ranks in Detect Sarcasm and Sense Motive :smalltongue:
Sarcasm breaks upon him as waves upon cliffs.
He knows what hit him, he just ignores it.
Personally though, I prefer Sam "THAT'S NOT MY COW!" Vimes as my Paladin of choice.

Frosty
2011-09-29, 05:36 PM
Sarcasm breaks upon him as waves upon cliffs.
He knows what hit him, he just ignores it.
Personally though, I prefer Sam "THAT'S NOT MY COW!" Vimes as my Paladin of choice.
I think Sam is a Gray Guard...

The Succubus
2011-09-29, 05:39 PM
Sarcasm breaks upon him as waves upon cliffs.
He knows what hit him, he just ignores it.
Personally though, I prefer Sam "THAT'S NOT MY COW!" Vimes as my Paladin of choice.

I think Paladin and no matter how hard I try I cannot fit Vimes into that shape. He's so Lawful its scary but while he's "good", he doesn't strike me as Righteous Good.

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 05:47 PM
How do you view your paladins?

If you mean, "How do you view your paladins if not as chivalric knights?" then the answer is that I usually play them as wanderers and (in a very loose, non-chaotic sense of the word) scoundrels. Sometimes as loners. Usually I'll play them multiclassed, because I'm not especially attached to the class itself. If you mean, "How do you view your paladins in general?" then that's along similar lines.

I tend to think of the perfect paladin as a kind of ideologically focused hero that doesn't fit in with society despite their devotion to it. They have a deep respect for civilization, law and philosophy while finding it persistently disappoints them. A paladin is someone who is slightly too passionate for the world he lives in, and almost certainly has too much moral conviction and empathy for it. They always want justice to be more just, mercy to be more merciful, honor to be more honorable, and people to be generally better. And a big part of this is that the paladin genuinely believes good and righteousness can do more than merely stem the tide of darkness — the paladin thinks they can win.

Mastikator
2011-09-29, 05:59 PM
Choosing not to kill something just for existing is different from "trusting" it, and no one said or implied that trust should be freely given. And I have difficulty imagining a genuine paladin who sees violence as the preferable means of good's triumph over evil.
Using someone for information certainly does mean he trusts her at least enough to listen to what she has to say.
I agree that paladins shouldn't use violence as a primary option, but he certainly shouldn't be doing nothing to the Succubus, there's no demon that just "hangs around" and help paladins (in fact, if I were a succubus and wanted to kill a paladin this is one way to lure him into a trap). He should be keeping an eye on her as much as the organized crime syndicate that he uses her information on.

Mike_G
2011-09-29, 06:08 PM
Sarcasm breaks upon him as waves upon cliffs.
He knows what hit him, he just ignores it.
Personally though, I prefer Sam "THAT'S NOT MY COW!" Vimes as my Paladin of choice.

I don't see Vimes as a Paladin. He's Lawful Good, but he's sneaky, nasty, and pretty much a Rage Elemental. He knows his flaws, and keeps tight rein on them, but I don't think he's a Paladin.

Carrot just does the Right Thing, regardless of the political fallout, or personal danger. His arrest of Dr Cruces, taking him alive after the man had (apparently) killed Angua, because it was the right thing to do, and when confronted, his explanation "Personal isn't the same as Important" is the kind of above and beyond Righteous Conduct that separates Paladins from just plain old Good Guys.

gkathellar
2011-09-29, 06:37 PM
Using someone for information certainly does mean he trusts her at least enough to listen to what she has to say.

Or that he thinks he can stay one step ahead of her. Which may just be his low intelligence score talking, or he may be right.


He should be keeping an eye on her as much as the organized crime syndicate that he uses her information on.

Absolutely. Demons have set a clear and established precedent for being jerks — you can hope to change that, but choosing not to plan for your likely failure is plain stupidity, not idealism.

hewhosaysfish
2011-09-30, 07:15 AM
there's no demon that just "hangs around" and help paladins

You make it sound like this hypothetical succubus is following the paladin around all day, dispensing clues and hints (like a sexier version of Navi from Legend of Zelda) but it sounds like she's just living her own life, giving information to the paladin in exchange for money when he comes calling.

The question is: how likely is it that (in the process of getting on with her own life) she doesn't do anything Evil?
(Or rather, that she nothing which would cause the paladin to break off all ties were she a human/elf/phrenic-were-tarrasque/halfling instead of a demon? If a paladin were to fall in love with a human spy, would we require that she must have done no wrong ever?)

Is it:
A) Completely impossible (Succubi can only be monsters or paladins but nothing in between).
B) Not technically impossible but so unlikely that we no amount of evidence should ever convince us.
C) Not technically impossible but so unlikely that (based on the evidence available to the paladin) it would be unreasonable of him to believe it.
D) Not technically impossible but incredibly unlikely... but we don't know how much the paladin knows and so can't judge whether he can believe it.
E) Incredibly unlikely but given the evidence the paladin has seen, he should accept that it has occured.
F) Unlikely but still likely enough that the paladin should assume innocence for the sake of fairness even before evidence has been seen.

I vote D

Wardog
2011-10-08, 12:29 PM
For my money, the implications of Good and Evil being objective and concrete as they are supposed to be, as well as the weirdness of the Paladin's Code always interested me on some level. The idea that the Paladin could do the right thing, take the best, most good option and conceivably fall for it because good and evil fail to exactly line up with Good and Evil is facinating.


I agree, especially when you consider some of the more quirky rules and consequences, such as:
* Creatues with the [Evil] subtype can convert to a Good alignment, but retain their subtype and still ping on Detect Evil.
* Certain spells are [Evil] even though they cause no harm (e.g. Deathwatch), while others that can only ever be horribly harmful are not.
* Native peoples commit evil acts everytime they go hunting with poisoned arrows, and a paladin would fall if he used a can of bug spray to deal with a roach infestation.

If you take all those consequences seriously (rather than declaring them rightly stupid and houseruling them out), it provides and interesting philosophical justification for someone to adopt a Neutral alignment.

GodGoblin
2011-10-08, 05:37 PM
I agree, especially when you consider some of the more quirky rules and consequences, such as:
* Creatues with the [Evil] subtype can convert to a Good alignment, but retain their subtype and still ping on Detect Evil.
* Certain spells are [Evil] even though they cause no harm (e.g. Deathwatch), while others that can only ever be horribly harmful are not.
* Native peoples commit evil acts everytime they go hunting with poisoned arrows, and a paladin would fall if he used a can of bug spray to deal with a roach infestation.

If you take all those consequences seriously (rather than declaring them rightly stupid and houseruling them out), it provides and interesting philosophical justification for someone to adopt a Neutral alignment.

Although in some ways I like that about LG, it isnt sensible and is difficult to live with. Thats why most normal people are Neutral but Paladins? They really have to work at it. The code may be stupid but its the code. If I used that in game though im sure most Paladin Npc's of a certain experience would have become Grey Guards or simply 'fallen' to LN to actually get the job done instead of upholding unrealistic ideals.

TheGameViking
2011-10-12, 06:00 AM
I would think the differentiating point is in the fact that it is a Paladin. I.E. Someone who champion's a God's cause. That being said there are plenty of God's and Goddesses out there and each has a different view and code of conduct. I have always been a fan of Pathfinder's interpretation of Paladin's and their variants that don't necessarily need to be Lawful Good, and can define their own code of conduct as long as it is something rigid that inhibits their actions. For example a Paladin of a God of the Sea, who's initiates are drowned to bring them into the God's service then given CPR (Though in a Fantasy setting, they have no idea that it is anything short of magic) and if they survive they are worthy of serving the God. As a GM, I wouldn't count this as an Evil act, nor would I knock a player out of his power set if he followed this stricture, but that being said, he needs to understand that even though he might not be a goody two shoes, there are things the God will and will not approve of. If they are playing a standard DnD Paladin, sadly there is very little room for interpretation when it comes to the creature actually being a Damon. Although in this case, I wouldn't mind the Lawful Good character questioning the Demon, even feeding her falsehood to get her to give up information as long as he suffered her not to live after their encounter. In the name of the church and his very real God that grants him powers, the destruction of evil, there is much to be said for using evil's own tactic's against it. That being said, low be'eth the Paladin who attempts to deceive the innocent or the righteous less his cause in his heart and his God's eyes is just. Religious motivation for a character, especially that with an actual God's approval can make for a very interesting if unusual character.

Tibbaerrohwen
2011-10-12, 08:24 AM
I would think the differentiating point is in the fact that it is a Paladin. I.E. Someone who champion's a God's cause. That being said there are plenty of God's and Goddesses out there and each has a different view and code of conduct. I have always been a fan of Pathfinder's interpretation of Paladin's and their variants that don't necessarily need to be Lawful Good, and can define their own code of conduct as long as it is something rigid that inhibits their actions. For example a Paladin of a God of the Sea, who's initiates are drowned to bring them into the God's service then given CPR (Though in a Fantasy setting, they have no idea that it is anything short of magic) and if they survive they are worthy of serving the God. As a GM, I wouldn't count this as an Evil act, nor would I knock a player out of his power set if he followed this stricture, but that being said, he needs to understand that even though he might not be a goody two shoes, there are things the God will and will not approve of. If they are playing a standard DnD Paladin, sadly there is very little room for interpretation when it comes to the creature actually being a Damon. Although in this case, I wouldn't mind the Lawful Good character questioning the Demon, even feeding her falsehood to get her to give up information as long as he suffered her not to live after their encounter. In the name of the church and his very real God that grants him powers, the destruction of evil, there is much to be said for using evil's own tactic's against it. That being said, low be'eth the Paladin who attempts to deceive the innocent or the righteous less his cause in his heart and his God's eyes is just. Religious motivation for a character, especially that with an actual God's approval can make for a very interesting if unusual character.

I'd never heard that drowning idea before, but it is nifty. Is that purely PF and if so, where do I find it?

I still see nothing wrong with the idea of a Paladin falling in love with a demon, or using said demon for information.





The question is: how likely is it that (in the process of getting on with her own life) she doesn't do anything Evil?
(Or rather, that she nothing which would cause the paladin to break off all ties were she a human/elf/phrenic-were-tarrasque/halfling instead of a demon? If a paladin were to fall in love with a human spy, would we require that she must have done no wrong ever?)

Is it:
A) Completely impossible (Succubi can only be monsters or paladins but nothing in between).
B) Not technically impossible but so unlikely that we no amount of evidence should ever convince us.
C) Not technically impossible but so unlikely that (based on the evidence available to the paladin) it would be unreasonable of him to believe it.
D) Not technically impossible but incredibly unlikely... but we don't know how much the paladin knows and so can't judge whether he can believe it.
E) Incredibly unlikely but given the evidence the paladin has seen, he should accept that it has occured.
F) Unlikely but still likely enough that the paladin should assume innocence for the sake of fairness even before evidence has been seen.

I vote D

I'd put my vote between C and D somewhere. Then again, we don't need to assume the Paladin is all that bright. I haven't seen a rolled Int score, but he is a Paladin, most likely for more than a dip. That should be enough evidence right there :smallwink:
The Paladin could very well believe that he has taken every precaution to stop her from committing evil without him being able to intervene. He could also think that he's just so intimidating that she wouldn't dare cross him (holier than thou complex and all).
On a side note, she is a demon. She has hundreds of years to get on with her scheme. She could very well give the paladin information in attempts to foil other demons so she can climb the ranks through process of elimination (I had a Malconvoker with an Erynies cohort with the same story).
Or she could use the money she gets from the paladin specifically to lure unsuspecting fools to their doom. The Paladin doesn't need to know this right away, but he'd feel pretty damn for either of the above when he found out.


snip

Using someone for information certainly does mean he trusts [...]

I think there are covert intelligence gathering agencies that would disagree with you on that one.


snip

there's no demon that just "hangs around" and help paladins (in fact, if I were a succubus and wanted to kill a paladin this is one way to lure him into a trap).

Or that. I like that idea. She could easily keep away from anything too evil to keep the Paladin's trust. No souls taste as sweet as the recently fallen or blatantly deceived (that might actually be in a WotC source book somewhere).

The Succubus
2011-10-12, 09:59 AM
Confirming that Paladins taste like chocolate.

Aidan305
2011-10-12, 10:29 AM
As long as it's done well, I think it could work fine.

There was this amazing, extremely roleplay-heavy campaign record I saw a couple of years ago along relatively similar lines. The party's paladin discovered a disguised succubus, and she convinced him to spare her life by pleading with him to redeem her — and as a totally honorable, noble soul, he agreed (and had a convent give her temporary residence, I think). She was apparently sincere about this, it turned into this weird, awesome mix of political/religious upheaval and knightly courtship. I think it was on ENWorld? (It also had an extremely specific breakdown of how a 15th-level druid brought down an entire army, a psychotic alienist PC, and some of the coolest Outsiders I've ever read.)

Anyway, it played the paladin archetype much straighter than what you're suggesting, yet managed to work a similar angle. (The DM was obviously playing fast and loose with the Code, but the player was the model of a paladin so no one could reasonably complain about that.) As long as the story's interesting and the paladin is genuinely paladin-ish, stories like this can be really interesting.

IIRC, this is the Chronicles of Wyre if anyone's interested. They're over on the Enworld forums in the Storyhour section and make for a very good read.


She was mentioned in Dragon Magazine too- in an article (Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet) written by James Jacobs, a WoTC staffer.

Really? I don't recall her in that article. I'll have to read it again.


There is a Neutral ultraloth in Eberron- (I think Explorer's Handbook) but he doesn't have the evil subtype so is not, technically, a fiend anymore. He's a ship captain.
There's a NG one that runs Ecstacy, the gate-town to Elysium, the plane of pure good.

gkathellar
2011-10-12, 10:32 AM
IIRC, this is the Chronicles of Wyre if anyone's interested. They're over on the Enworld forums in the Storyhour section and make for a very good read.

Thank you! I never managed to finish it, and I'd really like to.

EDIT: Archive of them up to 2009 is here. (http://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/) Still haven't determined if there are any others.

hamishspence
2011-10-12, 10:36 AM
Really? I don't recall her in that article. I'll have to read it again.

Page 31, Dragon 353, March 2007:

As Queen of the Succubi, Malcanthet's favored minions are naturally succubus tanar'ri. Ascended from one of the first succubi to form from the raw Abyss long ago Malcanthet retains a fondness for these demons in particular, even those who seem to be working against her desires. To Malcanthet's sense of convoluted logic, even these "wayward" succubi are in fact serving her needs by living to their very nature. Only the rare redeemed succubus, such as the enigmatic Fall-From-Grace of Sigil, escape her fondness- if anything in the Multiverse is capable of stirring sadness from Malcanthet's heart, it is these lost scions.

TheGameViking
2011-10-12, 04:24 PM
I'd never heard that drowning idea before, but it is nifty. Is that purely PF and if so, where do I find it?


What do you mean by PF?

Tibbaerrohwen
2011-10-12, 09:21 PM
What do you mean by PF?

PF = Pathfinder.
Is the drowning idea strictly from a Pathfinder book or was it your own idea? If it's from a book, could you tell me which one? If it's your own idea, mind if I steal it?

TheGameViking
2011-10-12, 10:08 PM
Ah! ~smacks forehead~ of course. The idea was from the George RR Martin's infamous series "A Game of Thrones" specifically the character Aeron Damphair and his worship of the "Drowned God". Though in the new PF supplement "Ultimate Combat", they do provide a ton of variant material surrounding aquatic classes. I am setting up to run a game with the new Sea Reaver Barbarian and Clerics of a "Drowned God-esque" God in a pirate vs. Merchant's type setting. Going to be fun!

Dragoon 6
2011-10-13, 12:49 AM
The tone of the original post seems to be looking for a good excuse for this to work, and I have to say that this is a nifty idea. So here's an idea that could make it work:

Question 1: where does the succubus get her information, and how is it obtained?
The criminal organization in question is a male only deal, members of whom often seek out the company of pretty women. The succubus is one of these person, perhaps even the madame of a small, little known harem. She only uses her life drain ability on those customers who abuse or attempt to abuse her or her charges, to weaken them and teach them a lesson. She doesn't kill them, as they do represent valuable customers. The information is relayed by the unsuspecting criminals, longing to get stories and boasts of thier plans/exploits to someone they view as "safe", unaware of how dangerous she really is.

Question 2: How did the Paladin and succubus meet? How did they come to this information exchange agreement?

The paladin was trying to investigate the criminals, and happened upon this little retreat more or less by accident. To prevent a scene, and protect her and her girls modest incomes, she wisked the paladin into a corner and made the arrangement on the fly. Over time, trust and understanding have developed between the two, both aware of the others' nature, and of thrill of danger that the other represents to both, has kindle a spark of something more.He frowns heavily on how she punishes her trouble customers, but since she isn't killing them, nor really causing much permanant harm, and protitution is legit in this area, he has chosen take advantage of the situation.


And there you go. Keeps the paladin safe, stops the demon from being a lackey of good, and provides a reasonable situation for all these circumstances to occur. Thoughts anyone?