PDA

View Full Version : Paladin Code Intellectual Exercise



Pages : [1] 2

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 05:16 AM
Hi! The purpose of this thread is to have anyone post theoretical moral conundrums for a paladin and ask several questions. Will doing this make them fall? Must they do it anyway? Is there any alternative in keeping with the paladin code? I know the interpretation varies between DMs, so let's say we follow the paladin code that Hojo seems to follow in OotS.

A similar thread about Druids is linked here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15106026#post15106026

First Question: You are in a dungeon and come upon a person who attacks you while pleading with you to end his life. He says he has been under a mind-control spell for decades and you have no spellcasters with you who are able to break it. He registers as "not evil" when you use Detect Evil. You cannot tie him up and take him you for obvious reasons (unless you can give a good reason why you can). Will killing this person make you fall, as he cannot control his actions? Will leaving him in this position make you fall? What would a paladin do in this situation regardless of the penalties?

Hyena
2013-04-09, 05:21 AM
Clever paladin always takes this. (http://dndtools.eu/feats/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/subduing-strike--2808/) Just in case if some sadistic DM decides to make their hard lifes even harder.

kardar233
2013-04-09, 05:28 AM
Clever paladin always takes this. (http://dndtools.eu/feats/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/subduing-strike--2808/) Just in case if some sadistic DM decides to make their hard lifes even harder.

Yeah. Non-lethally bludgeon the guy into unconsciousness, then chain him up; every good paladin should have a pair of manacles, if not Antimagic Shackles. Put him somewhere safe and come back with a priest who can break the enchantment.

If circumstances contrive that curing him isn't possible, I'd give him the mercy kill. It's his choice to die rather than stay mind-controlled, and I have to respect that.

Moreb Benhk
2013-04-09, 05:30 AM
What are these obvious reasons that you cannot tie him up and take him with you?

Lorsa
2013-04-09, 05:32 AM
First Question: You are in a dungeon and come upon a person who attacks you while pleading with you to end his life. He says he has been under a mind-control spell for decades and you have no spellcasters with you who are able to break it. He registers as "not evil" when you use Detect Evil. You cannot tie him up and take him you for obvious reasons (unless you can give a good reason why you can). Will killing this person make you fall, as he cannot control his actions? Will leaving him in this position make you fall? What would a paladin do in this situation regardless of the penalties?

I assume here that we disregard the fact that when people die that are good they get to go to a very happy place? Because if so then killing said person would just be objectively better than leaving him like that.

But I would say this comes down to two things:

1. Left in his current state he would continue to do harm and possible kill people. If it is impossible for you to get some form of magical help then you need to deal with this problem in whichever way you can.

2. He actually asks you to kill him. This implies that the ending of his life would actually be a preferable outcome to him. So again, if you can not alleviate his pain in any other way killing him might be your only option.

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 05:38 AM
What are these obvious reasons that you cannot tie him up and take him with you?

You are in the middle of a dangerous quest in a dungeon full of monsters and you can't constantly keep an eye on him

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 05:40 AM
is there any spell that will control his body independently from his mind?

Rhynn
2013-04-09, 05:49 AM
You cannot tie him up and take him you for obvious reasons (unless you can give a good reason why you can).

What reasons are those? I tie him up (or hold person, or whatever), leave the dungeon (trivial if you have, say, teleport available), take him with me (or, if I can't leave the dungeon entirely yet, leave him with my followers, securely tied up back at camp), and try break enchantment, dispel magic, and if those don't work, leave him in the care of some professionals (clerics of a good-aligned faith interested in helping him) who can research a way to break the spell.

Presenting a scenario with an easy solution and a handwave "the easy solution doesn't work" doesn't seem fair, and at the table would probably feel like railroading.

Anyway:
Killing him wouldn't make you fall unless you have a code about respecting life to an usual extent.
Leaving him be wouldn't make you fall unless you were some fairly extreme variant of Paladin of Freedom.
There is no single answer for what a paladin would do because every paladin would approach the issue somewhat differently.

NichG
2013-04-09, 05:52 AM
Inaction can be cause for a fall in certain cases, but thats generally when that inaction would immediately or very directly allow evil to win. That's not the case here - this inaction doesn't preclude future action to fix the problem. Its no different than leaving your inn an hour later: e.g. you might miss a chance to help a wanderer, but you might not as well.

If you kill him, he can never be cured; you're cutting off that avenue of hope. If you don't, he still may be fixed at some point in the future. So unless sparing him for the time being involves standing back while he kills others, its just accepting that you are not the best person to solve all problems (in this case, a Cleric would be). Sometimes letting other people solve the problem is the wisest option.

Despite that argument, killing him would also not cause a fall. He's asking to be self-sacrificing to protect others, which is pretty Paladiny in itself.

Rhynn: if you had teleport available you probably have Protection from Evil and can just fix it. Thats uninteresting. Consider a Lv1 party encountering this instead.

Matticussama
2013-04-09, 06:00 AM
Well, there are two components to this exercise; the moral/philosophical aspect, and the mechanical aspect. A smart player of a Paladin should first attempt every mechanical way to investigate this behavior and get to the bottom of it before making a rash decision. Paladins should never make rash decisions about life and death, unless their momentary indecision would cause more harm.

Regardless, you subdue the person first. If for whatever reason you are physically incapable of incapacitating the person, and continuing to attempt to do so would lead not only to your death but possibly the death of your party members then you kill them. A Paladin may be willing to put his life on the line in order to try and help someone, but letting an ally be killed just to possibly save someone who might be enchanted isn't required for Paladins.

Lets assume you manage to deal nonlethal and incapacitate and bind the person. Even if you cannot for whatever reason detain them in the long run, you can keep them bound until you finish investigating the matter. The person is either unstable or not in control of their own mind, so by tying them up you're helping both yourself and the person so that no harm comes to the person or your own party. Also, Detect Evil can be fooled with so many different spells that it should only be a possibility that the person isn't evil and attempting to fool you. By tying them up, you keep them from murdering you in your sleep.




Spoiler'd for length:
If you are a 4th level Paladin with at least a 12 Wisdom, then you can cast Protection from Evil. This would suppress any mind-effecting magic for the duration of the Protection spell. During this time you could attempt to have a conversation with the person while not enchanted, and determine their actual state of mind. Do they really want to be killed, or are they enchanted to ask to be killed (possibly some evil Cleric intentionally trying to get a Paladin to fall).

If that fails for whatever reason, you can use Sense Motive to determine if someone's actions are being influenced by an enchantment; DC 25 for a charm-style spell, or DC 15 for a dominate spell. Since Charm Person specifies you cannot force someone to "obey suicidal or obviously harmful orders" then it has to be some form of dominate spell. Taking 10 on a Sense Motive check, assuming you have at least 1 rank and a 12 Wisdom (fairly safe assumptions), you only need to roll a 3 or higher to ascertain if they are being Dominated into asking someone to kill themselves. That small chance of failure also assumes no one else is better than Sense Motive than you; in a party, chances are someone else can do better.


At the end of the day, you are then left with three major scenarios (yes, there could be minor variations, but they mostly fit 3 broad categories) :

1) If the person is being mind controlled, then killing them is an evil act. A Paladin is honor-bound to help the innocent and the defenseless. Someone being Dominated into asking to be killed is certainly defenseless. So long as your actions do not cause harm to befall others (for example, saving this person requires you to burn an orphanage down) then you should go out of your way to help them.

2) The person is not being mind controlled, in which case they are probably mentally ill. They are probably suffering from some form of paranoid schizophrenia if they truly think they're being controlled by some outside spellcaster. You need to get them some form of help; take them to the nearest church of a god who specializes in helping the weak at your earliest chance.

3) The person is intentionally lying to you in order to get you to take an act that could cause you to fall. You challenge them to combat, in order to keep such an evil person from harming or tricking others.


For 1 and 2, you don't need to immediately abandon your quest and take them somewhere else. Find some safe(ish) place where you can keep them if time is of absolute importance to your quest (you know the orphans will be sacrificed at midnight on the full moon). Keep them bound, but leave food and water that they can swallow by crawling on the ground; it isn't the most dignified, but it is for their best interest in the long run. Fortify this holding ground as best as possible; roll large rocks in front of a cave entrance, build a small platform in a thick nest of trees where the person can hide, etc. If you can spare an Animal Companion, Mount, or some other creature that can help guard it from attack then do so. When you finish your quest, return and take the person to where they can receive help.

If you do all of this and somehow the innocent still dies, then you did your best. Being a Paladin doesn't mean being perfect, only that you try your best. Failing to save someone isn't an evil act, so long as you did everything in your power to save them without placing other people in jeopardy.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-09, 06:09 AM
What level of Paladin are we talking about? Because Dispel Magic, Remove Curse and Break Enhancement are all on Paladin's list of spells. "No spellcasters" my butt. :smalltongue:

But seriously, self-defense is not an evil act. Just slaying the poor schmuck is neither ideal or good, but it's not evil either, nor a gross violation of the Paladin's code. So even taking the most trivial option of slaughtering the poor bastard, the paladin won't fall.

Next question.

W3bDragon
2013-04-09, 06:24 AM
is there any spell that will control his body independently from his mind?

The closest I can think of is Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/insanity.htm), which places a permanent confusion effect on the target. As such, every round, he has a 10% chance to act normally, which is long enough to ask for help from a paladin.

As for the dilemma itself, as a DM I would accept any of the listed options are viable without having the paladin fall, as long as I'm happy with his reasoning.

He could kill him and explain it as such: I can't break the enchantment. I can't take him with me. He's likely to kill others or die a slow and painful death without my intervention. I expect I won't be able to bring aid soon enough to matter. He made the choice.

He could leave him and explain it as such: I do not know who placed this curse upon him and whether they plan to remove it at some point. I don't know all the inhabitants of this dungeon, so he could run into someone else that's capable of removing the curse. His request is made without clear rational thought, because he's afraid. I feel I do not know enough to act wisely in this situation. As such, I'll offer whatever comfort or help I can, short of actually killing him (like putting him in manacles) and let him find his fate.

Okay those may not be the best explanations, but the idea is that, to me, its more about intent than actual action. If his god/goddess/pantheon/whatever put him in a situation where he might fall if he takes the wrong action, the correct option needs to be rather clear to the paladin.

Lorsa
2013-04-09, 06:41 AM
I have a question.

A paladin has decided it is wrong to have sex before you are married. His chaotic friend feels sad about all the sex the paladin is missing out on so finds a girl at a tavern and tries to "sell" his friend to her. Through great skills, he succeeds and said girl becomes very interested in the paladin. After some conversations between the girl and the paladin, he tells her that he does not intend to have sex before his is married. This just makes her even more interested, and tries to seduce him but he holds to his principles. She then tells him that if getting married is the only way to have sex, why don't they get married then? He tells her that no, that is not possible, first they must get to know one another better. So she tells him that in that case she will come with him on his journey to give them a chance to do just that. This worries that paladin to a great extend, as adventuring is rather dangerous, and his own quest even more so, and this young damsel wouldn't be safe. He does not wish to jeopardize her safety or place her in harms way. So he tells her that just that. Seeing an opportunity to put him on the spot, she says that he hardly can stop her from traveling on the road just behind him. She then proceeds to tell him that he has two options; either she will follow in his footsteps along the road, possibly putting her in all kinds of danger with the risk of her being killed or they can have sex tonight. So all he has to do to keep her out of harms way is to break his own code of not having sex before marriage. What is a poor paladin to do?

TuggyNE
2013-04-09, 06:58 AM
What is a poor paladin to do?

That's an excellent example of "the easy way, or the right way". The right thing is to force her to stay behind (perhaps by sneaking away such that she's not sure where to go to follow them), or if that's not possible, or not desired, bring her along, keeping her as safe as possible (perhaps in a bag of holding with a bottle of air/clear ioun stone?).

If worse comes to worst, save up money for a raise dead.

Although, quite honestly, I have to wonder how suitable a wife she would make in any case, given the quite different attitudes the two evidently have toward such an important thing. *shrug*

Rhynn
2013-04-09, 08:06 AM
Rhynn: if you had teleport available you probably have Protection from Evil and can just fix it. Thats uninteresting. Consider a Lv1 party encountering this instead.

Okay, so leaving requires walking, rather than being trivial. Doesn't change anything.


Despite that argument, killing him would also not cause a fall. He's asking to be self-sacrificing to protect others, which is pretty Paladiny in itself.

Yeah, it seems to me like "*shnickt* He's at peace now" is a perfectly fine approach here, too. Not everything paladins do is sunshine and winged unicorns.


Regardless, you subdue the person first. If for whatever reason you are physically incapable of incapacitating the person, and continuing to attempt to do so would lead not only to your death but possibly the death of your party members then you kill them. A Paladin may be willing to put his life on the line in order to try and help someone, but letting an ally be killed just to possibly save someone who might be enchanted isn't required for Paladins.

I'd actully say you shouldn't subdue him - or keep him subdued - if you want to "give him a clean death" (or whatever). Which, depending on the paladin's specific code (paladins classically being chivalrous), might need to be a one-on-one fight.


I have a question.

Protect her on the road. This seems like a classic situation that, from my storyteller's POV, requires the girl to tag along with the paladin, and creates endless fun and adventures. I can just see it, her making "camp" just over there from the paladin's, etc. The paladin's options are, essentially, to actively uphold his code (remain celibate and protect the weak) or to break it (break celibacy). No-brainer to me, both from the paladin's point of view and a player's point of view.

And then they inevitably fall for each other for real... :3

Damnit, I'd watch/read/play that.

Your question was a good one, too, because you provided specific beliefs / code elements. The answer to many, many, many (most?) paladin dilemmas is "You need to define the paladin's code of conduct clearly." This applies both to theoreticals and at the table. Formulating yours to account for that is excellent.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 10:05 AM
For "will the Paladin Fall?" questions, you really want to ask:


1. Is it an Evil Act (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13484087#post13484087)? BoVD and BoED have most of this info. If the act is both willing and Evil, then the Paladin falls. This is not impacted by any other factor, the greater good is not a valid excuse.

2. Is it covered by the Code's "acting with honor" language?

3. Is it disrespecting legitimate authority? What is legitimate authority?

4. Has the Paladin failed to help someone in need?

5. Has the Paladin failed to punish those who harm or threaten the innocent?

6. Is the infraction willing?

7. If it isn't an Evil Act, is the violation sufficiently gross (large, serious) to warrant falling?




First Question: You are in a dungeon and come upon a person who attacks you while pleading with you to end his life. He says he has been under a mind-control spell for decades and you have no spellcasters with you who are able to break it. He registers as "not evil" when you use Detect Evil. You cannot tie him up and take him you for obvious reasons (unless you can give a good reason why you can). Will killing this person make you fall, as he cannot control his actions? Will leaving him in this position make you fall? What would a paladin do in this situation regardless of the penalties?

Roll a Sense Motive check to determine a) whether he's lying, and b) whether he is under the effect of a charm or compulsion (dc 15). If either are true, you're okay to kill the guy. You can do a similar test with detect magic.


Self defense isn't evil, doesn't violate other portions of the Code, and you don't have any other options, so you're pretty much in the clear with killing him either way.

snoopy13a
2013-04-09, 10:26 AM
Hi! The purpose of this thread is to have anyone post theoretical moral conundrums for a paladin and ask several questions. Will doing this make them fall? Must they do it anyway? Is there any alternative in keeping with the paladin code? I know the interpretation varies between DMs, so let's say we follow the paladin code that Hojo seems to follow in OotS.

First Question: You are in a dungeon and come upon a person who attacks you while pleading with you to end his life. He says he has been under a mind-control spell for decades and you have no spellcasters with you who are able to break it. He registers as "not evil" when you use Detect Evil. You cannot tie him up and take him you for obvious reasons (unless you can give a good reason why you can). Will killing this person make you fall, as he cannot control his actions? Will leaving him in this position make you fall? What would a paladin do in this situation regardless of the penalties?

This is rather easy.

The value of this man's life outweighs any treasure in the dungeon. A paladin would abandon the dungeon crawl to seek treatment for the innocent man.

Umbranar
2013-04-09, 10:32 AM
You are in the middle of a dangerous quest in a dungeon full of monsters and you can't constantly keep an eye on him

Is that the reason? My paladin did it with en ex-paladin blackguard in a labirinth full with monsters while the way out was unknown, just because there might have been a chance to redeem this fallen one. Eventually we managed to.get him to the clergy.of Hieronius to start the redeeming.

Killer Angel
2013-04-09, 10:37 AM
Clever paladin always takes this. (http://dndtools.eu/feats/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/subduing-strike--2808/) Just in case if some sadistic DM decides to make their hard lifes even harder.

Nah, in D&D, the answer is even easier.
"Oh, mighty DM, will this action make me fall?" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)
Repeat as necessary.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 10:38 AM
This is rather easy.

The value of this man's life outweighs any treasure in the dungeon. A paladin would abandon the dungeon crawl to seek treatment for the innocent man.

Were the Goblins' lives so valuable? :smallconfused:

What about the Kobolds? Or the Orcs? Or the drow? Or the intelligent undead?


But seriously, I'd just get a Phylactery of Faithfulness and have the GM tell me what the right answer is.

snoopy13a
2013-04-09, 10:44 AM
Were the Goblins' lives so valuable? :smallconfused:

What about the Kobolds? Or the Orcs? Or the drow? Or the intelligent undead?



You're changing the rules of the exercise after I answered it.

The OP did not mention that there were intelligent, sentient beings in the dungeon other than the man under the influence of the spell.

If a paladin is on a dungeon crawl, then we must assume that the "monsters" in the dungeon are either non-sentient animals or evil outlaws. We cannot assume that the dungeon is full of goblins and kobolds who haven't harmed human (or elven, or dwarven, or halfling) society in any fashion. Otherwise, the dungeon crawl would be inherently evil and the paladin wouldn't be on it.

JusticeZero
2013-04-09, 11:08 AM
The first, there really is no wrong answer. Do what you can for the guy, but if your resources dictate that that is 'Gods be with you. *slash*' then that's still fine. The second one, the harder way is best.. I'd just roll my eyes and start training the new party member, but ymmv.

The more important question is 'Why am I as a GM so intent on inflicting save-or-suck traps on one of my players where the way out is to read the GM's mind or suck no save? Do these conundrums have a substantial CR? Am I giving XP for these? What value is there really in leaving puzzle traps just for one player?' It's a bit like having puzzle traps that only the Sorcerer can see that go off with no-save stat and level drains if not solved for no good reason.

Lorsa
2013-04-09, 11:15 AM
Protect her on the road. This seems like a classic situation that, from my storyteller's POV, requires the girl to tag along with the paladin, and creates endless fun and adventures. I can just see it, her making "camp" just over there from the paladin's, etc. The paladin's options are, essentially, to actively uphold his code (remain celibate and protect the weak) or to break it (break celibacy). No-brainer to me, both from the paladin's point of view and a player's point of view.

And then they inevitably fall for each other for real... :3

Damnit, I'd watch/read/play that.

Your question was a good one, too, because you provided specific beliefs / code elements. The answer to many, many, many (most?) paladin dilemmas is "You need to define the paladin's code of conduct clearly." This applies both to theoreticals and at the table. Formulating yours to account for that is excellent.

This was taken from actual play where I was the DM. The paladin player did choose to stay true to his code, took her with them on the road to protect her (turns out she wasn't completely useless too) and they did end up falling in love and got married. He helped her become more honorable and good whereas she helped him understand the importance of being pragmatic at times.

These are the sort of problems I like to give my players, as opposed to the "two choices with equally bad outcomes where you will fail regardless of what you do".

razark
2013-04-09, 11:25 AM
What is a poor paladin to do?
Easy. The paladin should kill her.

"[A] paladin’s code requires that she... punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
The girl has threatened to do something that will place the paladin in the position of falling. Falling would be considered harm to the paladin. She has threatened to place a moral fork before the paladin (being the innocent), that would lead to harm (breaking of vows/beliefs; falling). The paladin should therefore punish her.



Aside from that, does the paladin have an obligation to protect the girl from a situation that she has placed her self in? By trying to use the situation to trap the paladin, she is not innocent. A paladin must "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)". As the girl is actively working against the paladin, I'd say he is under no such obligation to assist her if she follows him.

Lorsa
2013-04-09, 11:36 AM
Easy. The paladin should kill her.

"[A] paladin’s code requires that she... punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
The girl has threatened to do something that will place the paladin in the position of falling. Falling would be considered harm to the paladin. She has threatened to place a moral fork before the paladin (being the innocent), that would lead to harm (breaking of vows/beliefs; falling). The paladin should therefore punish her.



Aside from that, does the paladin have an obligation to protect the girl from a situation that she has placed her self in? By trying to use the situation to trap the paladin, she is not innocent. A paladin must "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)". As the girl is actively working against the paladin, I'd say he is under no such obligation to assist her if she follows him.

Breaking one wove hardly makes a paladin fall, at least not in my campaigns. Killing someone for placing a moral fork before a paladin is, to me, a rather evil act (since the fork in this case was rather innocent).

The paladin hardly has an obligation to protect the girl from harm, but considering that he is GOOD he feels himself an obligation to keep her out of harms.

I feel as though you focus too much on the lawful part of a paladin's alignment and forgot the good part.

Rhynn
2013-04-09, 11:50 AM
This was taken from actual play where I was the DM. The paladin player did choose to stay true to his code, took her with them on the road to protect her (turns out she wasn't completely useless too) and they did end up falling in love and got married. He helped her become more honorable and good whereas she helped him understand the importance of being pragmatic at times.

These are the sort of problems I like to give my players, as opposed to the "two choices with equally bad outcomes where you will fail regardless of what you do".

That is perfect. I am a bit envious.


But seriously, I'd just get a Phylactery of Faithfulness and have the GM tell me what the right answer is.

Then why play a paladin? (Especially in 3.X, where it's a starkly inferior class; or in AD&D, where you have to dump some more useful stat - possibly even Strength! - to get that Cha 17.) Unless the GM is actually a **** about it (the first question doesn't seem to indicate this), the whole point is to deal with these hard questions, surely.


Easy. The paladin should kill her.

"[A] paladin’s code requires that she... punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
The girl has threatened to do something that will place the paladin in the position of falling. Falling would be considered harm to the paladin. She has threatened to place a moral fork before the paladin (being the innocent), that would lead to harm (breaking of vows/beliefs; falling). The paladin should therefore punish her.

That's a bit textbook Lawful Evil for a paladin.

snoopy13a
2013-04-09, 12:00 PM
Then why play a paladin? (Especially in 3.X, where it's a starkly inferior class; or in AD&D, where you have to dump some more useful stat - possibly even Strength! - to get that Cha 17.) Unless the GM is actually a **** about it (the first question doesn't seem to indicate this), the whole point is to deal with these hard questions, surely.



To play a knight in shining armor, of course.

Granted, one can fill this character idea with a fighter, a cleric, or another class, but the paladin class is designed for this archetype.

As for the girl following the paladin, another option would be to contact a local authority--e.g, a town's mayor or a local noble--and explain the situation. After explaining the issue with the girl, the paladin could request that the girl be detained for a few days until it is impossible for her to follow the paladin's trail (unless the girl is some sort of trained ranger--which if she is, then the paladin should enlist her help on his quest).

Lorsa
2013-04-09, 12:05 PM
That is perfect. I am a bit envious.

Well, it was just one of those campaigns that turned out great in many ways. :smallsmile:

Tanuki Tales
2013-04-09, 12:10 PM
but the paladin class is designed for this archetype.



So is the Crusader.

Rhynn
2013-04-09, 12:11 PM
To play a knight in shining armor, of course.

Right, which means roleplaying situations that involve difficult decisions, surely?

I mean, every character should have those anyway, it's just that for some reason, paladins (and clerics) get a magic item to shortcut them.

snoopy13a
2013-04-09, 12:17 PM
Right, which means roleplaying situations that involve difficult decisions, surely?


Not necessarily, some players like straightforward campaigns such as that of Roy Greenhilt's grandfather (who, of course, was a lawful good fighter but the ideals are close):

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html

NichG
2013-04-09, 01:01 PM
Right, which means roleplaying situations that involve difficult decisions, surely?

I mean, every character should have those anyway, it's just that for some reason, paladins (and clerics) get a magic item to shortcut them.

The answer to giving difficult decision situations to paladins is to make it so neither choice leads to a fall. Sometimes people have to choose between two imperfect outcomes or take an even bigger risk and forge a third.

The problem is if you work with the assumption that each of these situations is some test of the gods to see if the paladin remembers to check their phylactery, then basically the answer to every such situation becomes 'check the phylactery'. But if the gods are more forgiving - the situation isn't a deific test of the paladin's faith, its just a sucky situation - then the phylactery isn't going to give a useful answer.

If you want to give a Paladin a moral dilemma, neither path can make them fall or its not actually a dilemma, its a guessing game.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 01:54 PM
Then why play a paladin? (Especially in 3.X, where it's a starkly inferior class; or in AD&D, where you have to dump some more useful stat - possibly even Strength! - to get that Cha 17.) Unless the GM is actually a **** about it (the first question doesn't seem to indicate this), the whole point is to deal with these hard questions, surely.



Lay on Hands? Smite Evil? Smug moral superiority?


I'm not the type who would play a Paladin, I'd personally go Cleric or Crusader. But if I did pick a Pally, I'd get the Phylactery so the GM couldn't screw me over.

Amaril
2013-04-09, 02:24 PM
I'm going to answer both questions from the individual point of view of a paladin character I designed as a backup for the game I'm currently playing. I have a pretty detailed code worked out for her, but I won't go into detail about it until it comes up as a result of a question.

First question:

First, she'd make Insight checks to determine whether he was telling the truth. Then she'd make every possible effort to subdue the guy without killing him, then bind him up and leave him in the safest place she could find nearby. She'd complete her mission, then come back to retrieve the fellow, and take him to either the temple or the local authorities, explaining the situation and telling them that the prisoner was not responsible for his actions, and that she was turning him over to lawful custody so that some treatment for him could be found.

If, at any point in this process, it became clear that there was no way to save the guy, she'd give him a merciful death and pray for his soul to be redeemed and her actions to be forgiven.

Second question:

I'll change this one up slightly so that the interested person is male, since this character is thoroughly heterosexual.

While her code doesn't prohibit premarital sex, she'd certainly be uncomfortable getting involved with someone without taking time to get to know them first. Assuming she wasn't able to convince the guy to leaver her alone, she'd go to the local authorities and get them to detain him (and they'd almost certainly do it--now that I try reversing the genders of the characters, it occurs to me that the behavior of the one that wants to hook up with the paladin is essentially sexual harassment). Failing that, she'd try to leave town quickly and without leaving a trail to follow. If that still wasn't enough, she'd do her best to prevent her pursuer from getting hurt, but not at the expense of her overall mission, since his situation is his own fault. And if it finally got to the point where this guy following her around was preventing her from doing her job (and thus endangering her life and that of her companions and numerous innocent people), she'd kill him.

Talakeal
2013-04-09, 03:02 PM
I have a question.

A paladin has decided it is wrong to have sex before you are married. His chaotic friend feels sad about all the sex the paladin is missing out on so finds a girl at a tavern and tries to "sell" his friend to her. Through great skills, he succeeds and said girl becomes very interested in the paladin. After some conversations between the girl and the paladin, he tells her that he does not intend to have sex before his is married. This just makes her even more interested, and tries to seduce him but he holds to his principles. She then tells him that if getting married is the only way to have sex, why don't they get married then? He tells her that no, that is not possible, first they must get to know one another better. So she tells him that in that case she will come with him on his journey to give them a chance to do just that. This worries that paladin to a great extend, as adventuring is rather dangerous, and his own quest even more so, and this young damsel wouldn't be safe. He does not wish to jeopardize her safety or place her in harms way. So he tells her that just that. Seeing an opportunity to put him on the spot, she says that he hardly can stop her from traveling on the road just behind him. She then proceeds to tell him that he has two options; either she will follow in his footsteps along the road, possibly putting her in all kinds of danger with the risk of her being killed or they can have sex tonight. So all he has to do to keep her out of harms way is to break his own code of not having sex before marriage. What is a poor paladin to do?

This girl is clearly delusional and not acting In her own best interests. I would convince the local sheriff or asylum keeper to lock her up for a few days then quickly leave town by a route she cannot possibly track and not come that way again.

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 03:09 PM
I like the direction the thread is going

Inkpencil
2013-04-09, 03:45 PM
Here's one:
The party is facing a white dragon who is sitting on a lot of gold stolen from the king's mine. They've spent the day cutting through the kobolds that work for the dragon, so they're not really in dragon slaying form. They try and talk the dragon down and convince him that even if they fail, there'll be an army coming along for the gold before long. Good rolls and arguments, so the dragon relents.

As the gold is being loaded in the wagons, one of the kobolds approaches the party with an offer: get rid of the dragon so I run things and I'll take our theiving clan to enemy lands and harrass them. The paladin doesn't know what's going on; he doesn't speak draconic. The party agrees, then tells the paladin that they're going back in to kill the dragon and would like his help. They explain that the dragon loves to steal and kill, that he'll continue to be a threat to the kingdom and its people, and that a kobold clan in enemy territory helps the war effort.

What should he do?

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 03:53 PM
Here's one:
The party is facing a white dragon who is sitting on a lot of gold stolen from the king's mine. They've spent the day cutting through the kobolds that work for the dragon, so they're not really in dragon slaying form. They try and talk the dragon down and convince him that even if they fail, there'll be an army coming along for the gold before long. Good rolls and arguments, so the dragon relents.

As the gold is being loaded in the wagons, one of the kobolds approaches the party with an offer: get rid of the dragon so I run things and I'll take our theiving clan to enemy lands and harrass them. The paladin doesn't know what's going on; he doesn't speak draconic. The party agrees, then tells the paladin that they're going back in to kill the dragon and would like his help. They explain that the dragon loves to steal and kill, that he'll continue to be a threat to the kingdom and its people, and that a kobold clan in enemy territory helps the war effort.

What should he do?

If he participated in the lying to the Dragon? He already fell for lying.

Otherwise? Hope he doesn't fail his Sense Motive check.:smallbiggrin:

Killing a creature to prevent it from doing evil is a fine thing to do, and not Evil in the slightest. And as far as the Paladin knows, that's what he's doing.

Rhynn
2013-04-09, 03:58 PM
I'm not the type who would play a Paladin, I'd personally go Cleric or Crusader. But if I did pick a Pally, I'd get the Phylactery so the GM couldn't screw me over.

I think I'd prefer not to play with a DM who I have to fear is trying to screw me over, because there is no way for a player to win that fight, ever, phylacteries or not.


The answer to giving difficult decision situations to paladins is to make it so neither choice leads to a fall. Sometimes people have to choose between two imperfect outcomes or take an even bigger risk and forge a third.

The problem is if you work with the assumption that each of these situations is some test of the gods to see if the paladin remembers to check their phylactery, then basically the answer to every such situation becomes 'check the phylactery'. But if the gods are more forgiving - the situation isn't a deific test of the paladin's faith, its just a sucky situation - then the phylactery isn't going to give a useful answer.

If you want to give a Paladin a moral dilemma, neither path can make them fall or its not actually a dilemma, its a guessing game.

Absolutely. It shouldn't be a challenge of "can you avoid falling?" It shoud be a challenge of "can you live with your choices?" - like the challenges all PCs should be facing. Roleplaying is about making decisions and choices, and about their consequences.

The paladin's code should be there to keep them from acting like everybody else (might act), not to be their main roleplaying challenge.


As the gold is being loaded in the wagons, one of the kobolds approaches the party with an offer: get rid of the dragon so I run things and I'll take our theiving clan to enemy lands and harrass them. The paladin doesn't know what's going on; he doesn't speak draconic. The party agrees, then tells the paladin that they're going back in to kill the dragon and would like his help. They explain that the dragon loves to steal and kill, that he'll continue to be a threat to the kingdom and its people, and that a kobold clan in enemy territory helps the war effort.

What should he do?

Are we assuming a standard evil dragon? If so, the answer is always "slaying a (chromatic) dragon is in itself a good thing." Evil dragons are, generally, rapacious monsters that, by the time they're a hundred years old, almost certainly deserve death (from the POV of almost anyone in the fantasy world, and their gods; my personal ethics differ but are irrelevant).

I suppose, if the paladin wanted to be really sure, he'd need to know whether this particular dragon has been killing and stealing, or if it's some sort of innocent white dragon that bumbled into a lot of treasure. If it's a typical evil dragon, killing is unequivocably good, and the paladin should have been intending to return to slay it gloriously after retreating and regrouping. (Whether lying, even by omission, to the dragon about this is acceptable depends on the paladin's specific code. Some codes may require suicidal honesty, but others certainly will let you lie to the enemy. Of course, if the paladin gave his word, it's going to be much trickier.)

One thing is for sure: the paladin would want to be informed as to what, exactly, is going on, and should be wary of being manipulated into doing evil. If his party is regularly leaving him in the dark, he should leave them and seek a better way to do good.


... great, given that white dragons are the dumbest dragons, I'm now imagining a dragon with the mental faculties of an 8-year-old and an innocently mischievous streak.


If he participated in the lying to the Dragon? He already fell for lying.

Based on what? The conditions for falling are "ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct" - which one does lying to an evil dragon meet?

Scow2
2013-04-09, 04:03 PM
If he participated in the lying to the Dragon? He already fell for lying.
He didn't lie. At least not in the evil sense of the act. It's only considered an evil act because 90%+ of the time, it's used to evil ends. Even the BoVD and BoED acknowledge that.

And my opinion on the second situation - Hope to not fail a Sense Motive check. Even if he doesn't, he is still bound by his word to not betray the Dragon, if he gave his word. Betrayal is an evil act, without the "90% of the time" clause of Lying. Also - he'd should point out that they aren't in any condition to fight the dragon anyway. Otherwise, that would have been Plan A.

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 04:07 PM
This is rather easy.

The value of this man's life outweighs any treasure in the dungeon. A paladin would abandon the dungeon crawl to seek treatment for the innocent man.

I'm assuming its not a search for treasure, but a urgent quest to save the world. I do not see why a paladin would go on a straight treasure hunt, it would involve killing monsters who were just defending themselves.

mangosta71
2013-04-09, 04:09 PM
They talked a dragon into giving up its hoard? And the dragon was, what, just planning to stay right there with no hoard?

Another note: why would the party believe that the (obviously evil) kobold is sincere?

Final analysis: if the dragon is evil, and the kobolds are evil, the paladin should not be willing to make any sort of deal - he should have been upfront about his intent to wipe them all out all along. Besides which, unless all of the inhabitants of the other nation are evil, having a band of kobolds preying on innocent villagers (because, come on, do you really think they're gonna be raiding army encampments?) is unequivocally bad.

Talakeal
2013-04-09, 04:12 PM
Paladins must act with honor. Talking a dragon into sparing you and then double crossing it by coming back and killing it later when you have the upper hand is not acting with honor.

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 04:25 PM
What is this phylactery everyone keeps talking about? I would like to make it clear that I am actually only on my first campaign and playing as a wizard at that. I am talking about in-universe, not what a good DM concerned with a fun story would do, though those posts are a great help to understanding the game. Paladins just intrigued me because of the strict code that might sometimes conflict with practicality or the wishes or others while still being inherently good. I see that the discussion is going in a different direction though and I like it. I want to expand the discussion to ethical questions on what a character of a certain background (like a Chaotic Good Druid) would do in a certain situation and what they should do. How do I change the tread title?

Rhynn
2013-04-09, 04:26 PM
I'm assuming its not a search for treasure, but a urgent quest to save the world. I do not see why a paladin would go on a straight treasure hunt, it would involve killing monsters who were just defending themselves.

If evil monsters have treasure, they probably got it by killing someone who made it. Killing them and returning it to civilization (giving the paladin's probably formidable share to charities and temples) is an act of justice, with clear, measurable benefits for society and the weak. Few monsters actually just sit around on their treasure waiting for adventurers, at least in any decent setting - they regularly go out and kick somebody's stuff over and loot the shiny bits.

Edit: Also, the notion that the only adventures a paladin can go on are "urgent quests to save the world" is sort of ridiculous. There wouldn't be work for very many paladins at all, would there?

Edit2: n00bboy2013, the phylactery of faithfulness (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicItemsWI.html#phylactery-of-faithfulness) is a magic item. From the SRD:


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

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

hamishspence
2013-04-09, 04:27 PM
What is this phylactery everyone keeps talking about?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 04:30 PM
Based on what? The conditions for falling are "ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct" - which one does lying to an evil dragon meet?

So... If a paladin becomes Chaotic Good, he falls, even though he is still good? So if a paladin busted a group of criminals out of jail who knew info about the Big Bad so that he could use the info, he falls?

Aquatosic
2013-04-09, 04:32 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness

I wish I had this in real life. Sounds a lot like Tefillin.

Scow2
2013-04-09, 04:53 PM
So... If a paladin becomes Chaotic Good, he falls, even though he is still good? So if a paladin busted a group of criminals out of jail who knew info about the Big Bad so that he could use the info, he falls?Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) - A very informative article, as is the previous one about alignment in general.

I'd be more specific, but that article really covers all the bases brought up in this thread.

EDIT: Also - A paladin falls for committing an evil act, not a chaotic one. It takes a number of chaotic acts (and a shift in mentality) to change someone from Lawful to Neutral, and again to Chaotic.

Amaril
2013-04-09, 05:37 PM
So... If a paladin becomes Chaotic Good, he falls, even though he is still good? So if a paladin busted a group of criminals out of jail who knew info about the Big Bad so that he could use the info, he falls?

I think the best thing to do with paladin codes is to make it so that Law is always subservient to Good. If it's a choice between committing a Chaotic Neutral act and a Lawful Evil act, the paladin should always pick the Chaotic way, even in technical contradiction of their code, to avoid doing Evil.

In this same vein, I typically include ways that the code allows a paladin to do certain things that it would normally prohibit in certain situations. For example, taking an idea from Asari Justicars in Mass Effect, I allow paladins to swear an oath of loyalty to a leader whose aims align with their own, which allows them to follow that leader's commands even if they contradict with their code (unless the leader wants them to do something that's really, really against the code, in which case the paladin has to kill them).

What bugs me about the paladins who follow their code to the letter with no concept of pragmatism is that it makes it seem like the paladin's code was written by idiots who had no idea how the world works. The kind of codes that make sense for paladins are the ones that show some understanding that taking a more liberal view is occasionally necessary to uphold the overall goals of a paladin, which should be to protect the innocent, to free the oppressed, and to bring the wicked to justice.

Tragak
2013-04-09, 05:52 PM
I think the best thing to do with paladin codes is to make it so that Law is always subservient to Good. If it's a choice between committing a Chaotic Neutral act and a Lawful Evil act, the paladin should always pick the Chaotic way, even in technical contradiction of their code, to avoid doing Evil. I'll see you and raise you an "A Paladin should always aim to create a Lawful Good option, regardless of whether the person trying to kill him already provided one." :smalltongue:

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 06:19 PM
He didn't lie. At least not in the evil sense of the act. It's only considered an evil act because 90%+ of the time, it's used to evil ends. Even the BoVD and BoED acknowledge that.


Paladins may fall for lying, whether it's Evil or not. The Code calls it out separately from "willingly commits an Evil act".

The only question is whether it counts as a "gross violation".

endoperez
2013-04-09, 06:30 PM
So... If a paladin becomes Chaotic Good, he falls, even though he is still good? So if a paladin busted a group of criminals out of jail who knew info about the Big Bad so that he could use the info, he falls?

If it's all taken literally, at least. Sometimes a paladin falls for things the player thought reasonable, but I hope in most cases the player and the DM can agree on these things.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 07:18 PM
If it's all taken literally, at least. Sometimes a paladin falls for things the player thought reasonable, but I hope in most cases the player and the DM can agree on these things.

This is precisely why I highly recommend any Paladin-player to get his character a Phylactery of Faithfulness ASAP. Ideally, he can shell out an extra 1,000gp to make it a slotless item according to the Custom Item rules (and thus freeing up his Head slot for something which boosts adventuring effectiveness).

TuggyNE
2013-04-09, 08:06 PM
This is precisely why I highly recommend any Paladin-player to get his character a Phylactery of Faithfulness ASAP. Ideally, he can shell out an extra 1,000gp to make it a slotless item according to the Custom Item rules (and thus freeing up his Head slot for something which boosts adventuring effectiveness).

Or better yet, get the DM to approve the expanded Knowledge check use? :smallbiggrin:

Vaern
2013-04-09, 08:17 PM
1. Is it an Evil Act (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13484087#post13484087)? BoVD and BoED have most of this info. If the act is both willing and Evil, then the Paladin falls. This is not impacted by any other factor, the greater good is not a valid excuse.
This may sound weird but, if I ever play a paladin, I'd rather have the Book of Vile Darkness in front of me than the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Based on that thread's short and vague list of evil acts collected from the Book of Exalted Deeds, it's okay to go around killing all the good-aligned creatures you want as long as you aren't harvesting their organs, and murder is fine as long as you aren't doing it for money.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-09, 08:52 PM
This may sound weird but, if I ever play a paladin, I'd rather have the Book of Vile Darkness in front of me than the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Based on that thread's short and vague list of evil acts collected from the Book of Exalted Deeds, it's okay to go around killing all the good-aligned creatures you want as long as you aren't harvesting their organs, and murder is fine as long as you aren't doing it for money.

To be fair, which book did you expect to have a longer list of Evil Acts? BoED is more concerned with advice on playing Good and [Exalted] characters.

Also, BoVD has Murder covered for any "nefarious purpose". So if you want to stay on the shallow end of the alignment pool, you need to have a compelling in-character reason wear your GM down with mid-session alignment debate until he caves :smalltongue:

Fibinachi
2013-04-09, 09:29 PM
I like the white dragon example.
As others stated above, the paladin and party have already argued with the dragon to make it give up the gold. So the stolen gold is now on its way to being returned and the party is leaving.
So my assumption here is that I, as a Paladin, have made a deal. In return for not fighting the dragon, and not sending an army later, it gave up the gold. Thus, I'm not going to go back and kill it.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further" is not being a Paladin, its being an opportunist. Pragmatism is fine, but if the dragon is abiding by our agreement so far, I shant be the first to break it.

My companions are technically allowed to go back and attempt to slay the dragon, but its at that point that I'd point out that:

We gave our word
It gave us the gold
Murdering a creature for your own convinence is a good working definition of "Inclined to evil"
I'm obliged to help those in need, protect the weak and uphold honor in all things
This kobold tribe and white dragon are quite weak right now...


This is because, not speaking Draconic, all I know is: "The kobold said something and now the party is willing to alter the deal we have just made in order to preserve our resources. This kobold is trying a power grab, and I am not chartered to deal in internal politics. I am a Paladin. Not an Inquisitor"

The dragon (and to an extent the kobolds) show they are creatures capable of argument, thought and sapience. So a deal can be worked out. For instance, if the white dragon actually desires gold enough to steal it from the mines, how much would the local ruler need to pay it (in gold from said mine) to fly border patrols against the neighboring enemy kingdom we seem to have? How much would it be per month in beneficial trade to have it use its fantastic cryogenic breath to freeze down food supplies? Can it be chartered as a royal transportation? Would it be willing to trade gold for scales?
--

If the answer to the above is "White Dragons are always evil", then nothing changes - except next time we have word of the dragon stealing, killing and ravaging the country side, we will go pay it a visit and this time there will be no negotiation

Conundrum:

You are a dwarven paladin. Through obscure means, you have overcome your natural charisma deficiency, and you are just as stout as all others of your kin. Your god, the Shaper, is a god of workmanship, proper respect paid, order, community, alcohol, civilization and the right of everyone to raise themselves in life through their own work (And the help others are willing to give, of course).

How do you deal with political maneuvering inside your own church? If clerics, priest and clergy engage in petty deals, political machinations and alliances to enrich their own lives, how would you deal with this? No laws are being broken (although they are being obeyed more in letter than spirit, often blatantly so) but people take the chance to inflict harsher punishments on criminals to win sympathy and support from the crowd, arms and weapons are being prepared in advance of a schism and everyone seems more inclined to line their own pockets than give proper service.

(vague, I know)

Amaril
2013-04-09, 09:40 PM
Conundrum:

You are a dwarven paladin. Through obscure means, you have overcome your natural charisma deficiency, and you are just as stout as all others of your kin. Your god, the Shaper, is a god of workmanship, proper respect paid, order, community, alcohol, civilization and the right of everyone to raise themselves in life through their own work (And the help others are willing to give, of course).

How do you deal with political maneuvering inside your own church? If clerics, priest and clergy engage in petty deals, political machinations and alliances to enrich their own lives, how would you deal with this? No laws are being broken (although they are being obeyed more in letter than spirit, often blatantly so) but people take the chance to inflict harsher punishments on criminals to win sympathy and support from the crowd, arms and weapons are being prepared in advance of a schism and everyone seems more inclined to line their own pockets than give proper service.

(vague, I know)

Well, in a situation like that, I can see no alternative but to do what the ever so Lawful Good Ned Stark did in George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones:
I'd die.

Seriously, stick a paladin in a situation rife with scheming, plotting and untrustworthy people on all sides, and there's really only one way it can end.

Coidzor
2013-04-09, 10:38 PM
Edit: Also, the notion that the only adventures a paladin can go on are "urgent quests to save the world" is sort of ridiculous. There wouldn't be work for very many paladins at all, would there?

After all, how is a Paladin supposed to get strong enough to save the world if he never practices the stock and trade of Paladining and Adventuring and Knight-Erranting about the place on lesser quests?

Coidzor
2013-04-09, 10:51 PM
Conundrum:

You are a dwarven paladin. Through obscure means, you have overcome your natural charisma deficiency, and you are just as stout as all others of your kin.

Easy enough, you're made out of Gold (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gold_dwarf). Granted, that technically requires Forgotten Realms content. & Being D&D...


Your god, the Shaper, is a god of workmanship, proper respect paid, order, community, alcohol, civilization and the right of everyone to raise themselves in life through their own work (And the help others are willing to give, of course).

Is the deity the direct source of Paladinhood or is the deity just the patron of the paladin? Or is paladinhood more nebulous and more like being a knight?


How do you deal with political maneuvering inside your own church?

Paladins generally avoid playing politics if at all possible and only get drawn in if there's some kind of misconduct going on, in which case making things trasnparent and honest and rooting out corruption is the priority. Selecting who is the next high priest is of no concern to a paladin unless foul play or corruption is being introduced to the selection process.


If clerics, priest and clergy engage in petty deals, political machinations and alliances to enrich their own lives, how would you deal with this?

Seek out honest dwarves, find those with the most connection to the divine and therefore spiritual authority and power and bring the corruption of the service of Shaper to their attention, make every effort for reform and to set a shining example of right thinking, because being a shining example is kind of what paladins are all about.


No laws are being broken (although they are being obeyed more in letter than spirit, often blatantly so) but people take the chance to inflict harsher punishments on criminals to win sympathy and support from the crowd, arms and weapons are being prepared in advance of a schism and everyone seems more inclined to line their own pockets than give proper service.

If there are no good dwarves left to rally back to living in keeping with the tenets of the religion and right action and the Paladin is unable to bring dwarves back to reason or the light, then the religion is effectively dead.

If I can rally a following, then the first thing would be to work to head off the buildup to a bloody conflict between factions, which would require knowing more about why they were gearing up to slaughter each other off and why the deity was silent on the subject of his priesthood prepping to off itself.

If not, leave, and serve the Shaper on my own, doing all that I can to prevent others being drawn into the faction war. It is a corrupt and dead thing that will not listen to or see reason, but until they actually do wrong I cannot use force upon them.

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 01:20 AM
So... If a paladin becomes Chaotic Good, he falls, even though he is still good? So if a paladin busted a group of criminals out of jail who knew info about the Big Bad so that he could use the info, he falls?

Why would a single act change your alignment? Unless it's completely outrageous (mass murder, etc.), it wouldn't. (But most of the examples I can think are evil acts anyway, and a single evil act will cause a fall.)

So no, a paladin breaking out some criminals for information would not necessarily fall, but might fall (for breaking their code, etc.).


Conundrum:

You are a dwarven paladin. Through obscure means, you have overcome your natural charisma deficiency, and you are just as stout as all others of your kin. Your god, the Shaper, is a god of workmanship, proper respect paid, order, community, alcohol, civilization and the right of everyone to raise themselves in life through their own work (And the help others are willing to give, of course).

How do you deal with political maneuvering inside your own church? If clerics, priest and clergy engage in petty deals, political machinations and alliances to enrich their own lives, how would you deal with this? No laws are being broken (although they are being obeyed more in letter than spirit, often blatantly so) but people take the chance to inflict harsher punishments on criminals to win sympathy and support from the crowd, arms and weapons are being prepared in advance of a schism and everyone seems more inclined to line their own pockets than give proper service.

(vague, I know)

That's a personal issue and not really related to being a paladin, IMO. You can participate. You can abstain. You can try to cause a paradigm shift that changes things for what you see to be the better or the greater good. A paladin would probably be more pious than average, but whether they try to lead a sect to triumph in the schism or to improve others by serving as an example is up to the individual paladin. (Or, heck, go off on quests to keep you out of the politics while still serving your faith. That's a decent backstory for an adventuring paladin.)

Nothing says paladins can't play politics (it's just that their code may or may not make them slightly bad at it). A paladin who follows the letter of the law over its spirit is a legit concept (so long as they don't commit outrightly evil acts).


Seriously, stick a paladin in a situation rife with scheming, plotting and untrustworthy people on all sides, and there's really only one way it can end.

Why? There's a minimum of two paladins among the Lords of Waterdeep from way back in the 1E boxed sets, and only one is the Open Lord. The Lords of Waterdeep are scheming intriguers par excellence. Paladins can do politics, intrigue, and even scheming, so long as they aren't evil and don't violate their specific code.

TuggyNE
2013-04-10, 01:52 AM
Why? There's a minimum of two paladins among the Lords of Waterdeep from way back in the 1E boxed sets, and only one is the Open Lord. The Lords of Waterdeep are scheming intriguers par excellence. Paladins can do politics, intrigue, and even scheming, so long as they aren't evil and don't violate their specific code.

If memory serves, you can see a bit of this in Eadric of Deorham's case (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?58227-Tales-of-Wyre). (Also I love that story so I felt like linking it. :smallwink:)

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 02:07 AM
If memory serves, you can see a bit of this in Eadric of Deorham's case (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?58227-Tales-of-Wyre). (Also I love that story so I felt like linking it. :smallwink:)

I am now taking a break from reading The Deed of Paksenarrion (highly relevant to this discussion) to read those stories... the first (Lady Despina's Virtue) is already awesome. That is some high roleplaying, right there.

Anterean
2013-04-10, 02:48 AM
I have a question.

A paladin has decided it is wrong to have sex before you are married. His chaotic friend feels sad about all the sex the paladin is missing out on so finds a girl at a tavern and tries to "sell" his friend to her. Through great skills, he succeeds and said girl becomes very interested in the paladin. After some conversations between the girl and the paladin, he tells her that he does not intend to have sex before his is married. This just makes her even more interested, and tries to seduce him but he holds to his principles. She then tells him that if getting married is the only way to have sex, why don't they get married then? He tells her that no, that is not possible, first they must get to know one another better. So she tells him that in that case she will come with him on his journey to give them a chance to do just that. This worries that paladin to a great extend, as adventuring is rather dangerous, and his own quest even more so, and this young damsel wouldn't be safe. He does not wish to jeopardize her safety or place her in harms way. So he tells her that just that. Seeing an opportunity to put him on the spot, she says that he hardly can stop her from traveling on the road just behind him. She then proceeds to tell him that he has two options; either she will follow in his footsteps along the road, possibly putting her in all kinds of danger with the risk of her being killed or they can have sex tonight. So all he has to do to keep her out of harms way is to break his own code of not having sex before marriage. What is a poor paladin to do?

Smite! Smite! Someone that persistent in their tempting with carnal pleasures to make you fall is clearly a succubus :smalltongue:

On a more serious note I would call her bluff, get her a tent, bedroll and spear (or another cheap commonly available weapon) of her own and invite her to travel with the group, and train her doing available downtime to keep her somewhat safe

Lorsa
2013-04-10, 04:35 AM
This girl is clearly delusional and not acting In her own best interests. I would convince the local sheriff or asylum keeper to lock her up for a few days then quickly leave town by a route she cannot possibly track and not come that way again.

If I was a lawkeeper and a paladin came to me and said that I should lock up this girl for claiming that unless "I have sex with her she will follow me on the road" I would laugh in his face. That's no reason to lock someone up. People act against their best interests all the time. Doing so doesn't mean we lock them up, not in modern society and not in fantasy society.


The girl herself was intrigued by the paladin's principles. She was the daughter of a merchant and had never before encountered a person with such strong morals and principles. So in the end she wasn't really that interested in sex anymore as she was trying to test to see which one of his two ideals would be stronger (keep a woman out of harm or keep away from sex until married). The paladin intrigued her to no end, which is why she eventually fell for him (pun intended). She certainly didn't know about paladins loosing their divine grace if they break their code and such. You can't assume that someone is deliberately trying to make you fall just for giving a moral conundrum.

Aquatosic
2013-04-10, 04:37 AM
After all, how is a Paladin supposed to get strong enough to save the world if he never practices the stock and trade of Paladining and Adventuring and Knight-Erranting about the place on lesser quests?

yes, but they would not be treasure hunts. They would be things like rescuing princesses, fighting in wars, rescuing kingdoms and slaying mass murderers.

Lorsa
2013-04-10, 04:39 AM
Smite! Smite! Someone that persistent in their tempting with carnal pleasures to make you fall is clearly a succubus :smalltongue:

On a more serious note I would call her bluff, get her a tent, bedroll and spear (or another cheap commonly available weapon) of her own and invite her to travel with the group, and train her doing available downtime to keep her somewhat safe

Well, or they're just a horny girl and you happen to be a very strong and charismatic knightly man.

And as she was a very adventurous merchant-daughter rogue, she would most definitely come with you and keep tempting you "oh, I am so cold tonight, it's freezing *shuddering*, can you please keep me warm while I skeep?".

The player made sure she had a crossbow and told her to stay far away from danger. Didn't really work out that way though...

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 04:46 AM
yes, but they would not be treasure hunts. They would be things like rescuing princesses, fighting in wars, rescuing kingdoms and slaying mass murderers.

I thought I addressed this earlier in this thread, but I guess I didn't - I can't find it anyway.

Going into dungeons and slaying evil monsters is good, in itself. It is pretty rare for these monsters not to be an active danger to their surroundings - that tends to be the reason the dungeon exists as an adventure location to begin with. Unless we're talking, say, undead who stay in their tombs - but then we're also talking about cosmically evil things that a paladin pretty much has a duty to destroy prima facie. Paladins turn and smite undead. Even mindless undead are Evil.

Monsters who have treasure usually have it because they took it from someone else - robbery, probably murder. Slaying them is just and good and protects the weak. Bringing the treasure out and tithing from it (your paladin doesn't tithe? That's your/your DM's problem...), or even giving all or most of it to charity (older edition paladins could only keep enough to maintain an appropriate standard of living, and possibly to support a keep and armed forces if necessary and appropriate to their level), is also good and helps the weak (and the poor).

Thus, paladins can have a lot of good (and Good) reasons to go monster-slaying and treasure-hunting.

Aquatosic
2013-04-10, 04:49 AM
I thought I addressed this earlier in this thread, but I guess I didn't - I can't find it anyway.

Going into dungeons and slaying evil monsters is good, in itself. It is pretty rare for these monsters not to be an active danger to their surroundings - that tends to be the reason the dungeon exists as an adventure location to begin with. Unless we're talking, say, undead who stay in their tombs - but then we're also talking about cosmically evil things that a paladin pretty much has a duty to destroy prima facie. Paladins turn and smite undead. Even mindless undead are Evil.

Monsters who have treasure usually have it because they took it from someone else - robbery, probably murder. Slaying them is just and good and protects the weak. Bringing the treasure out and tithing from it (your paladin doesn't tithe? That's your/your DM's problem...), or even giving all or most of it to charity (older edition paladins could only keep enough to maintain an appropriate standard of living, and possibly to support a keep and armed forces if necessary and appropriate to their level), is also good and helps the weak (and the poor).

Thus, paladins can have a lot of good (and Good) reasons to go monster-slaying and treasure-hunting.

Sigh, fine

Anterean
2013-04-10, 05:09 AM
Well, or they're just a horny girl and you happen to be a very strong and charismatic knightly man.

And as she was a very adventurous merchant-daughter rogue, she would most definitely come with you and keep tempting you "oh, I am so cold tonight, it's freezing *shuddering*, can you please keep me warm while I sleep?".

The player made sure she had a crossbow and told her to stay far away from danger. Didn't really work out that way though...

I thought it was clear that I wasn't really that serious with the smiting and succubus comment.

"Ofcourse" He answered smiling "I happen to have a spare winter blanket or two".

Lorsa
2013-04-10, 05:29 AM
I thought it was clear that I wasn't really that serious with the smiting and succubus comment.

"Ofcourse" He answered smiling "I happen to have a spare winter blanket or two".

Yes it was very clear, I just wanted to be extra obvious and point out the fact that paladins tend to be very attractive. :smallsmile:

Also, nice save.

Rabidmuskrat
2013-04-10, 06:12 AM
New question. Paladin gets ordered by his superiors to track down and kill the criminal wanted for numerous counts of murder and other vile crimes, Killer McPsycho. He tracks mister Killer to a small, sleepy little rural town where he discovers that McPsycho has found (a) god (not his, lets keep this simple). He has abandoned his murderous ways and has settled down into the peaceful life of a farmer and has even married and had a little girl named Anna. Sweetest thing.
Anyway, here is the problem. He asks the paladin to let him go since he has completely given up his old ways and now has a wife and child to take care of, but unfortunately he also has a rap sheet a mile long including several brutal murders of clergy.
What is Paladin to do?

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-10, 06:45 AM
How do you deal with political maneuvering inside your own church?


As a commentary, you've just stumbled upon the reason why Scouts and many militaries are supposed to stay the eff out of politics.

But more generally, the Paladin would try to push those laws that are just, try to revoke those laws that aren't, avoid association with known hypocrites, and generally speak against bad laws.

EDIT: In response to the above, the Paladin's duty is, as essentially a law-enforcement member, to ignore his pleas and bring the murderer to justice for deeds he has done. Yes, it is all very tragic. Yes, it might even appear merciless, but what is Good and Just is not always nice. Of course, if the change of heart is genuine and sincere, there's no reason for the Paladin to be rude or aggressive towards the criminal - but he must reel him in none the less.

BWR
2013-04-10, 07:48 AM
The way I run paladins (and divine characters of every type) is I take a look at the god in question and sit down with the player and come up with a few, two or three, core vows they make and aa dozen or so guidelines. For instance I've played a paladin who would not sneak or stealth at all (to the great irritation of my fellow players), and I'm running a game with a paladin who has no problems sneaking around (but will never ambush someone or attack without giving ppl the chance to surrender).

So, depending on whether the god in question is one of strict law, one of mercy and forgiveness or a righteous destroyer of evil, the answer can vary.
In the first case it comes down to the law. If the law is 'McPsycho must die', the paladin could execute the guy where he stands, or could condemn him to death of old age. If the law is 'McPsycho must die ASAP', then the paladin would sadly do his duty, giving the man a few moments to compose himself and say his goodbyes, then do what he could to take care of the widow and child.
In the second case, the paladin could easily judge that the old McPsycho is dead and a new McNicey has taken his place - pushing the law a bit but definitely in keeping with his god.
The the third case McPsycho's dead. Sure he may regret his actions but he should not have done them in the first place and allowing evil to go unpunished is unforgivable.

Scow2
2013-04-10, 08:53 AM
As a commentary, you've just stumbled upon the reason why Scouts and many militaries are supposed to stay the eff out of politics.

But more generally, the Paladin would try to push those laws that are just, try to revoke those laws that aren't, avoid association with known hypocrites, and generally speak against bad laws.

EDIT: In response to the above, the Paladin's duty is, as essentially a law-enforcement member, to ignore his pleas and bring the murderer to justice for deeds he has done. Yes, it is all very tragic. Yes, it might even appear merciless, but what is Good and Just is not always nice. Of course, if the change of heart is genuine and sincere, there's no reason for the Paladin to be rude or aggressive towards the criminal - but he must reel him in none the less.Actually, going the second route is putting Law above Good, which a Paladin should not do.

Instead, in such a situation, he should approach the clergy, and audit the man's Atonement, which sounds like the case. If the law he is pursuing does not have any provisions accounting for that powerful life-changing spell, then the law has a failing that needs to be addressed.

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 09:25 AM
What is Paladin to do?

First, it might be worth questioning whether a paladin should be following superiors who will give orders to go off and kill someone, but it's certainly not inconceivable (I presume they have either a secular mandate, or a divine mandate that supercedes, at least to them, secular power).

The obvious answer is that the PC takes the dude in to his superiors, who will decide his fate. It may indeed be just and right that he be punished. If the paladin has the power to decide whether to render punishment - and is expected to do so - then it becomes a question of conscience.

Doing the "right" thing is not always pleasant. Most people who do bad things - including very bad things - are just normal people, and do care about the people close to them, who care about them. Often very much. If you accept a system that includes the death penalty as being Lawful Good (please let's not get into that), then IMO there is a point (probably before the 10th cold-blooded murder) where mercy can no longer substitute for justice, and a punishment has to be given.

There's also the concern that the killer is pretending, and in fact continues to kill, or may continue to kill later.

That said, I think only a paladin of Tyr or a similar hard-assed justice deity would fall for letting the criminal go, since IMO it'd be a specific code violation, not a flagrant general code violation or an evil act. A paladin of Lathander, for instance, might find his deity thinks mercy and a new beginning are called for here.

As a side-note, I might question your characterization of the killer, but I have to admit that even "true" serial killers (pathological sociopaths with sexual motivations for killing) do often have families who love them (albeit, possibly, in some broken way), even if their own love towards those families may be largely or wholly affected.


The way I run paladins (and divine characters of every type) is I take a look at the god in question and sit down with the player and come up with a few, two or three, core vows they make and aa dozen or so guidelines. For instance I've played a paladin who would not sneak or stealth at all (to the great irritation of my fellow players), and I'm running a game with a paladin who has no problems sneaking around (but will never ambush someone or attack without giving ppl the chance to surrender).

I approve and agree, and even think 3 & ~12 are good numbers to use. A 12-point code is pretty much perfect, to me.


Instead, in such a situation, he should approach the clergy, and audit the man's Atonement, which sounds like the case. If the law he is pursuing does not have any provisions accounting for that powerful life-changing spell, then the law has a failing that needs to be addressed.

Meh. In the 3E DMG setting, maybe.

In most of my (A)D&D settings, atonement (and any other 5th+ level spell, such as raise dead) is a miracle performed by rare and special holy persons of a faith. Not SOP by far, and always an exception to any rules.

Amaril
2013-04-10, 09:34 AM
New question. Paladin gets ordered by his superiors to track down and kill the criminal wanted for numerous counts of murder and other vile crimes, Killer McPsycho. He tracks mister Killer to a small, sleepy little rural town where he discovers that McPsycho has found (a) god (not his, lets keep this simple). He has abandoned his murderous ways and has settled down into the peaceful life of a farmer and has even married and had a little girl named Anna. Sweetest thing.
Anyway, here is the problem. He asks the paladin to let him go since he has completely given up his old ways and now has a wife and child to take care of, but unfortunately he also has a rap sheet a mile long including several brutal murders of clergy.
What is Paladin to do?

Arrest him and take him back to face trial. That's what lawkeepers in real life would do, and it holds true for a paladin. However, the righteous paladin should emphasize to the court that Killer has abandoned his villainous ways, trusting they will take that into account in their decision. Also, they must ensure that nobody is hurt in their attempt to arrest Killer (except Killer himself, but only as much nonlethal damage is absolutely necessary to subdue him if he resists).

Rabidmuskrat
2013-04-10, 09:40 AM
Perhaps I should add this to the situation (sorry if I'm changing it, but characters wouldn't know about this until they tried either).

If you try to take Killer McPsycho back to face a trial, he refuses and states that he would rather die. Here is the reasoning: If you kill him, all anyone knows is that some stranger came into town and killed him. If you drag him back to trial, word gets out that he was this serious sicko who did terrible things (and then dies anyway!) and now his family (who is innocent) gets scorned everywhere they go.


As a side-note, I might question your characterization of the killer, but I have to admit that even "true" serial killers (pathological sociopaths with sexual motivations for killing) do often have families who love them (albeit, possibly, in some broken way), even if their own love towards those families may be largely or wholly affected.

I absolutely agree with you. In any world where a change of heart of this magnitude is possible I would seriously doubt that 'good' and 'evil' can exist as anything more than vague abstracts, unlike D&D. Still, this is the fun of thought exercises. We get to go "what if?".

For a slight variation, we can alter the circumstances somewhat. Paladin still has to go after Killer McPsycho, but now he has orders to bring him in alive if possible for trial. Now second paragraph happens and Killer refuses to fight back, what does he do?
Kill an (albeit guilty) man in cold blood to spare his family suffering?
Do his duty even though it results in more suffering for his family?
Let the man go, failing both his duty and justice but *possibly* doing the Good deed?

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 09:55 AM
If you try to take Killer McPsycho back to face a trial, he refuses and states that he would rather die. Here is the reasoning: If you kill him, all anyone knows is that some stranger came into town and killed him. If you drag him back to trial, word gets out that he was this serious sicko who did terrible things (and then dies anyway!) and now his family (who is innocent) gets scorned everywhere they go.

Really, it may (may) not be the paladin's concern at all what the people of this village think. Just subdue the bugger and chain him and drag him off, or, if appropriate, execute him then and there (making a proper announcement to the locals about the reasons, presenting your warrants with official holy seals, etc.).

Generally, I think a paladin would object to even such well-intentioned subterfuge (or they might not; you can never speak for all paladins), and would rather expose the truth, believing it to have inherent value and ultimately making things better in some cosmic sense, if not in a practical one.


Kill an (albeit guilty) man in cold blood to spare his family suffering?
Do his duty even though it results in more suffering for his family?
Let the man go, failing both his duty and justice but *possibly* doing the Good deed?

Mostly the middle one, but they're all viable options, and IMO would not result in a "divine fall" (although 1. and 3. might, if the truth came to light, result in expulsion or other sanctions from his order/superiors).

I really don't think the third one is the only "Good deed" here, either. Truth is generally considered a Good value as well as a Lawful one, and a great duty (justice for dozens) may be more important even to a "lawful GOOD" paladin than a small good (sparing two people some suffering). Those can all be Good acts.

Amaril
2013-04-10, 10:00 AM
Perhaps I should add this to the situation (sorry if I'm changing it, but characters wouldn't know about this until they tried either).

If you try to take Killer McPsycho back to face a trial, he refuses and states that he would rather die. Here is the reasoning: If you kill him, all anyone knows is that some stranger came into town and killed him. If you drag him back to trial, word gets out that he was this serious sicko who did terrible things (and then dies anyway!) and now his family (who is innocent) gets scorned everywhere they go.



I absolutely agree with you. In any world where a change of heart of this magnitude is possible I would seriously doubt that 'good' and 'evil' can exist as anything more than vague abstracts, unlike D&D. Still, this is the fun of thought exercises. We get to go "what if?".

For a slight variation, we can alter the circumstances somewhat. Paladin still has to go after Killer McPsycho, but now he has orders to bring him in alive if possible for trial. Now second paragraph happens and Killer refuses to fight back, what does he do?
Kill an (albeit guilty) man in cold blood to spare his family suffering?
Do his duty even though it results in more suffering for his family?
Let the man go, failing both his duty and justice but *possibly* doing the Good deed?

In this situation, my paladin would try to explain to Killer that if he leaves town cooperatively and without a fuss, the attention he attracts by doing so would be remarkably small. Further, she would tell him that although she would be bound to tell the truth about what was going on to anyone who asked her directly, Killer himself is free to lie about why he's leaving--he could make up some innocent reason that wouldn't raise suspicion among the community.

If he still refused, then she'd arrest him anyway, by force if necessary. No matter how sincere his change of heart, the law demands that he face due process for his actions. At that point, she'd employ the methods I stated previously. Also, after Killer's trial, whatever the outcome, she'd return to his home village and do whatever she could to help his family maintain their lifestyle and preserve their reputation, mostly by telling as many people in town as she could that whatever Killer might have done, his family is innocent, and the gods will punish anyone who disrespects them for crimes they didn't commit.

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 10:15 AM
In this situation, my paladin would try to explain to Killer that if he leaves town cooperatively and without a fuss, the attention he attracts by doing so would be remarkably small. Further, she would tell him that although she would be bound to tell the truth about what was going on to anyone who asked her directly, Killer himself is free to lie about why he's leaving--he could make up some innocent reason that wouldn't raise suspicion among the community.

That is excellent. "You can lie to make this easy on them. I can't. I would have to tell them the truth."

That's not even real blackmail, that's just explaining the facts and offering him a way to make use of them.

Amaril
2013-04-10, 10:21 AM
That is excellent. "You can lie to make this easy on them. I can't. I would have to tell them the truth."

That's not even real blackmail, that's just explaining the facts and offering him a way to make use of them.

A big thing I focused on when I designed the code for this character was that her keeping her paladinhood isn't dependent on other people following her rules. While she's supposed to make every practical, reasonable effort to sway others to her righteous path, she understands that sometimes other people have to do Chaotic things, and doesn't get too worked up about it. Situations like this are exactly why.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-10, 10:30 AM
Actually, going the second route is putting Law above Good, which a Paladin should not do.


It is not, unless you consider revealing the truth and seeking out justice for the families of the slain to be non-good. Redemption is good and all, but it is not mutually exclusive with retribution.

Besides, if the Paladin leaves Mr. Psycho alone, he has a tougher question to face: what about all the lesser criminals? Can they, too, be left unpunished because they've supposedly redeemed themselves? If you can forgive a serial killer, why not a pocket thief?

It's a can of worms the Paladin can't open, because it removes all basis from him upholding the Law in the first place. Their code has the line "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", and if they let Mr. Psycho go, they do violate it.

So in the jail Mr. Psycho goes.

Dienekes
2013-04-10, 10:52 AM
I played a few paladins, or paladin-like folks. Though I tend to do the good is not nice variety.

For the sex-crazed girl. I would explain to her very carefully how and why it wasn't going to happen. If she cannot take the hint, there is a great thing called subdual damage and slipping away in the middle of the night.

For the murderous Jean Valjean story, crimes need to be punished. I would explain to the man that his victims do deserve justice. I would promise that so long as he does come without a fuss that I would not spread the word of why he's being dragged away. I will also promise that if he is good I will speak for him during his trial, and no matter the outcome I would make sure his family is taken care of.

For the dwarven politician, Good also does not mean dumb. Lead by example, and use all the benefits you can to figure out who is honorable, who isn't which laws should be changed and which not. It will be hard, and dangerous, but there is always the chance you win. Or even if you lose that your example will be followed by others.

Nocharim
2013-04-10, 11:29 AM
It is not, unless you consider revealing the truth and seeking out justice for the families of the slain to be non-good. Redemption is good and all, but it is not mutually exclusive with retribution.

Besides, if the Paladin leaves Mr. Psycho alone, he has a tougher question to face: what about all the lesser criminals? Can they, too, be left unpunished because they've supposedly redeemed themselves? If you can forgive a serial killer, why not a pocket thief?

It's a can of worms the Paladin can't open, because it removes all basis from him upholding the Law in the first place. Their code has the line "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", and if they let Mr. Psycho go, they do violate it.

So in the jail Mr. Psycho goes.

All this would be true were paladins champions of law and not that of good. Justice is as lawful as it gets. And what do they say about Justice's visual capabilities again?
Lawful Neutral is the alignment where you put the Law above morality. When an instance occurs where the paladin has to choose between being lawful and good, being good always trumps being lawful.

In this case one of the many 'Good' choices would be to request for a Cleric/Wizard/etc. capable of casting Geas/Quest (along with appropriate contingencies if the geas is removed) and having him take the Vow of Non-violence. After that, it is the Paladin's responsibility to explain the situation to his superiors along with the questioning of the said authority's legitimacy in the case they still want him dead.

Dienekes
2013-04-10, 12:20 PM
All this would be true were paladins champions of law and not that of good. Justice is as lawful as it gets. And what do they say about Justice's visual capabilities again?
Lawful Neutral is the alignment where you put the Law above morality. When an instance occurs where the paladin has to choose between being lawful and good, being good always trumps being lawful.

In this case one of the many 'Good' choices would be to request for a Cleric/Wizard/etc. capable of casting Geas/Quest (along with appropriate contingencies if the geas is removed) and having him take the Vow of Non-violence. After that, it is the Paladin's responsibility to explain the situation to his superiors along with the questioning of the said authority's legitimacy in the case they still want him dead.

This depends entirely if you think the sentence for crimes are entirely there to punish or to rehabilitate. Or a mix of the two. For my own part, you don't just get to say you're all good now and get let off. Even if it is true, the criminal still has to pay the price he racked up.

Nocharim
2013-04-10, 12:30 PM
For my own part, you don't just get to say you're all good now and get let off. Even if it is true, the criminal still has to pay the price he racked up.

Of course not. You have to PROVE that you are good. In this case, that is what the geas+vow of non-violence are for. If he fails to live according to the vow's tenets the geas will kill him or the authorities will round him up and carry on with the punishment. Good is about reformation forgiveness and second chances, not of retribution.

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 01:01 PM
A big thing I focused on when I designed the code for this character was that her keeping her paladinhood isn't dependent on other people following her rules. While she's supposed to make every practical, reasonable effort to sway others to her righteous path, she understands that sometimes other people have to do Chaotic things, and doesn't get too worked up about it. Situations like this are exactly why.

This is very true. Paladins can have varying attitudes to the imperfections of others, and there's no need for them to get worked up about them, so long as they're not doing real evil.


Of course not. You have to PROVE that you are good. In this case, that is what the geas+vow of non-violence are for. If he fails to live according to the vow's tenets the geas will kill him or the authorities will round him up and carry on with the punishment. Good is about reformation forgiveness and second chances, not of retribution.

Rehabilitation requiring multiple high-level spells seems, frankly, pretty unreasonable.

Also, the notion that a serial killer can be rehabilitated is slightly ridiculous even in the modern world. In a medieval-flavored fantasy world, harsh justice for the victims seems like the Lawful Good option to me.

Talakeal
2013-04-10, 02:06 PM
If I was a lawkeeper and a paladin came to me and said that I should lock up this girl for claiming that unless "I have sex with her she will follow me on the road" I would laugh in his face. That's no reason to lock someone up. People act against their best interests all the time. Doing so doesn't mean we lock them up, not in modern society and not in fantasy society.


The girl herself was intrigued by the paladin's principles. She was the daughter of a merchant and had never before encountered a person with such strong morals and principles. So in the end she wasn't really that interested in sex anymore as she was trying to test to see which one of his two ideals would be stronger (keep a woman out of harm or keep away from sex until married). The paladin intrigued her to no end, which is why she eventually fell for him (pun intended). She certainly didn't know about paladins loosing their divine grace if they break their code and such. You can't assume that someone is deliberately trying to make you fall just for giving a moral conundrum.

In a modern society they would absolutely lock someone up for stalking another person. In a medieval society I would expect people to generally do what a paladin says, although it might take a bribe or two depending on the situation. I was, prefer, assuming an independent woman, in a more medieval world her family or local lord would probably have a vested interest in the girl not running away with some wandering of, and wold likely take care of it for me if made aware of the situation.


New question. Paladin gets ordered by his superiors to track down and kill the criminal wanted for numerous counts of murder and other vile crimes, Killer McPsycho. He tracks mister Killer to a small, sleepy little rural town where he discovers that McPsycho has found (a) god (not his, lets keep this simple). He has abandoned his murderous ways and has settled down into the peaceful life of a farmer and has even married and had a little girl named Anna. Sweetest thing.
Anyway, here is the problem. He asks the paladin to let him go since he has completely given up his old ways and now has a wife and child to take care of, but unfortunately he also has a rap sheet a mile long including several brutal murders of clergy.
What is Paladin to do?

The paladin code is clear, you must punish him. By RAW there is no statue of limitations or redemption clause. If he is genuinely good you will fall either way, but that is what atonement is for.

Also, to clear up a couple of misconceptions here: killing an evil creature is still an evil act if it is not done to prevent or punish its evil actions (unless it is an outsider with the evil subtype, then it's always a good act).

Also, unless you are playing in forgotten realms paladins do not get their powers from a god, and even in forgotten realms the paladins code does not vary based on gods, and you will still fall for violating the paladin code even if following the tenants of your faith or even a gods direct orders.

dps
2013-04-10, 02:18 PM
If I was a lawkeeper and a paladin came to me and said that I should lock up this girl for claiming that unless "I have sex with her she will follow me on the road" I would laugh in his face. That's no reason to lock someone up. People act against their best interests all the time. Doing so doesn't mean we lock them up, not in modern society and not in fantasy society.


That's your take. In a typical pseudo-medieval fantasy setting, the authorities might have a different view.

And if the local authorities do agree with you, the Paladin might try getting the girl's family and/or friends to informally detain her until he's left.

EDIT: Bah, somewhat ninja'd.

Rabidmuskrat
2013-04-10, 02:37 PM
If he is genuinely good you will fall either way

Is this possible? Can such a choice be put before a paladin, one where there is only wrong answers? I would feel that in such a case NEITHER option would cause him to fall because it falls in the morally grey area and he technically did do his best.

Talakeal
2013-04-10, 02:47 PM
Is this possible? Can such a choice be put before a paladin, one where there is only wrong answers? I would feel that in such a case NEITHER option would cause him to fall because it falls in the morally grey area and he technically did do his best.

Pretty much, yeah. The paladin code has so many tenants, many of which are unrelated, that unless you are extremely powerful and clever you will eventually find a no win situation. You wil fall, but you can atone.

Now, obviously it is up to the DM where exactly the line between punishment and evil is drawn, and if you are on the same page it might be possible to satisfy one requirement without violating the other.

Dienekes
2013-04-10, 02:48 PM
Is this possible? Can such a choice be put before a paladin, one where there is only wrong answers? I would feel that in such a case NEITHER option would cause him to fall because it falls in the morally grey area and he technically did do his best.

This is what a kind GM would do. And generally not one who sets up improbable situations in attempts to egg the paladin to fall.

NichG
2013-04-10, 03:28 PM
New question. Paladin gets ordered by his superiors to track down and kill the criminal wanted for numerous counts of murder and other vile crimes, Killer McPsycho. He tracks mister Killer to a small, sleepy little rural town where he discovers that McPsycho has found (a) god (not his, lets keep this simple). He has abandoned his murderous ways and has settled down into the peaceful life of a farmer and has even married and had a little girl named Anna. Sweetest thing.
Anyway, here is the problem. He asks the paladin to let him go since he has completely given up his old ways and now has a wife and child to take care of, but unfortunately he also has a rap sheet a mile long including several brutal murders of clergy.
What is Paladin to do?

It's D&D so there's lots of options at high level, including a kill/raise/atone trifecta - it punishes the criminal, allows the redemption to remain meaningful, and cleanses the paladin of any problems if the universe should happen to be rather literal in its interpretation and doesn't detect the purpose of the kill.

At low level? The paladin is in danger of a code break once they're in this situation in the first place. But all paladins belonging to this organization are as well - a way of life where you fall if you don't act with integrity, honor, and absolute goodness inherently forces you to never accept any absolute master above your code. That is to say, a master who you will fall if you disobey any of their orders. The reason is basically, someone giving the orders can't know if their orders will require a code-breaking action, so people in this hierarchy will fall all the time.

The right way to set up a paladin hierarchy has to allow for the fact that paladins must exercise judgement in their duties or the system doesn't work. So it might be something like 'Follow your Code first and your superiors second', where orders that force Code violations become 'illegal' orders.

Now, I think there's enough leeway in the paladin code that the paladin could just disobey their orders here, even without that provision existing in his church. Basically, his code requires him to punish evil, not necessarily to kill it. One such punishment might be to force the man to confront the families of those he killed, or even to make him speak with the spirits of his victims. If he has already effectively been punished (e.g., who knows if the reason he's good now is due to his own change, or if some high level cleric used Sanctify the Wicked on him and basically forced it) then even that kind of thing need not be necessary. Disobeying the direct orders would be a chaotic act, but a paladin doesn't fall for a single chaotic act.

The more exalted-deeds way of dealing with the situation would be for the paladin to attack the man with the intent to capture (e.g. use nonlethal) but allow the man to win the fight. If the man is truly reformed, he won't kill the paladin. If he does kill the paladin, well, thats what the Risen Martyr PrC is for.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-10, 03:33 PM
About the Murder, if he was truly penitent. He would go with the paladin to atone for his crimes and face justice. Having a life with children and a wife and a new way of life, is not just for the victims of your crimes. Threatening the paladin with the idea that he will try force the paladins hand, so he can gain sympathy goes to show he hasn't changed his ways at all. The paladin would have to bring him to justice.

About the White Dragon and the kobolds. The Paladin in question already fell by the time the Kobolds made the attempt to enlist the groupds help. The paladin already violated his Code. He made the deal with the White Dragon. A knowingly Evil creature. He knows the dragon, or should know, is evil. It's in his nature. Therefore he couldn't deal with it at all. He would have to have tried to slay it, or bring it to justice. somehow. Just because he said he would leave the area, doesn't mean he wouldn't kill innocent people or creatures later on. Furthermore. He wouldn't fall if he knowingly helped the kobolds anyway. They proved that they threatened and committed crimes that killed and injured innocent people.

Malrone
2013-04-10, 03:43 PM
About the Murder, if he was truly penitent. He would go with the paladin to atone for his crimes and face justice. Having a life with children and a wife and a new way of life, is not just for the victims of your crimes. Threatening the paladin with the idea that he will try force the paladins hand, so he can gain sympathy goes to show he hasn't changed his ways at all. The paladin would have to bring him to justice.

Something like this. Being a [Good] person in D&D is challenging to a great extent in any game that isn't Hack&Slash. The way I would handle it? Tell the man that his past crimes have yet to be absolved, but that the option is open. Tell him you will take him to your Order, where you will plead his case beside him, and hopefully he'll get an Atonement and not a death penalty. You either take the family with (they would also help his case), or leave them a stipend of gold until you can return, for better or for worse.

If he resists? That's the hard part. Fighting him in front of his family is painful to think about, and "fighting" him isn't exactly a Lawful thing to do. Just letting him go would also bring the ire of your Order, presumably. Dilemmas, dilemmas.
EDIT: If he does resist, openly, whatever cover he was hoping to maintain is already blown. Beat him with a cudgel, or if he truly is a threat on my life, skewer him. Once he complies/ cannot resist, cart him off. Mercy stops the moment he turns to violence again.
If he escapes, quietly or otherwise, I think I would have to reveal him to the community. It's for their good as much as his. "Now, which of your hunters can track a beast through these woods?"

Fibinachi
2013-04-10, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the answers to mine - it was pretty much the reasonable, concise answer I expected. Everyone wins?
--
Mr. PsychoKiller:
"That's all nice and good, Sir, but you can atone for your crimes in a jail cell and I will not nor cannot equate the crime of murder with something so reversible as stealing. You murdered clergymen, women and children for sport and pleasure, and no matter the extent of your regret, you are now asking me to either kill you or leave you here.

So ultimately, nothing has changed. You are a still a person inclined to murder, blackmail, lies, deceit, killing, indiscriminate disregard for others and the practice of evil. If you cared about your family, you would have told them about your past, and when I arrived, you would have come with me as a link in your true atonement. Instead, your first impulse is to preserve your own identity by having a "stranger" come to town and "Murder" you, or have me leave, blackmailing me with the possible repercussions of your family and their reputation Your deeds were done. Your victims don't get a second chance because they regret being dead. You are with coming with me. Either now, or in three hours when you sneak out of this town and meet me on the road - after - telling your family everything."
--

Psychokiller murdered people for sport. When given the chance to face justice, he opts for emotional blackmail, attempts at lies and holding his own life hostage instead of trying to help in any meaningful way. He's still evil, and he is lying. If he's not lying, and has atoned, he needs to come face the court and if he does, I'll be right next to him, indicating the need for leniency instead of summary execution.

Further, I don't think I as a paladin would be responsible for the reactions of others to people unrelated to myself (wife, village). I mean, trying to minimize the possible fallout is the best option, but ultimately being held hostage to the responses of others isn't in keeping with a personal code.

If the man is ultimately executed, clearly a part of my income will go to support the widow and the child.

kyoryu
2013-04-10, 04:01 PM
So all he has to do to keep her out of harms way is to break his own code of not having sex before marriage. What is a poor paladin to do?

Ultimately, the paladin is responsible for *his* actions, not *hers*.

While he should obviously do what he can to prevent the poor girl from essentially killing herself, he is responsible for maintaining his vows, and so should remain chaste. He doesn't *know* (people lie) that she will follow him, he doesn't *know* that she will run into a bad end if she does. Most importantly, it's not his place to remove her free will, so what she does is of *her own will* and, so long as he is very clear about where that road will lead, it is not his place to force her to do what he feels is best.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-10, 04:10 PM
Why would you give your income to the criminal's family. You are under no obligation to do so. If anyone is, it's your superior's responsibility.

Which brings to mind a question. Do paladins get paid? I know they get armor and arms, and money to do what they have to do. I thought that they did what they did for spiritual reasons.

Fibinachi
2013-04-10, 04:30 PM
The operating assumption there was that Mr. Psychokiller and Miss MadMurderer and their lovely little child StabbityMcGee all met and fell in love under circumstances that assumed no one knew that there was a murderer among them.

It's not an obligation (obviously), but "The criminals family" have done no wrong. And taking away one part of a family unit (either to jail or execution) thus resulting in the other two either suffering through the repercussions of village gossip or starving didn't scream "Good". It'd be easy to avoid, and as a paladin, it'd be little hair of my back. I already save all the money i make off never needing a physician. And any Lich whose domain you bust automatically get all their assets seized by the church, which means there should be plenty of money to share.
--

But that's one of the points with a Paladin, in my opinion.
Do you only do what you're obliged to do?
Or do you do what you're obliged to do, and all the other things as well?

Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

Kyberwulf
2013-04-10, 04:38 PM
I don't know, from the way it sounds. She kind of become the chosen one after awhile. Kind of brings up the question, Which came first the chicken or the egg.

I mean. Yeah started off as a lie. Commoner was just some guy. Then the Church kind of chose them to be the Chosen one. Who knows, since they are doing so well. Who are you to question wither or not Your deity seems to have backed this individual. The Chosen has the backing of the local authority, and apparently the grace of Deity. You as a paladin where not apart of the original lie. However seeing as the Chosen one seems to be Doing well, and is fighting the forces of evil. You can feel good about the chance your Church and deity are backing this guy. So it's not really a false banner.

Amaril
2013-04-10, 05:10 PM
Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

Gather the followers of this Chosen One together and expose the truth to them--and then explain to them why it doesn't matter. Whether this person is the Chosen One or not, they have been leading the people to victory against the evil they face. Tell them not to be disappointed, but to find hope in the knowledge that anyone, not just some special Chosen One, can stand up against the enemy, and to muster their courage and do so themselves. Then fight beside them with honor, as any true paladin would.

dps
2013-04-10, 05:47 PM
Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

I don't see a connundrum. Sounds to me like the church leaders are mistaken, and the commoner really is the Chosen One.

NichG
2013-04-10, 05:49 PM
But that's one of the points with a Paladin, in my opinion.
Do you only do what you're obliged to do?
Or do you do what you're obliged to do, and all the other things as well?


Well this is just the difference between the ones who are merely mediocre paladins (but still qualify as paladins), and ones who are exemplary - the paladinic equivalent of ambitious young go-getters. The paladins who don't do more than they're obliged to do when given the opportunity are missing the point, but they're still doing good. The ones who go out of the way to help everyone they can are the real shining examples though, the heroes of the set.

Not being perfect isn't against the code, and not everyone has the wisdom or ability to make it happily ever after for everyone who crosses their path. But if you can do it, its better than not.



Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

This'd be a matter of faith though. I mean, lets say the Chosen One actually pulls it off. Then they're basically the Chosen One even if they're just a commoner. They did what was prophecied to happen, and thats that. As a Paladin in that situation, I'd have to decide - is there really deception going on here, or is the Church just wrong?

Under that argument, the thing to do is to strive to make the apparent lie true. Or failing that, investigate the matter - find out if you can find the real Chosen One, discover what's really going on. A paladin is not obliged to destroy lies wherever they are found - evil, yes, but not lies. They must act with honor, and they cannot themselves lie, but they can be thoughtful, investigate things, get more information, and make judgements on the wise course of action to take. Even beyond that, they can avoid putting themselves in situations where they must either lie or destroy something important - e.g. the paladin can recuse himself from the crusade and fight evil elsewhere or in other ways.

Lorsa
2013-04-10, 05:50 PM
In a modern society they would absolutely lock someone up for stalking another person. In a medieval society I would expect people to generally do what a paladin says, although it might take a bribe or two depending on the situation. I was, prefer, assuming an independent woman, in a more medieval world her family or local lord would probably have a vested interest in the girl not running away with some wandering of, and wold likely take care of it for me if made aware of the situation.

I do think your solution would work, if you add in the bribes. Her father might be able to interfere of course, except that she is a rather independant woman who would sneak off away from him.

In a modern society there has to be some actual stalking first, which there hasn't been.

Also, you need to consider the fact that the paladin is actually attracted to her. Why else would he spend time talking to her in the first place? Or not simply say "I'm not interested, go away"?

TuggyNE
2013-04-10, 05:55 PM
Gather the followers of this Chosen One together and expose the truth to them--and then explain to them why it doesn't matter. Whether this person is the Chosen One or not, they have been leading the people to victory against the evil they face. Tell them not to be disappointed, but to find hope in the knowledge that anyone, not just some special Chosen One, can stand up against the enemy, and to muster their courage and do so themselves. Then fight beside them with honor, as any true paladin would.

"You are Spartacus"?

kyoryu
2013-04-10, 06:19 PM
I do think your solution would work, if you add in the bribes. Her father might be able to interfere of course, except that she is a rather independant woman who would sneak off away from him.

In a modern society there has to be some actual stalking first, which there hasn't been.

Also, you need to consider the fact that the paladin is actually attracted to her. Why else would he spend time talking to her in the first place? Or not simply say "I'm not interested, go away"?

Yeah. I find it a little weird how many people think that "Lawful Good" means "beating the hell out of people that don't do what I think they should, even though they've shown no tendency for harm to others, or otherwise physically coercing them into doing what I think they should."

As I said before, the Paladin is responsible for *his* actions, not *hers*. However, in that situation, knowing that she wasn't going to be driven off, what would probably be the right thing to do would be to arm and armor her, and at least teach her a little bit of how to fight, combined with a very strong order to get to safety if danger occurred.

Talakeal
2013-04-10, 07:23 PM
I do think your solution would work, if you add in the bribes. Her father might be able to interfere of course, except that she is a rather independent woman who would sneak off away from him.

In a modern society there has to be some actual stalking first, which there hasn't been.

Also, you need to consider the fact that the paladin is actually attracted to her. Why else would he spend time talking to her in the first place? Or not simply say "I'm not interested, go away"?

Maybe I am just looking at this from a different perspective than you are. I think you (and your players) saw it as a romantic love at first sight sort of situation. However, I don't think the word love appears in your original post, just sex, sex, sex.

The image I got from the post was less a naive girl recklessly following her heart and more the town strumpet trying to validate her lifestyle by converting a former icon of chastity over to her side and then being vindictive and obstinate when it doesn't go her way.

If the paladin is attracted to her (any saying that he must be if he spent the time to talk to her in the first place is a bit of a stretch) then this is a much more interesting conundrum, one that I have had myself more than a few times (and strangely enough whenever I ask for advice about it on this forum I am told the solution is to keep her in a portable whole with an ion stone for the rest of her life and only take her out when it is sexy time :smallconfused:) but the impression I got was something more along the lines of:

Strange guy goes up to a pretty girl he hardly knows and demands sex, and tells her he will follow her everywhere she goes until she caves in, only with the genders reversed so it seems less creepy than it is.


Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

Actively participating in such a deception would be, imo, a breach of the paladin's honor. But at this point it is pretty obvious that the "chosen one" is just that, "mere commoner" or not, and so I don't see any reason to get involved one way or another unless the "chosen one" starts acting towards a cause I wouldn't approve of.

Scow2
2013-04-10, 07:47 PM
This is very true. Paladins can have varying attitudes to the imperfections of others, and there's no need for them to get worked up about them, so long as they're not doing real evil.



Rehabilitation requiring multiple high-level spells seems, frankly, pretty unreasonable.

Also, the notion that a serial killer can be rehabilitated is slightly ridiculous even in the modern world. In a medieval-flavored fantasy world, harsh justice for the victims seems like the Lawful Good option to me.The modern world lacks the miracles of the D&D world. We have no Modify Memory, Atonement, or Sanctify the Wicked. Only one spell is required - Atonement. The "Change a person's alignment" function will completely change a person's outlook on morality, allowing them to bury the demons of their past. If someone receives the Redemption function of an Atonement spell to change their alignment to Good, the vile acts of their history are dismissed and expunged in the eyes of the Seven Mounting Heavens and all Good-aligned deities - far higher authorities than any mortal law. There is no need for further retributions against someone who has received an atonement from a cleric and deity acknowledged and respected by local laws.

However, Atonement does have a lot of restrictions for who it can be used on: It simply won't work on someone crying crocodile tears, and even if the person does genuinely seek atonement, he must make his case strong enough to a powerful enough cleric to risk sponsoring the man (Which costs 500 XP, a fifth level daily spell slot, and requires the priest to have a 500 GP focus - not an inconsiderable investment)

It is not unreasonable to assume that being accepted into a new church in spite of his history included an Atonement for his past - Given my own religious background, I'd figure that's Standard Operating Procedure for new converts.

Of course, if the man hadn't received an Atonement (But indicates that he does qualify for it), the Paladin has the option to see the man receiving his atonement - McPsycho has left enough destruction and misery to other's lives in his history. Destroying more lives will only make the problem worse.

I'm assuming the man's isn't a haughty attempt at Blackmail, but more an attempt to protect the innocent lives of his family and community.


This depends entirely if you think the sentence for crimes are entirely there to punish or to rehabilitate. Or a mix of the two. For my own part, you don't just get to say you're all good now and get let off. Even if it is true, the criminal still has to pay the price he racked up.For a Lawful Blind person, maybe. But this mindset takes a huge dump on one of the strongest tenants of Good: namely, Mercy.


Pretty much, yeah. The paladin code has so many tenants, many of which are unrelated, that unless you are extremely powerful and clever you will eventually find a no win situation. You wil fall, but you can atone.Actually, the Paladin Code DOESN'T have a lot of tenants. A lot of people just read too much into it. Seriously - it's just a paragraph or two. Also, a Paladin only falls if it: A) Commits an Evil act, B) GROSSLY violates his code of conduct (Minor infractions and exceptions are permissable, though they start chipping away at his Lawful alignment), or C) Fail to maintain a Lawful Good alignment (Too many infractions indicates a nonlawful mindset)

For example, a Paladin would not fall by lying to protect a criminal in the manner the Bishop (even though it's more cleric behavior) in Les Miserables did. (The exchange following that being an iconic narrative instance of the function of the Atonement spell)

Talakeal
2013-04-10, 07:57 PM
Actually, the Paladin Code DOESN'T have a lot of tenants. A lot of people just read too much into it. Seriously - it's just a paragraph or two. Also, a Paladin only falls if it: A) Commits an Evil act, B) GROSSLY violates his code of conduct (Minor infractions and exceptions are permissible, though they start chipping away at his Lawful alignment), or C) Fail to maintain a Lawful Good alignment (Too many infractions indicates a non lawful mindset)

For example, a Paladin would not fall by lying to protect a criminal in the manner the Bishop (even though it's more cleric behavior) in Les Miserables did. (The exchange following that being an iconic narrative instance of the function of the Atonement spell)

The paladin code isn't long, but it includes a lot of things, often giving no more than a word or two as a definition. Depending on how you want to split them up there are about 11 different parts to the code*, which is explained in only six lines of text.

You do bring up an interesting point about requiring a gross violation to fall. But then, I must ask, what are the consequences, if any, of ignoring the code about minor day to day activities? Pure RAW would indicate that it is impossible, stating that a paladin MUST follow their code, and that they simply lack the free will to do otherwise. This is, of course, ridiculous, but there is no middle ground. We are told the paladin MUST follow the code, and that they fall is they GROSSLY violate the code, but are given no information about what happens if they do not violate the code in a non gross manner.

*As I count them:
Be lawful good.
Respect legitimate authority.
Don't commit evil acts.
Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Aid those in need.
Do not associate with evil characters.
Do not lie.
Do not cheat.
Do not use poison.
Act with honor.
Do not accept non LG cohorts or followers.



For a Lawful Blind person, maybe. But this mindset takes a huge dump on one of the strongest tenants of Good: namely, Mercy.


I don't actually see mercy in the PHB description of the good alignment. I do see it state that a LG character hates to see the guilty go unpunished and that Alhandra fights evil WITHOUT mercy and is therefore an exemplar of the LG alignment. Further the paladin's code says you must punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

BoED might say something about mercy, but then again it also says it is an evil act to allow an evil outsider to exist, therefore I doubt it.


Note that I am not saying I agree with the draconian description of paladins presented in the PHB, I am just stating my interpretation of RAW.

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 11:17 PM
The paladin code is clear, you must punish him. By RAW there is no statue of limitations or redemption clause. If he is genuinely good you will fall either way, but that is what atonement is for.

Er, why? How is being Good-aligned a free pass for your crimes, and how is delivering righteous justice to someone who now happens to be Good-aligned a strong violation of the code or an evil act?

Talakeal
2013-04-10, 11:44 PM
Er, why? How is being Good-aligned a free pass for your crimes, and how is delivering righteous justice to someone who now happens to be Good-aligned a strong violation of the code or an evil act?

You are correct. Upon closer reading I take that back. Executing someone for serious crimes is, according to the BoED, a neutral act, not an evil one, regardless of the current alignment of the perpetrator.

Offering mercy and allowing them to repent is, however, a good act, and a paladin who was trying to be as "good" as possible would come into conflict with the tenent of the paladin code that requires them to punish those who harm innocents.

On a side note, someone who cares about punishing crimes is acting as an agent of law rather than good, and I would not call such a character particularly righteous. The BoED seems to treat execution as a neccessary evil (with a small e) and not a good act unless the target is an evil outsider.

Coidzor
2013-04-11, 12:55 AM
Well, or they're just a horny girl and you happen to be a very strong and charismatic knightly man.

And as she was a very adventurous merchant-daughter rogue, she would most definitely come with you and keep tempting you "oh, I am so cold tonight, it's freezing *shuddering*, can you please keep me warm while I skeep?".

The player made sure she had a crossbow and told her to stay far away from danger. Didn't really work out that way though...

Harassment and coercion make it darker, even though most people wouldn't notice it until it was a man trying to pressure a woman into having sex with him. Ah, double standards.

Dienekes
2013-04-11, 01:01 AM
For a Lawful Blind person, maybe. But this mindset takes a huge dump on one of the strongest tenants of Good: namely, Mercy.

Which is why I advocate making sure that his family is provided for, and would agree to speak on his behalf that he has been rehabilitated. Very merciful, given the circumstances.

You don't just get off murder because "you're good now." The family of his victims also deserve the mercy to know that justice has happened, that the person who destroyed their loved ones is no longer in a position to do it again. Because to me, just as strong a tenant of good as Mercy is Responsibility. Now I'm not sure if it's in the handbook or not, and I don't care. But without personal responsibility for your actions, I don't see how someone can be Good. The man needs to take responsibility for his actions and so I would attempt to make it so in the least destructive way possible.

For the record, though I made the comparison before of Jean Valjean, this isn't someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving nephew. This is a murderer, a mass-murderer. In this instance I'd say Javert is in the right.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-11, 01:07 AM
Er, why? How is being Good-aligned a free pass for your crimes, and how is delivering righteous justice to someone who now happens to be Good-aligned a strong violation of the code or an evil act?

It is not, and that's why the Paladin really can't fall in this situation. In fact, the Paladin's code and alignment is exceptionally clear on this issue: The law must be followed.

Allowing a serial killer, someone who has harmed countless of innocents, go free is a gross violation of the Paladin's code. Following his orders is perfectly in line with both Lawful Good alignment and the Paladin's code, and is not an evil act.

But as said, the Paladin doesn't need to be a jerk about it.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-11, 01:09 AM
Is this possible? Can such a choice be put before a paladin, one where there is only wrong answers?

Yes; search Wikipedia for Morton's Fork and Catch 22. It's possible for any character to end in a situation where there are only bad choices.

However, the question posed is not a Morton's Fork. As noted, the situation is actually perfectly clear of what the Paladin must, and is allowed to do.

Coidzor
2013-04-11, 01:19 AM
Which brings to mind a question. Do paladins get paid? I know they get armor and arms, and money to do what they have to do. I thought that they did what they did for spiritual reasons.

I believe that depends upon the setting, really, and their flavor. Some might have commissions, others might draw an allowance from their order/patron/church, and still others might be freelance do-gooders or independently wealthy.

If a paladin is working as an officer of the law, then in general he's probably receiving some form of compensation, even if it's only covering of expenses or a trade of favors.

theNater
2013-04-11, 01:35 AM
Er, why? How is being Good-aligned a free pass for your crimes, and how is delivering righteous justice to someone who now happens to be Good-aligned a strong violation of the code or an evil act?

Offering mercy and allowing them to repent is, however, a good act, and a paladin who was trying to be as "good" as possible would come into conflict with the tenent of the paladin code that requires them to punish those who harm innocents.
The paladin is required to punish those who harm innocents, not execute them. There is no conflict if the paladin finds some nonlethal form of punishment. A paladin absolutely should not give the guy a free pass, but there are waaaaay more options than "free pass" and "death sentence".

Hyena
2013-04-11, 02:21 AM
Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

I do care about the morale of troops, but the paladin code needs to be upheld, so I tell soldiers the truth - this guy is the chosen one, and he will lead people to victory. Because come on, when a simple commoner without military training or knowledge of tactics suddenly gives the Dark Lords armies a nasty smackdown, even I start to believe he is the chosen one. And I don't believe in fate.

Hyena
2013-04-11, 02:27 AM
Conundrum:

Your church finds a Chosen One, who leads multiple straggling soldiers into great victory. Said Choosen one is becoming a rallying point for the people against the Dark Lord of Darkness, who has otherwise been running rampant over the country side. You are a paladin of some renown, and the last many years have been one long desperate struggle. At this point, your church lets you in on a secret: The Chosen One is actually just a commoner. Oh, I mean, really lucky commoner, sure, but still just a commoner, and the rallying and hope and everything is just one long con in an attempt to starve off defeat.

Are you obliged to continue a lie, lend your abilities to a crusade and help people rally under a false banner?

So. Some guy, a commoner, without a military training or knowledge of tactics, leads his troops through a couple of major battles and gives a nasty smackdown to the armies of the Dark Lord? Well, I tell people the truth - they deserve to know he really IS the Chosen One. And I don't even believe in fate. Because come on, doing such sort of thing requires either tactical genius, or being a messiah. And I don't see Creed nearby.
Oh, and I also hire some teachers for the guy without telling him about the scam. He deserves to know tactics.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-11, 03:15 AM
If someone receives the Redemption function of an Atonement spell to change their alignment to Good, the vile acts of their history are dismissed and expunged in the eyes of the Seven Mounting Heavens and all Good-aligned deities - far higher authorities than any mortal law. There is no need for further retributions against someone who has received an atonement from a cleric and deity acknowledged and respected by local laws.


This is wrong. Even if your spiritual responsibility is removed, your material responsibility doesn't go away. Even if you no longer need to answer to gods, you still need to answer to other people. The jurisdictions of Heaven and whatever mortal law are, frankly, different. Your final destination in life after has zero bearing on your final destination in life here.

If anything, atoned Mr. Psycho should be able to face his execution with dignity, knowing that he has nore more debts to pay after this world.

There is a direct parallel in real life, where those sentenced to execution receive last supper and are offered absolution. They are still executed, because religious authorities acknowledge the retributive need of people needs to be adressed.

EDIT:
The paladin is required to punish those who harm innocents, not execute them. There is no conflict if the paladin finds some nonlethal form of punishment. A paladin absolutely should not give the guy a free pass, but there are waaaaay more options than "free pass" and "death sentence".

In this case, the Paladin's orders were to execute him / bring him to execution. He can still do just that, provided it was legitimate authority who ordered the execution.

People, remember that while Paladin is paragon of Good, he must still also be Lawful, and more importantly, his code makes him essentially into a police officer. Any choice that would not be kosher for a police officer is not so for a Paladin either. Paladin can't act in way that trivializes the Law or his code when the right way of action is clear, like in this case. It would be a gross violation of his code.

Regarding the "false" messiah: It's perfectly okay for the Paladin to express his disbelief in this commoner's messianity, and he should chastize thhe clergy for employing such deception. However, at this point, the commoner is an esteemed military commander already. There would be no point in doing anything more. If asked, the Paladin can reply "he's not the Messiah. Still a good fellow though". That's all.

Rhynn
2013-04-11, 04:08 AM
On a side note, someone who cares about punishing crimes is acting as an agent of law rather than good, and I would not call such a character particularly righteous. The BoED seems to treat execution as a neccessary evil (with a small e) and not a good act unless the target is an evil outsider.

Plenty of paladins are, in fact, agents of Law. In the Forgotten Realms, for instance, paladins of Helm, Torm, and Tyr (the classic paladin deities) are all agents of Law (DUTY, Duty, and Justice, respectively), and trying to balance it with Good, rather than doing Good. A Paladin of Tyr absolutely might see it as more right to execute a serial killer.

Of course, paladins of Lathander and Ilmater, for instance, are agents of Good over Law, and would probably rather see the serial killer redeemed.


The paladin is required to punish those who harm innocents, not execute them. There is no conflict if the paladin finds some nonlethal form of punishment. A paladin absolutely should not give the guy a free pass, but there are waaaaay more options than "free pass" and "death sentence".

Like the ones I presented in my original answer to the question!


If anything, atoned Mr. Psycho should be able to face his execution with dignity, knowing that he has nore more debts to pay after this world.

Agreed, although not always. A Lawful Good atoned killer would probably be most likely to go along with being executed, but others might, too. "I'll pay for my sins here and go to my reward for having atoned" seems reasonable. A Chaotic Good atoned killer might think that making personal amends to the people who were close to his victims


Seriously, though, 5th-level spells (especially with XP costs, like atonement for willful acts) as standard or preferred answers to moral dilemmas rubs me the wrong way and hard. If your world is lousy with people coming back from the dead, great, but it's not really an assumed standard, especially outside 3E.

Actually, if the killer is getting atoned, why didn't the victims get raised? If they did, that seems to rather take the moral punch out of the whole thing... seems to me like such a society would just expect the killer to pay blood-money (to cover the cost of raise dead and as restitution).

Moreb Benhk
2013-04-11, 04:14 AM
The paladin is required to punish those who harm innocents, not execute them. There is no conflict if the paladin finds some nonlethal form of punishment. A paladin absolutely should not give the guy a free pass, but there are waaaaay more options than "free pass" and "death sentence".

You are presuming that a non-lethal form of punishment can surely be found. The behind-the-scenes moral weighing involves things like 'what is a human life worth?'. In failing to execute the serial-killer as he is legally mandated, the paladin may be inadvertently declaring that the lives of his victims (and those affected in their families) are somehow worth less.

Many people seem to be of the opinion that fulfilling his mandated duties is a Lawful-as-opposed-to-Good act. I disagree. I think it's a Lawful-as-opposed-to-Chaotic act. Whether its LG, LN or LE depends on how he carries his duty out.

I'd think the LN way would be to locate and execute the criminal in the most expeditious way possible, with no regard for any side-effects. Duty is duty.

I'd think the LE way would be to perform the execution in a way that draws out the suffering the criminal, and possibly of those he cared about, to the extent that it doesn't violate the mandate. Something like dragging him before the local community, naming and shaming in a way that reflects poorly on the family, and a public bloody execution. Let fear stop people from breaking the law again.

I'd think the LG way would be to fulfill the mandate in the way that leaves minimal collateral damage. Mitigation of shame for innocents. Provisions being made for an absent father, possibly fostering by the church. Giving the man time to make necessary arrangements himself. Potentially there could be a willingness to bring him before the higher authorities for an appeal, but depending on extenuating circumstances that may not actually be appropriate. If the criminal has truly repented then he will understand the need for justice for the gravity of his offenses.

Additionally, there is the whole thing of the afterlife. Perhaps justice needs to be met for this fellow to be able to depart to heaven or the equivalent? Might that not be a factor to be concidered?

Malrone
2013-04-11, 04:39 AM
Here was a situation presented in another, past debate about paladin morality-

Mr. Righteous the Paladin is the hero of the story. He has fought, with various allies (stalwart and circumstantial both) against Mr. Despicable the Blackguard, who has been leading a campaign of terror and bloodshed across the land. On a few occasions, they have met in combat, but each time before Mr. Righteous was personally bested. As it happens, the Paladin is now acting in the defense of a town the villain has attacked; the guardians are beginning to falter and damage is accruing quickly. Mr. Righteous, now sure -with the aid of divination- that he is capable of besting Mr. Despicable in a straight fight, seeks him out personally. However, when the paladin finds him, Mr. Despicable has collected some innocent hostages outside the city walls in a special ritual circle that is recognized to capable of trapping souls. The situation is explained to Mr. Righteous: Surrender, or the hostages bite the big one.

Not my situation, exactly, and any similarities to other fantasy works claim defense by TV Tropes

[Edit] Note: This situation was first presented as a situation in which the poster felt the Paladin would always fall.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-11, 04:49 AM
It might not be what's the most noble or heroic. The paladin should let the hostages die. He has to take out the bigger threat. Being the Big Bad Evil guy. He will most likely not stop even after said town, and hostages die. There is also no guarantee that the Paladin will survive the encounter if he surrenders.
Besides, divine providence seems to indicate that it's the right choice. Being the divination he got before said he would win the encounter. Paladin man should trust that his cause and actions are just and being back by the divine.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-11, 05:36 AM
The moral onus for killing the innocents lies on the Blackguard, not the Paladin. Meanwhile, the Paladin's code dictates he must punish those who harm or threaten the innocent, something he knows he can do in this situation.

So the Paladin ought to fight, and choosing to fight should not make him fall.

Either way, the Paladin has roughly 0 reasons to trust Mr. Blackguard on his offer. Chances are Mr. Blackguard will killl the hostages anyway. This is the kind of scenario where you don't negotiate with terrorists. So even if the deed causes the Paladin to fall, fighting is the right choice!

Seriously. These kinds of Morton's Fork are why the atonement card exists. There is a clear course of action the Paladin needs to take, whether he falls or not is not relevant!

Moreb Benhk
2013-04-11, 05:48 AM
So even if the deed causes the Paladin to fall, fighting is the right choice!

Seriously. These kinds of Morton's Fork are why the atonement card exists. There is a clear course of action the Paladin needs to take, whether he falls or not is not relevant!

I'd even go further. In this case there is a clear course of action which the (misc) Paladin's Code demands he take. Ideally, if possible, he can simultaneously enact a side solution to save the trapped townspeople, but he's not responsible to prevent any bad thing from happening, he's responsible to stop the bad guy. Plus he can always go on a quest to rescue any trapped souls. But not because he is guilty for their demise, but because that's what he does.

hamishspence
2013-04-11, 06:16 AM
This is wrong. Even if your spiritual responsibility is removed, your material responsibility doesn't go away. Even if you no longer need to answer to gods, you still need to answer to other people.

Fiendish Codex 2 suggests that for more serious Evil acts, you need the atonement spell, and, you need to apologize to your victims and make personal restitution, to expunge "corruption".

A case could be made that a person who fails to do this (but dies trying) becomes a Hellbred rather than going straight to the Lower Planes.

I see good grounds to say that the spell itself is "not enough".

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-11, 06:33 AM
The whole issue would be easiest to talk in the light of an actual religion that has had to cope with this exact question (hint: it's the one that starts with C.), but that's a no-go, sadly.

Scow2
2013-04-11, 10:24 AM
You are presuming that a non-lethal form of punishment can surely be found. The behind-the-scenes moral weighing involves things like 'what is a human life worth?'. In failing to execute the serial-killer as he is legally mandated, the paladin may be inadvertently declaring that the lives of his victims (and those affected in their families) are somehow worth less. It's not claiming the lives of the murdered are worth less. The "Let him go" stance is that two wrongs don't make a right - In a similar situation, if someone destroys your life savings, and so in retaliation you destroy theirs in the name of justice, now nobody has any money, and there's no way for him to pay you back for the damage he's done to you. The relatives of the murdered may cry for blood, but that's Vengeance speaking, not Justice.


Here was a situation presented in another, past debate about paladin morality-

Mr. Righteous the Paladin is the hero of the story. He has fought, with various allies (stalwart and circumstantial both) against Mr. Despicable the Blackguard, who has been leading a campaign of terror and bloodshed across the land. On a few occasions, they have met in combat, but each time before Mr. Righteous was personally bested. As it happens, the Paladin is now acting in the defense of a town the villain has attacked; the guardians are beginning to falter and damage is accruing quickly. Mr. Righteous, now sure -with the aid of divination- that he is capable of besting Mr. Despicable in a straight fight, seeks him out personally. However, when the paladin finds him, Mr. Despicable has collected some innocent hostages outside the city walls in a special ritual circle that is recognized to capable of trapping souls. The situation is explained to Mr. Righteous: Surrender, or the hostages bite the big one.

Not my situation, exactly, and any similarities to other fantasy works claim defense by TV Tropes

[Edit] Note: This situation was first presented as a situation in which the poster felt the Paladin would always fall.The paladin would not fall by refusing to surrender to the blackguard - Even if the Blackguard stayed true to his word (Which there's no guarantee for), the day would be lost, and he would commit greater evil. By choosing to fight the blackguard, the blood of the innocent is on the Blackguard, not Paladin's, head.

However, if the situation was "Let the Blackguard Escape" vs "Rescue the innocents through my own acts", the issue becomes murkier, and requires a judgement call over which whether stopping the villain at this moment is a greater good than saving the innocents.

Hyena
2013-04-11, 10:27 AM
Don't DnD rulebooks specifically say there is no greater good for paladin and evil act is evil, no matter what?

theNater
2013-04-11, 10:30 AM
You do bring up an interesting point about requiring a gross violation to fall. But then, I must ask, what are the consequences, if any, of ignoring the code about minor day to day activities?
Regularly making minor violations of a code one has agreed to uphold(which the character has tacitly done by becoming a paladin) is non-lawful behavior. If such minor violations are standard operating procedure for the character, they will lose their lawful alignment, at which point they will fall.

This is wrong. Even if your spiritual responsibility is removed, your material responsibility doesn't go away. Even if you no longer need to answer to gods, you still need to answer to other people. The jurisdictions of Heaven and whatever mortal law are, frankly, different. Your final destination in life after has zero bearing on your final destination in life here.

If anything, atoned Mr. Psycho should be able to face his execution with dignity, knowing that he has nore more debts to pay after this world.

There is a direct parallel in real life, where those sentenced to execution receive last supper and are offered absolution. They are still executed, because religious authorities acknowledge the retributive need of people needs to be adressed.
Just a heads up: the quote to which this is a response is incorrectly attributed to me.

In this case, the Paladin's orders were to execute him / bring him to execution. He can still do just that, provided it was legitimate authority who ordered the execution.
Disobeying an order given by someone with bad or incomplete information isn't a gross violation of the code, even if they are a legitimate authority.

Like the ones I presented in my original answer to the question!
There have been a number of alternative punishments suggested, but the main thread of the discussion seems to have been pulled away from them. That's all I was indicating.

You are presuming that a non-lethal form of punishment can surely be found. The behind-the-scenes moral weighing involves things like 'what is a human life worth?'. In failing to execute the serial-killer as he is legally mandated, the paladin may be inadvertently declaring that the lives of his victims (and those affected in their families) are somehow worth less.
The paladin code, which is what is being discussed here, does not specify the nature of the punishment the paladin must mete out. It is proper to make the punishment fit the situation, but this situation includes a criminal with an apparently sincere desire to repent. Treating this criminal the same as one who is unrepentant is just as bad as ignoring the severity of the crimes in question.

Additionally, there is the whole thing of the afterlife. Perhaps justice needs to be met for this fellow to be able to depart to heaven or the equivalent? Might that not be a factor to be concidered?
I suspect a punishment that allows the criminal to do good works for the rest of his natural life will be more helpful in that regard than a simple execution.

hamishspence
2013-04-11, 10:53 AM
Don't DnD rulebooks specifically say there is no greater good for paladin and evil act is evil, no matter what?

BoED does say that certain acts are Evil and can't be changed to Neutral no matter the "justification" - so does BoVD, in the case of, for example, soul-damaging or soul-destroying.

However, many acts, like "violence" don't fall into that category.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-11, 11:00 AM
Don't DnD rulebooks specifically say there is no greater good for paladin and evil act is evil, no matter what?

There is a greater good, but the act itself is still evil. It says that in BoED.


The intent is to prevent Paladins from committing atrocities and rules-lawyering (morality-lawyering?) their way out of falling. So they can't, say, burn down an orphanage and say it's Good because it's reducing the surplus population. If you do an Evil act, you fall.

It's also a defense for pushover DMs who would otherwise let their Paladin players get away with those kinds of shenanigans.

Malrone
2013-04-11, 11:05 AM
"Letting the Blackguard Escape" might very well have been the originally posited situation. As it stands, if the Paladin could have divined that he was the likely winner in a melee, there is nothing preventing the Blackguard from also having that knowledge.

Alternatively, we could all be asking-
What Would Miko Do? :miko:

Hyena
2013-04-11, 11:06 AM
Miko would surrender to the blackguard and attack him in the very second the hostages are out of his range.

Rhynn
2013-04-11, 12:38 PM
Miko would surrender to the blackguard and attack him in the very second the hostages are out of his range.

That's a perfectly good outcome, but it doesn't seem very likely. It requires the paladin to be stupid and assume that the blackguard will be stupid...

That sort of situation works fine in a story (movie, book, whatever), because everyone can hold the Idiot Ball when they need to. In a tabletop game, however...


It's not claiming the lives of the murdered are worth less. The "Let him go" stance is that two wrongs don't make a right - In a similar situation, if someone destroys your life savings, and so in retaliation you destroy theirs in the name of justice, now nobody has any money, and there's no way for him to pay you back for the damage he's done to you. The relatives of the murdered may cry for blood, but that's Vengeance speaking, not Justice.

That's your stance on capital punishment, though. Paladins, clerics, the people of the world, gods, and cosmic forces of Law and Good may disagree, in the gameworld. Much of fantasy does use the whole theme of "just death" (like, say, Narnia, LotR, and Arthurian myth).

In most fantasy and D&D in particular, it seems to me, there's different kinds of killing (leaving "murder" as a matter of law rather than morals), some just/good and some unjust/evil (and some neither in particular - neutral).

In the specific instance of a redeemed killer, it's murkier, obviously, but not because "killing is always wrong" (which is not an objective truth in game worlds, IMO, and definitely not subjectively held as a truth everywhere).

NichG
2013-04-11, 01:11 PM
Here was a situation presented in another, past debate about paladin morality-

Mr. Righteous the Paladin is the hero of the story. He has fought, with various allies (stalwart and circumstantial both) against Mr. Despicable the Blackguard, who has been leading a campaign of terror and bloodshed across the land. On a few occasions, they have met in combat, but each time before Mr. Righteous was personally bested. As it happens, the Paladin is now acting in the defense of a town the villain has attacked; the guardians are beginning to falter and damage is accruing quickly. Mr. Righteous, now sure -with the aid of divination- that he is capable of besting Mr. Despicable in a straight fight, seeks him out personally. However, when the paladin finds him, Mr. Despicable has collected some innocent hostages outside the city walls in a special ritual circle that is recognized to capable of trapping souls. The situation is explained to Mr. Righteous: Surrender, or the hostages bite the big one.

Not my situation, exactly, and any similarities to other fantasy works claim defense by TV Tropes

[Edit] Note: This situation was first presented as a situation in which the poster felt the Paladin would always fall.

Neither choice of action should cause a fall in this case, though clearly they say very different things about the character in detail and what they value. Just because you let the Blackguard go here and now doesn't mean you can't get him later (although surviving your surrender might be tricky unless you're clever about it, but I'm going to assume the paladin is capable of such cleverness and its not just a fake option where everyone dies).

In the long run though, I think a Paladin who says 'screw the hostages, I'm taking out the blackguard' is walking a more dangerous line. Its one thing to weigh two sets of lives and make a difficult choice, and another thing entirely to stop looking for the third path and make (other people into) sacrifices that could have been prevented.

Its not far from 'I had no choice' to 'I could not see another choice' to 'theres never another choice so I didn't bother to look', at which point you're at high risk of a fall. If for example the hostage situation didn't have the war background, so letting the blackguard go just means the blackguard goes free, then its tending towards a violation of 'help those in need' if you just say 'kill em, I'm here for you!'. You can always kill the blackguard later, but you can't as easily fix the deaths.

If it goes as far from the original scenario as the blackguard e.g. taking a human shield and the paladin stabbing the blackguard through the human shield, we're into straight out evil acts.

So while neither of the original suggested pathways would cause a fall, a paladin shouldn't get too comfortable about the choice.

Edit:

As far as the whole execution thing, another option the paladin has is to leave whatever organization ordered them to execute the man. A paladin must respect legitimate authority, but generally speaking church hierarchies don't actually have the authority to order a lay-person to do, well, anything. A paladin who wanted to save the man's life could as easily argue that the church does not actually have authority over the man as he is now a member of another church, and so he must be extradited.

Someone who doesn't have to maintain a lawful alignment has a lot of options, but lawful characters have a big set of other options - that is, be a lawyer about it. For a sufficiently broad set of laws, its pretty easy to find some support for nearly anything the paladin wants to do in the situation. Think of a character like Sam Vimes from Discworld - clearly lawful good, but willing to use every bit of the law to its fullest as his tool to make the outcome good, rather than someone who is eternally paranoid about minor violations.

Rhynn
2013-04-11, 03:03 PM
In the long run though, I think a Paladin who says 'screw the hostages, I'm taking out the blackguard' is walking a more dangerous line. Its one thing to weigh two sets of lives and make a difficult choice, and another thing entirely to stop looking for the third path and make (other people into) sacrifices that could have been prevented.

I personally prefer paladins who always look for "the third choice," which is going to be harder, but is more "pure." "Hahaha, you're going to have to choose between saving Him or Her!" "I'll do both!"

And sometimes, this fails, but failing does not mean falling. Characters should fail - recovering from and overcoming failures is what good characters do, and it can drive great stories.


As far as the whole execution thing, another option the paladin has is to leave whatever organization ordered them to execute the man.

That's a tricky one. It might work fine - especially in more by-the-book 3E. But in a lot of D&D settings, your code of honor is derived from an organization - a knightly order, a militant order within a faith, etc. - and abandoning the organization means abandoning your oaths, and thus breaking your code, which makes you fall. (Of course, sometimes, an action that causes a paladin to fall is still morally or ethically right - for the paladin.)

I agree, mind you, that a group that gives a blanket execution order rather than a "bring them back for justice" order is a bit extreme, but, again, I think that fits the Lawful Good Church of Tyr in FR perfectly, and the Lawful Neutral Church of Helm (which has Lawful Good paladins aplenty), too.

Scow2
2013-04-11, 03:56 PM
That's your stance on capital punishment, though. Paladins, clerics, the people of the world, gods, and cosmic forces of Law and Good may disagree, in the gameworld. Much of fantasy does use the whole theme of "just death" (like, say, Narnia, LotR, and Arthurian myth).

In most fantasy and D&D in particular, it seems to me, there's different kinds of killing (leaving "murder" as a matter of law rather than morals), some just/good and some unjust/evil (and some neither in particular - neutral).

In the specific instance of a redeemed killer, it's murkier, obviously, but not because "killing is always wrong" (which is not an objective truth in game worlds, IMO, and definitely not subjectively held as a truth everywhere).This situation is murkier because it implies a great deal of time between the committing of the crimes and the discovery of the criminal - long enough for him to have completely reformed his life, at least.

If the killer was unrepentant, and/or if the crimes were recent enough for him to have not been able to pursue redemption, dragging him back would be muck more clear-cut, as either the man is still a threat or justice is swift enough to deter others from committing his crimes. However, punishing someone who has earnestly sought redemption is just as bad if not worse for the advancement of Lawful Good than having the guilty walk free - Retribution is supposed to prevent people from wading into the deep end of the alignment pool, but stopping someone seeking redemption for past wrongs can send them way deeper into the pit, and instead of dealing with a commoner or rogue who's done wrong in his past, you're dealing with a full-fledged Blackguard.

There are a great number of 'redemption' stories where a person of great evil has turned their back on their past and became paragons of virtue. For a fictional example, because Real Life's not allowed on these boards, is Skyrim's resident "Good" Dragon, Paarthurnax (Who's name literally means "Ambition Overlord Cruelty") When you meet him, he just sits on top of a mountain meditating about what is best for the world, but he was the Big Bad's treacherous lieutenant before that. Does he need to be brought to justice for his crimes of so long ago, despite what he became (He has never been punished)

Malrone
2013-04-11, 04:15 PM
Does he need to be brought to justice for his crimes of so long ago, despite what he became (He has never been punished)

The Blades and Miko agree: Being an 'evil' dragon is simply unacceptable! He was responsible for pain and terror, and no amount of being cause for humanity's survival can change that.

Hyena
2013-04-11, 04:28 PM
Paarthurnax
You know, what differs him from the serial killer we are talking about? When Paarthurnax turned good, he did not simply flee from his old life, hide on the top of some mountain and live there without ever facing responsibility for his actions.
Instead, he
taught humans the ways of the Voice, became a mentor to the Dragonborn, who was on his quest to save the world at the time and basically gave a known member of the dragon-killing order Joor Zah Frul, the Dragonrend, the weapon that is created for killing dragons. Which Paarthurnax is.
Oh, and he wasn't too yellow to fight Alduin on his own.

We're talking about the guy, who earned his redemption, unlike some serial killers hiding from the law behind their families.

NichG
2013-04-11, 04:31 PM
I personally prefer paladins who always look for "the third choice," which is going to be harder, but is more "pure." "Hahaha, you're going to have to choose between saving Him or Her!" "I'll do both!"

And sometimes, this fails, but failing does not mean falling. Characters should fail - recovering from and overcoming failures is what good characters do, and it can drive great stories.


Yeah, finding the third path is really what all paladins should ideally be striving for, pass or fail. Paladins are supposed to be exemplars to everyone, showing a way to live that they might have rejected or believe is impossible. But its also understandable that paladins, as mere mortals too, don't always find that path or aren't always able to bring themselves to risk it, so they shouldn't fall for failing to do the seemingly impossible either.



That's a tricky one. It might work fine - especially in more by-the-book 3E. But in a lot of D&D settings, your code of honor is derived from an organization - a knightly order, a militant order within a faith, etc. - and abandoning the organization means abandoning your oaths, and thus breaking your code, which makes you fall. (Of course, sometimes, an action that causes a paladin to fall is still morally or ethically right - for the paladin.)


The class doesn't really require this inherently - you can have a Paladin errant just as you might have a Knight errant. I could easily see a Paladin believing that they cannot swear an oath of loyalty to any organization because their spiritual responsibilities must always come before their secular ones. I could also see a lot of churches that want to employ Paladins having oaths that are designed not to put their Paladins in catch-22 situations accidentally (since that just creates unnecessary conflict between the church and its Paladins).



I agree, mind you, that a group that gives a blanket execution order rather than a "bring them back for justice" order is a bit extreme, but, again, I think that fits the Lawful Good Church of Tyr in FR perfectly, and the Lawful Neutral Church of Helm (which has Lawful Good paladins aplenty), too.

The problem is, as people have pointed out, that a Paladin doesn't actually answer to a specific deity for their powers, but rather to the cosmic concept of Good. If you hold to that strictly, then any church that wants to use Paladins would have to make concessions to the fact that they'll tend to not have Paladins anymore if they give orders that make them fall. This does tend to be a more unforgiving model of the universe - if a Paladin is in a catch-22 they just fall regardless of what they do, because its the mere touch of evil energy upon their soul that disrupts them, not the judgement of a sponsor that has a vested interest in keeping its holy knight holy.

Of course, you could also say that Paladins are just directly responsible to their deity, in which case what is acceptable is entirely dependent on the deity now, and they may well get a pass for things that technically would break the Code in the PHB. This leads to a more forgiving universe, where Paladins are given leeway for things they do when they find themselves in impossible situations, but it also means that the question of 'will this cause the Paladin to fall?' can't be answered outside of a framework of 'whose Paladin?'.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-11, 04:50 PM
I cannot believe people are actually saying that if you feel bad. Well. Its all good that you murdered countless people and caused a great deal of suffering. As long as its in the past and you pinky swear you won't do it again. This puts it out of me and my orders reach. Sorry for troubling.

Acanous
2013-04-11, 05:59 PM
1: My Paladin kills the crazy man. It's not illegal, and the man was in his way.

2: My Paladin goes off adventuring, lets the woman die. She deserved it.

3: My Paladin tells the party OF COURSE he'll go back in and help slay the Dragon. Why didn't they tell him about the doublecross in the first place?

4: My paladin is already allied with both factions within the dwarven church, is playing them against eachother, and will become the new high deacon. Hard Work should be rewarded, after all.

5: My Paladin kills Killer McPsycho, in plain view of his children. "As a lesson to you, learn it well"

6: My Paladin kills the blackguard, to prove his superiority.

7: My Paladin gets in good with the Messiah, advising him on tactics and guarding him in combat. My Paladin becomes his right hand. When he inevitably falls against the darkness, my paladin takes up the mantle, the prestige, and the followers.

...What? My Paladin wouldn't fall for any of this. He's a Paladin of Tyranny.

NichG
2013-04-11, 06:30 PM
I cannot believe people are actually saying that if you feel bad. Well. Its all good that you murdered countless people and caused a great deal of suffering. As long as its in the past and you pinky swear you won't do it again. This puts it out of me and my orders reach. Sorry for troubling.

The thing is, a paladin doesn't need to trust or believe in the guy or anything. He has a class ability that lets him actually see if the person has changed at a fundamental and cosmic level.

Assuming this guy detects as good, it means a lot more than 'well he just hasn't killed anyone lately'. It means that either somehow he has done enough good or changed sufficiently that on a cosmic scale, the sum total of his good actions outweigh the sum total of his evil ones, or that his previous personality was scoured away by a magical effect and replaced with what is effectively a totally new person. Considering that generally speaking good and evil don't balance so conveniently (if you save the lives of X people and murder X people for fun, you generally still end up with an Evil alignment), the fact that he detects as good now isn't a minor thing, its a really big deal (or it indicates that you're basically executing 'the wrong person' since its all been burned away with magic).

I mean, if there's someone who was a murderer before but he's been hit with Mindrape and permanently reprogrammed into a strictly good guy, the old person is already basically dead. More than dead, since the old personality can't exactly be Raised anymore.

Aquatosic
2013-04-11, 06:48 PM
Changing a person's alignment by force is disgustiong unless they wer that way because of a previous corruption

Malrone
2013-04-11, 06:53 PM
Changing a person's alignment by force is disgustiong unless they wer that way because of a previous corruption
And yet... a multitude of Sancitified and Exalted ways exist to brainwash or subterfuge villains into [Good]. Justified by RAW, since [Good] is Good. Full Stop. After all, freedom of choice is the other axis.

Coidzor
2013-04-11, 07:12 PM
Here was a situation presented in another, past debate about paladin morality-

Mr. Righteous the Paladin is the hero of the story. He has fought, with various allies (stalwart and circumstantial both) against Mr. Despicable the Blackguard, who has been leading a campaign of terror and bloodshed across the land. On a few occasions, they have met in combat, but each time before Mr. Righteous was personally bested. As it happens, the Paladin is now acting in the defense of a town the villain has attacked; the guardians are beginning to falter and damage is accruing quickly. Mr. Righteous, now sure -with the aid of divination- that he is capable of besting Mr. Despicable in a straight fight, seeks him out personally. However, when the paladin finds him, Mr. Despicable has collected some innocent hostages outside the city walls in a special ritual circle that is recognized to capable of trapping souls. The situation is explained to Mr. Righteous: Surrender, or the hostages bite the big one.

Not my situation, exactly, and any similarities to other fantasy works claim defense by TV Tropes

[Edit] Note: This situation was first presented as a situation in which the poster felt the Paladin would always fall.

Let's see, Kill the bad guy after he somehow manages to kill a whole mess of people despite being a lousy mage and having to fight me at the same time or die and have a whole bunch of other people die too? :smallconfused:

That's no choice at all. If they're dead either way then unless one can make a third option where one somehow prevents the badguy from killing the hostages then the option that results in eliminating the bad guy is the option superior to allowing the bad guy to continue to kill.

Vaern
2013-04-11, 08:03 PM
To be fair, which book did you expect to have a longer list of Evil Acts? BoED is more concerned with advice on playing Good and [Exalted] characters.

I'd expect BoVD to define evil acts in more detail, of course. But out of the PHB, BoED, Complete Divine, Complete Champion, and Complete Warrior, you would think that at least one of them might elaborate a bit on the part of the paladin's code that forbids them from committing an evil act.
The BoED opens with a nice list of things paladins should be expected to do, but BoVD begins with the closest thing to a list of things that paladins are forbidden to do.

Mystral
2013-04-11, 08:52 PM
Stalking Woman: My Character would do his best to break that womans interest in her, telling her in plain, but respectfull words that he is not interested in a relationship with someone so superficial and her pushy ways are making her even less worthwile. Should she still choose to follow him, he'd try his best to shake that crazy whench or ask his rogue buddy, who seems to be a good smooth talker, to set her up with someone else more fitting.

If he finds out that this rogue is responsible for these troubles in the first place, then the rogue would be responsible for keeping that woman safe because he caused her to follow them in the first place.

I'm sorry, I can see no love in that story.

Mister Psycho would have to face his charges. It is not in the responsibility of a wandering paladin sent to bring in a criminal to offer him amnesty. That would be the responsibility of the people who sent him, higher ups with more knowledge, wisdom, experience and access to high level spells to determine if his change of heart is real.

If he doesn't come without force.. Well, that's why my paladins always carry a truncheon.

The dragon, he would spare. He has not made a deal with him for personal gain, he has chosen a way to assure the success of his mission, the recovery of the stolen goods. Attacking the dragon while in no shape to fight him would have been foolish. He would have told the dragon in no uncertain words, though, that he should rethink his ways, or that army might still come around sooner rather then later.

Meddling in politics is something a paladin can do, but if it keeps him from fulfilling his duties, he'd rather opt out and go smite something worth his time.

The messiah, he would do his best to protect and follow. Either that man is really the saviour after all (seems at least plausible) or he is a valorous, though simple man who should be protected and admired for his devotion to the cause in the face of adversity. Also, he'd need someone to supervise if he goes mad with power or something.

Concerning the blackguard, it would depend. If the guy was lawfull evil and known for upholding his end of the bargain, he'd let him go, vowing that the next time, he would not be able to escape so easily. If his lawfullness was in any doubt, then it would be better to attack and try to save the hostages souls afterwards.

Coidzor
2013-04-11, 11:22 PM
Concerning the blackguard, it would depend. If the guy was lawfull evil and known for upholding his end of the bargain, he'd let him go, vowing that the next time, he would not be able to escape so easily. If his lawfullness was in any doubt, then it would be better to attack and try to save the hostages souls afterwards.

:smallconfused: What bargain? There's no "and I'll let them go" stated or implied in the surrender option. Considering that they were already set up to have their souls put in a jar for the evulz anyway, someone's going to get their souls ripped out and the Paladin can only substitute for one of them and that's a rather bad trade.

JusticeZero
2013-04-11, 11:37 PM
Am I the only one who caught the part where the bar chick had the whole "No actually I don't do the one night stand thing" explained to her in detail and became suddenly MORE interested in traveling with the Paladin? I'd think there's more story to this that leaves the realm of the improper to some degree. That sounded like "Here I thought I was just going to get my jelly donut filled, but I never thought i'd run into someone that I can actually look up to.." to me, more than a stalker, the way it was described. Deserves some investigating at least.

Rhynn
2013-04-11, 11:57 PM
The class doesn't really require this inherently - you can have a Paladin errant just as you might have a Knight errant. ... The problem is, as people have pointed out, that a Paladin doesn't actually answer to a specific deity for their powers, but rather to the cosmic concept of Good.

That's only the by-the-book paladin, though, with no ties to a setting. Go to the Forgotten Realms, and paladins do answer to deities, to organized faiths, and to chivalric orders.


Assuming this guy detects as good

Nit-pick, the paladin detects evil - he won't know whether the guy is neutral or good... :smallwink:

Also, in 2E, for instance, you explicitly can't detect the alignment of a typical person (not a cleric, demon, etc.) who's not done anything evil just recently, so a serial killer who's still fundamentally evil but hasn't murdered anyone in a few years (probably depending on how many people they murdered and how long ago) probably wouldn't be detected.

Also, alignment really describes, and only one aspect/classification of a being - just because someone is not evil now doesn't mean they won't ever go back into the way they were. People change, sometimes radically, because of their experiences - just as you can redeem yourself, you can fall again.


And yet... a multitude of Sancitified and Exalted ways exist to brainwash or subterfuge villains into [Good]. Justified by RAW, since [Good] is Good. Full Stop.

Well, the Book of Exalted Deeds is considered a bit messed up by many. It's not like it was written by experts on ethics and morality.

TuggyNE
2013-04-12, 12:23 AM
That's only the by-the-book paladin, though, with no ties to a setting. Go to the Forgotten Realms, and paladins do answer to deities, to organized faiths, and to chivalric orders.

That's true, but pretty much only in FR, and that's because in FR everyone has to follow a deity (just about). Eberron, Greyhawk, etc not so much.

In other words, FR is the exception that proves the rule.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-12, 12:29 AM
I wonder why people assume gods and deities sit up in the clouds, or on top of mountains. Judging every little thing. Ticking away at an abacus. Watching and gleefully, sadistically contriving ways to make the paladins of the multiverse stumble and fall. Every time a paladin makes a hard choice, pointing out where he could have done better. What he should have done.

In my mind, and campaigns, certainly the gods watch. evaluating. Judging. However, they don't do it sadistically. They watch with a heavy heart. Feeling empathy for the challenges and the choices the paladins face. Knowing that any punishment they could place on the paladin, is nothing compared to the chains the paladin will place on himself.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-12, 12:50 AM
I wonder why people assume gods and deities sit up in the clouds, or on top of mountains. Judging every little thing. Ticking away at an abacus. Watching and gleefully, sadistically contriving ways to make the paladins of the multiverse stumble and fall. Every time a paladin makes a hard choice, pointing out where he could have done better. What he should have done.


Because the gods don't decide when the Paladin falls. Paladins don't need to serve gods, or even derive power from them. The Paladin's Code represents the fact he gains strength from being the ultimate moral paragon, not from cowtowing to some heavenly manager (although they often do bow to deities). If he compromises that moral perfection, it severs his power until he either repairs it (via Atonement), or finds a different source of power (becoming a Blackguard or variant-Paladin). This is why a Paladin must be Lawful Good, no matter what deity he serves, as opposed to Clerics, who can have any alignment.


This is best illustrated by making a contrast with Clerics, who have much looser restrictions because they gain power from serving a diety. As long as the diety thinks the Cleric will be useful, the Cleric can commit infractions (or even shift his alignment one step away from the deity!), but still receive spells and other boons as long as he pleases his master.

Rhynn
2013-04-12, 02:13 AM
That's true, but pretty much only in FR, and that's because in FR everyone has to follow a deity (just about). Eberron, Greyhawk, etc not so much.

In other words, FR is the exception that proves the rule.

Well, not really. If you look back at 1E and 2E, it's generally true for Greyhawk, etc., too. It's just that the PHBs (2E and 3E both) necessarily remove the setting trappings and details. I think 1E and 2E do a better job at getting across that the rules are a toolbox that doesn't actually infer a setting, while 3E pretends to include a setting (but doesn't, at all, aside from using the names of some Greyhawk deities; it's kind of a travestry, because the old Greyhawk books strike me as having almost HârnWorld-level verisimilitude - or certainly the closest D&D has come).


Because the gods don't decide when the Paladin falls. Paladins don't need to serve gods, or even derive power from them. The Paladin's Code represents the fact he gains strength from being the ultimate moral paragon, not from cowtowing to some heavenly manager (although they often do bow to deities).

Again, this is just an interpretation of the PHB rules with no world or setting laid on top, and isn't true in a lot of actual settings/games. Some paladins are, in fact, beholden to deities, or at least to faiths.

NichG
2013-04-12, 03:50 AM
That's only the by-the-book paladin, though, with no ties to a setting. Go to the Forgotten Realms, and paladins do answer to deities, to organized faiths, and to chivalric orders.


While everyone in FR picks a deity, I wasn't aware that all paladins in FR were required to be part of a specific chivalric order or church hierarchy. There's a difference between 'there exist paladins that do X' and 'to be a paladin, you must do X'.



Nit-pick, the paladin detects evil - he won't know whether the guy is neutral or good... :smallwink:


Fair enough. Neutral would represent a much less extreme change. You can still tell (at least to within the scope of alignment) if the guy is going to go and pick up his old hobby again right after you leave though.



Also, in 2E, for instance, you explicitly can't detect the alignment of a typical person (not a cleric, demon, etc.) who's not done anything evil just recently, so a serial killer who's still fundamentally evil but hasn't murdered anyone in a few years (probably depending on how many people they murdered and how long ago) probably wouldn't be detected.


This thread has generally been assuming 3.5ed paladins and 3.5ed rules (e.g. the 3.5 version of the paladin code, of what constitutes 'evil' actions, etc). While there's no reason to restrict the discussion to 3.5ed, it has been the general assumption in the thread so far, and so I don't really see the point in suddenly bringing out 2ed mechanics. For a 3.5ed paladin this is not an issue since the spells (and alignment itself) don't work that way.



Also, alignment really describes, and only one aspect/classification of a being - just because someone is not evil now doesn't mean they won't ever go back into the way they were. People change, sometimes radically, because of their experiences - just as you can redeem yourself, you can fall again.


If this person's alignment has shifted from its previous state to a good (or neutral) alignment, that at least suggests a consistent pattern of behavior and a strong effort to reform. Because of the initial evil starting point, it means this person has done more good and made more changes towards good than your average person with a Good alignment. He can fall again, but so can any other Good person.



Well, the Book of Exalted Deeds is considered a bit messed up by many. It's not like it was written by experts on ethics and morality.

Yes, Sanctify the Wicked is a horrific spell, and its one of the big indicators that Good isn't always good (in the sense of most modern moralities) in D&D. It generally ends up making these discussions even more complicated, and is a good reason to ignore the Book of X sources in this kind of discussion, despite them being the most explicit sources for what defines Good and Evil in 3.5ed.

It still bears consideration that this type of magical effect exists in D&D, although perhaps it deserves to be stated as a different ethical dilemma: whether through a [Good] (Sanctify) or [Evil] (Mindrape) or merely unaligned (Programmed Amnesia) effect, if someone who has previously done horrible things is rewritten to effectively be a totally different persona, is it still just to punish them for what they did before?

Rhynn
2013-04-12, 04:57 AM
While everyone in FR picks a deity, I wasn't aware that all paladins in FR were required to be part of a specific chivalric order or church hierarchy. There's a difference between 'there exist paladins that do X' and 'to be a paladin, you must do X'.


Again, this is just an interpretation of the PHB rules with no world or setting laid on top, and isn't true in a lot of actual settings/games. Some paladins are, in fact, beholden to deities, or at least to faiths.

:smallconfused:


This thread has generally been assuming 3.5ed paladins and 3.5ed rules (e.g. the 3.5 version of the paladin code, of what constitutes 'evil' actions, etc). While there's no reason to restrict the discussion to 3.5ed, it has been the general assumption in the thread so far, and so I don't really see the point in suddenly bringing out 2ed mechanics. For a 3.5ed paladin this is not an issue since the spells (and alignment itself) don't work that way.

Well, it's not the 3E sub-forum, and I've been discussing the topic somewhat more broadly ("all of D&D", pretty much; I'm nicely keeping Rolemaster paladins etc. out of it :smallamused: ) the entire time. And since we're not exactly talking about rules, but rather how games are played, old approaches seem as valid as new rules to me.


It still bears consideration that this type of magical effect exists in D&D, although perhaps it deserves to be stated as a different ethical dilemma: whether through a [Good] (Sanctify) or [Evil] (Mindrape) or merely unaligned (Programmed Amnesia) effect, if someone who has previously done horrible things is rewritten to effectively be a totally different persona, is it still just to punish them for what they did before?

That is a good question, and ultimately an ethical dilemma that must be solved by the person encountering it, IMO. "What is justice to you?" There is no "right answer," naturally - that's rather the point.

Coidzor
2013-04-12, 07:44 AM
Again, this is just an interpretation of the PHB rules with no world or setting laid on top, and isn't true in a lot of actual settings/games. Some paladins are, in fact, beholden to deities, or at least to faiths.

Some, maybe even many, but not enough to say that it is the de facto state of being as always happens in these threads, prompting the discussion to come back up again.

Lorsa
2013-04-12, 08:22 AM
Am I the only one who caught the part where the bar chick had the whole "No actually I don't do the one night stand thing" explained to her in detail and became suddenly MORE interested in traveling with the Paladin? I'd think there's more story to this that leaves the realm of the improper to some degree. That sounded like "Here I thought I was just going to get my jelly donut filled, but I never thought i'd run into someone that I can actually look up to.." to me, more than a stalker, the way it was described. Deserves some investigating at least.

Indeed. The woman in question was actually intrigued by the paladin's strict morals. I don't understand why people painted her out to be a stalker.

Also, if the paladin was not at all interested in her, he could have said so at the beginning of the conversation which he didn't. He was a young male virgin, part of him desperately wanted to have sex with her. I thought I was clear that the proposition followed after a lengthy conversation, something you don't have with a person you really dislike.

Rhynn
2013-04-12, 08:36 AM
Some, maybe even many, but not enough to say that it is the de facto state of being as always happens in these threads, prompting the discussion to come back up again.

Certainly, but we can't treat "paladins don't have anything to do with deities" as the only state, either. Fortunately, it is actually totally easy to talk about both side by side!

mangosta71
2013-04-12, 08:58 AM
The thing is, a paladin doesn't need to trust or believe in the guy or anything. He has a class ability that lets him actually see if the person has changed at a fundamental and cosmic level.
Not really. Detect Evil is extremely easy to beat with a cheap spell or magic item, and someone with a high enough bluff check can fool it via completely mundane means. The killer could also be wearing a Helm of Opposite Alignment and be currently on the lookout to get it removed so he can get back to killing - he's still Evil, but registers as Good.

Really, the best option is the police officer one: bring him in and let the proper authorities deal with making sure that he's free and clear of any mind- or alignment-affecting effects and then determine a suitable sentence.

Well, the Book of Exalted Deeds is considered a bit messed up by many. It's not like it was written by experts on ethics and morality.
Ah, ravages. "Poisons are Evil because they cause undue suffering in the people they affect! This thing, which is identical to poisons in every way except the name, is totally Good, though!"

hamishspence
2013-04-12, 11:42 AM
It has its flaws- but at least it makes some effort to acknowledge that killing evil things "just for being evil" with no knowledge of specific wrongdoing, is wrong.

And that mercy, redemption, etc are good things to strive for.

Scow2
2013-04-12, 12:14 PM
I have a question.

A paladin has decided it is wrong to have sex before you are married. His chaotic friend feels sad about all the sex the paladin is missing out on so finds a girl at a tavern and tries to "sell" his friend to her. Through great skills, he succeeds and said girl becomes very interested in the paladin. After some conversations between the girl and the paladin, he tells her that he does not intend to have sex before his is married. This just makes her even more interested, (1)and tries to seduce him but he holds to his principles. She then tells him that if getting married is the only way to have sex, why don't they get married then? He tells her that no, that is not possible, first they must get to know one another better. So she tells him that in that case she will come with him on his journey to give them a chance to do just that. This worries that paladin to a great extend, as adventuring is rather dangerous, and his own quest even more so, and this young damsel wouldn't be safe. He does not wish to jeopardize her safety or place her in harms way. So he tells her that just that. (2)Seeing an opportunity to put him on the spot, she says that he hardly can stop her from traveling on the road just behind him. (3)She then proceeds to tell him that he has two options; either she will follow in his footsteps along the road, possibly putting her in all kinds of danger with the risk of her being killed or they can have sex tonight. So all he has to do to keep her out of harms way is to break his own code of not having sex before marriage. What is a poor paladin to do? Bolded and annoted by me.

Point 1 is where she loses all sympathy. As presented, this isn't the interest of a young woman looking for a relationship with a hero. This is the interest in a seducer seeing a challenge to conquer. While there may have been room to interpret the attempt at seduction as being a lovestruck woman getting ahead of herself, the rest of the encounter quickly dismisses that.

Point 2 - Instead of calling him out on his chauvinism for assuming she can't protect herself from him, nor revealing that she is a competent adventuring material herself (Or even interested in learning how to keep herself safe while learning about how to adventure with him), she attempts to force herself into his responsibility in spite of his concerns and feelings on the matter.

And point 3 is where she makes it clear that she's only into him to get one of them off - After presenting his core values to her, she proceeds to take a **** on them in her attempt to conquer his body. She could have expressed interest in becoming an adventuring companion. She could have withdrawn the immediate desire to **** him and offered to arrange some future dates. But instead of either of those reasonable choices, she demonstrated absolute disrespect for him by demanding he betray his core principals just to sate her desires for one night.

The best option in this situation, to me, is to immediately throw her out the nearest door or window, then go have better luck with a down-on-her-luck female catfolk.

Ah, ravages. "Poisons are Evil because they cause undue suffering in the people they affect! This thing, which is identical to poisons in every way except the name, is totally Good, though!"Ravages aren't identical to poisons. Poisons are indiscriminate, while Ravages only affect evil targets.

Ravages do not cause undue suffering. Anyone harmed by them is either an Undead (Which cannot feel pain and needs to go back to sleep anyway - Seriously, if the spirit is not evil and has work so urgent/important that it can't go to its final rest for, it needs to come back as a Deathless. Otherwise, it's unfinished business isn't that important), an Evil Outsider (A manifestation of absolute Evil, and an exception to the "Being evil isn't enough to deserve to die" rule, except for the exceptions to this exception like the Succubus Paladin, which still furthers the power of Evil by weakening the vigilance and resolve of Good, and tempting those aware of that insidious trick toward its side), or someone wicked enough for the suffering to be due to.

There is no "Balance between good and evil" that needs active policing in any published D&D setting except the godawful Dragonlance. The ease and temptations of evil cause mortals to fall its way, while empathy and other virtues keep them trying to climb upward.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 12:34 PM
Retribution is supposed to prevent people from wading into the deep end of the alignment pool,.

Wrong. You're talking about prevention. Retribution is about satisfying the need of justice of those who have been wronged.

The elements that go into punishment of a criminal are as follows:

1) Retribution - satisfying the need of justice for those who've been wronged.
2) Restoration - restoring the situation to a state it was before the crime.
3) Rehabilitation - redeeming the criminal so that he can return to society.

As well as:

A) Special prevention - the chance of this specific criminal relapsing after the punishment.
B) General prevention - the chance of anyone committing the crime after learning of the punishment.

And yes, retribution is essentially synonymous with revenge, but that's missing the point. All punishments for crime are revenge, period.

By allowing Mr. Psycho to go unpunished, the Paladin is ignoring 1), 2) and both of A) and B). Four out of five principles is not very Paladin-like, don't you think?

If the Paladin cares more about Law, then Mr. Psycho is going to lose his head, because the need for justice of his victims needs to be adressed, and general prevention is an issue - again, if you can let a serial killer off the hook, what about pick-pockets? Society doesn't work like that.

If the Paladin cares more about Good, he should make Mr. Psycho somehow makes up to his victim. Considering the crime is murder, that is a bit tall order. But once again, he can't let him off the hook, because that means betraying greater principles of his code. Those who threaten or harm innocents have to be punished. Letting a serial killer go unpunished betrays that principle hard. Whether Mr. Psycho is good or atoned is completely irrelevant here.

snoopy13a
2013-04-12, 12:56 PM
Wrong. You're talking about prevention. Retribution is about satisfying the need of justice of those who have been wronged.

The elements that go into punishment of a criminal are as follows:

1) Retribution - satisfying the need of justice for those who've been wronged.
2) Restoration - restoring the situation to a state it was before the crime.
3) Rehabilitation - redeeming the criminal so that he can return to society.

As well as:

A) Special prevention - the chance of this specific criminal relapsing after the punishment.
B) General prevention - the chance of anyone committing the crime after learning of the punishment.

And yes, retribution is essentially synonymous with revenge, but that's missing the point. All punishments for crime are revenge, period.

The only punishment philosophy that is revenge based is retribution. Also "prevention" is generally called "deterrence." Other philosophies include incapacitation, which is keeping a dangerous person from society, and denunciation, which is society deeming that a particular act is immoral.

Anyway, there are reasons why a "rehabilitated" criminal should be punished--even if one disagrees with retribution--namely general deterrence, denunciation, and restoration. This should be enough of a justification for a paladin to arrest and bring to court a "rehabilitated criminal."

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 01:01 PM
No, all punishments for crime are revenge. They vary in how much emphasis retribution, but all of them boil down to "you did something we didn't like, and now we're going to make your life hard for it". Ie., revenge.

This applies even to punishment models that favor rehabilitation or restoration. In the former, the criminal is still forced through the process, paying with his free will, and in the latter, he must make up for the crime, paying with his work or material resources.

And all punishment models contain those three Rs and two Ds. They just vary in how much they emphasize different elements.

Scow2
2013-04-12, 01:32 PM
Wrong. You're talking about prevention. Retribution is about satisfying the need of justice of those who have been wronged.

The elements that go into punishment of a criminal are as follows:

1) Retribution - satisfying the need of justice for those who've been wronged.
2) Restoration - restoring the situation to a state it was before the crime.
3) Rehabilitation - redeeming the criminal so that he can return to society.

As well as:

A) Special prevention - the chance of this specific criminal relapsing after the punishment.
B) General prevention - the chance of anyone committing the crime after learning of the punishment.

And yes, retribution is essentially synonymous with revenge, but that's missing the point. All punishments for crime are revenge, period.

By allowing Mr. Psycho to go unpunished, the Paladin is ignoring 1), 2) and both of A) and B). Four out of five principles is not very Paladin-like, don't you think?

If the Paladin cares more about Law, then Mr. Psycho is going to lose his head, because the need for justice of his victims needs to be adressed, and general prevention is an issue - again, if you can let a serial killer off the hook, what about pick-pockets? Society doesn't work like that.Revenge and retribution for their own sake are NOT Justice, and Principal 1 is a faulty foundation to base any morally supported justice system on, and is often actively disruptive to the societies its applied to, by starting and dragging out bloody, destructive cycles and chain reactions.

The only principal the Paladin ignores in letting the murderer go is 1 - Killing him would violate principal 2, as it does not bring back those he killed, and it disrupts the society the new person has moved into. Refusing redemption is FAR more counter to principal A than letting him 'off' is, as it's likely to drive him to relapse and reject the new righteous path he has found in desperation. And while a few may see the guy as being "Let off", weakening Principal B, acknowledging Redemption is just as if not more likely to have criminals, convicted or not, start their own attempts at redemption without fear of being driven further into crime and depravity. (Anyone remember Smeagol/Gollum from Lord of the Rings? He was starting to become a more decent person until Faramir and Sam Gamgee ****ed him up with a betrayal and sent him back to the deep end of Evil, resulting in Frodo being fed to Shelob. I also have a lot of similar real-life experiences on the subject of redemption that I won't share)


No, all punishments for crime are revenge. They vary in how much emphasis retribution, but all of them boil down to "you did something we didn't like, and now we're going to make your life hard for it". Ie., revenge.

This applies even to punishment models that favor rehabilitation or restoration. In the former, the criminal is still forced through the process, paying with his free will, and in the latter, he must make up for the crime, paying with his work or material resources.

And all punishment models contain those three Rs and two Ds. They just vary in how much they emphasize different elements.The "We're going to make your life hard for it" is only a side effect, not primary motivation, of rehabilitation/incapacitation/restoration-based justice systems, and it frequently starts a bloody cycle of revenge, resentment, and unrest. The primary motivation of Justice Systems is "Stop them from doing that, and dissuade others from doing it as well!"

snoopy13a
2013-04-12, 01:34 PM
And all punishment models contain those three Rs and two Ds. They just vary in how much they emphasize different elements.

Not all. The death penalty, for example, leaves little room for rehabilitation and specific deterrence.

Utilitarianians generally reject retribution. They see punishment as a vehicle to best improve society.

For example, a utilitarian would have argued that Dudley and Stephens--the famous shipwrecked, murderer-cannibals--should have been acquitted of murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

Tragak
2013-04-12, 01:42 PM
Revenge and retribution for their own sake are NOT Justice, and Principal 1 is a faulty foundation to base any morally supported justice system on, and is often actively disruptive to the societies its applied to, by starting and dragging out bloody, destructive cycles and chain reactions.
...
The "We're going to make your life hard for it" is only a side effect, not primary motivation, of rehabilitation/incapacitation/restoration-based justice systems, and it frequently starts a bloody cycle of revenge, resentment, and unrest. The primary motivation of Justice Systems is "Stop them from doing that, and dissuade others from doing it as well!" Exactly: the point of justice is to make revenge unnecessary.

Talakeal
2013-04-12, 01:57 PM
D&D alignment is not real world alignment (not that any consensus on real world alignment exists).

In D&D Mercy, redemption, and forgiveness are all aspects of good. Killing is never a good act*, although if there is a good reason for it then it is not an evil act either.

The idea of punishments for crimes is a lawful principal.

The ideal of "righteous justice" is a product of Lawful Good, a combination of the two ideals. But a pure "Good" character (which a paladin is not) would not have a need to punish the guilty.

If you think about it, there is no utilitarian benefit to punishing the guilty (assuming we can be assured they are no more likely to commit future crimes than anyone else, which while impossible in real life is fairly easy in D&D). The only reasons to do it would be because an authority (government, religion, etc) demands it (a lawful response) or there is a need for vengeance (an evil response).

Also, while Forgotten Realms paladins do have deities, the paladin code trumps the deity, and there are several points in novels where paladins defy their deity as the paladins code is the final authority on falling. Also, I wish people would stop bringing up the fact that paladins must have a deity in every alignment thread just because it is true in FR. That would be like if I insisted that wizards have to be beholden to a deity in every magic vs. melee thread because that is how it works in Dragon Lance.



*Unless the target is an (evil) outsider, in which case the act is more like cleaning up corruption than actual killing.

This last brings up the big disconnect between D&D ethics and real life ethics. Good and Evil are physical forces, and one can become good or evil simply by proximity to the right type of energy. Thus sanctify the wicked, which is evil by most real life standards, is fine in D&D because it cleanses the subject of evil energy and thus is a good thing. Free will doesn't enter into it, that is a conflict between Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 02:02 PM
@Snoopy12a: you have a point with rehabilitation, but not so much with special deterrence. The special deterrence of death penalty is 100% - the criminal who undergoes the punishment will never again commit crime. Or anything else, for that matter.


Revenge and retribution for their own sake are NOT Justice

But the paladin is not doing them for their own sake - he's doing them to a) cater to the victims of Mr. Psycho, b) to uphold laws of the land and c) to uphold his own, personal code.

And letting Mr. Psycho off the hook does ignore Restoration - leaving him be without punishment does not in any way consolidate surviving families of his victims. Or do you seriously think "he said he was a good guy, so I let him go, and it's okay" will adress the need of justice for them?


The primary motivation of Justice Systems is "Stop them from doing that, and dissuade others from doing it as well!"

A revenge desgined to make it impossible for the other guy to revenge back is still revenge.

snoopy13a
2013-04-12, 02:21 PM
If you think about it, there is no utilitarian benefit to punishing the guilty (assuming we can be assured they are no more likely to commit future crimes than anyone else, which while impossible in real life is fairly easy in D&D).

Even if we assume that the person will never commit another crime again (rendering no need for punishment based on specific deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation) there still may be an utilitarian argument for punishment theory based off of general deterrence or restoration. For example, if executing a rehabilitated convicted murderer deters two potential murders, then the rationale of general deterrence is met. It depends on the benefits gleaned from deterrence or restoration versus the harm inflicted on the criminal.

Although, this argument is somewhat moot because D&D morality apparently rejects utilitarianism (e.g., the ends do not justify the means in D&D).

Rhynn
2013-04-12, 02:38 PM
Also, while Forgotten Realms paladins do have deities, the paladin code trumps the deity, and there are several points in novels where paladins defy their deity as the paladins code is the final authority on falling. Also, I wish people would stop bringing up the fact that paladins must have a deity in every alignment thread just because it is true in FR. That would be like if I insisted that wizards have to be beholden to a deity in every magic vs. melee thread because that is how it works in Dragon Lance.

Strawmaaaaaaaaaan. :smallconfused:

And utilitarianism is hardly the only, or the superior, system of ethics. For a start, it's teleological, whereas there's the whole deontological branch... which, frankly, looks more like a paladin's cuppa.

Tragak
2013-04-12, 03:15 PM
And I think now would be a very good time to take Real Life philosophy arguments to the PM boxes.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 03:41 PM
Here's another dilemma:

The Paladin arrives at a new country. He has yet to familiriaze himself with the laws of the land, but knows that slave-keeping is common. On his first day there, he sees a master beating on a slave. Now, neither the master or the slave ping as evil, but the beating certainly is violent. What should he do?

Second scenario, with the same Paladin: as a reward for a quest, he is offered a bunch of slaves. Should he accept the offer?

Third scenario, again the same place and person: the Paladin has become an accepted member of the judicial system. His superiors are in favor of slave-keeping, and can overrule his decisions if they see fit. Should the Paladin try to change the laws of slave-keeping? If so, how and why, and in what way?

Janus
2013-04-12, 03:46 PM
Just some random thoughts from reading this-


Paladins are oathbound to protect the innocent, helpless, etc. This doesn't include morons, such as people saying "I'm going to follow you into the BBEG's lair despite being an inexperienced peasant and your code demands you protect me in my foolishness."
The Paladin Code is meant to help the paladin serve others, and it's not to be used to hold the paladin hostage.

I haven't read BoED, but I roll my eyes every time it gets brought up. I'll never use it to define Good in a D&D game.
Besides, why do people act like it's canon that applies to all D&D campaigns? It's a splatbook, for crying out loud.

Things like Phylactery of Faith (or whatever it's called) and related "cast spell and problem goes away" makes the roleplay dilemma boring.

I think paladins are better off answering to a deity and/or order that defines Law and Good for them, not some universal cosmic force. It allows for a wider variety of interpretations, allows for easier conflict among paladins, and I like the idea that what gets a paladin in trouble with one deity differs from a paladin of another deity. For instance:

WIZARD: By the Fires of the Nine Hells, it is so hot out today!
ROGUE: I'm sweating up a storm here!
PALADIN OF HEIRONEOUS: Of a truth, it is hot. I desire shade myself, but valor must never rest.
PALADIN OF PELOR: Yeah, it's this sun that's making things so hot. I could do with some clouds or even some rain *struck by lightning, loses paladin powers* Oh, come on, are you serious!? :smallfurious:



---


The Paladin arrives at a new country. He has yet to familiriaze himself with the laws of the land, but knows that slave-keeping is common. On his first day there, he sees a master beating on a slave. Now, neither the master or the slave ping as evil, but the beating certainly is violent. What should he do?
Intervene. No need to lay a beat down on the master (yet), but break it up. Try to mediate the conflict between the two.


Second scenario, with the same Paladin: as a reward for a quest, he is offered a bunch of slaves. Should he accept the offer?
Eh, my paladin wouldn't.
If the setting allows for LG slavekeeping, then sure. Just set up a clear contract with the slaves and follow it, be a good master, treat them like people, etc.


Third scenario, again the same place and person: the Paladin has become an accepted member of the judicial system. His superiors are in favor of slave-keeping, and can overrule his decisions if they see fit. Should the Paladin try to change the laws of slave-keeping? If so, how and why, and in what way?
My paladin would argue against it, but probably also realize that if it's not going to work (society takes time to change, after all), seek a compromise. See if it's possible to change from out and out slavery to more of an indentured servitude system. Clear guidelines and agreements for both master and slave, punishment for anyone breaking the contract, means to amend the contract if needed, etc.

CowardlyPaladin
2013-04-12, 03:47 PM
Hi! The purpose of this thread is to have anyone post theoretical moral conundrums for a paladin and ask several questions. Will doing this make them fall? Must they do it anyway? Is there any alternative in keeping with the paladin code? I know the interpretation varies between DMs, so let's say we follow the paladin code that Hojo seems to follow in OotS.

perfect. Stand aside, Cowardly Paladin is here....the type of Paladin who prefers answering these questions rather than actually helping anybody in the world



First Question: You are in a dungeon and come upon a person who attacks you while pleading with you to end his life. He says he has been under a mind-control spell for decades and you have no spellcasters with you who are able to break it. He registers as "not evil" when you use Detect Evil. You cannot tie him up and take him you for obvious reasons (unless you can give a good reason why you can). Will killing this person make you fall, as he cannot control his actions? Will leaving him in this position make you fall? What would a paladin do in this situation regardless of the penalties?

Not Evil. The person is pleading for his life to be ended, so you are furfilling his wishes. If he is pleading "Don't kill me" then things get complicated. Leaving him in this situation would not make the Paladin fall unless the Paladin had an opprotunity to help him and did nothing. For example, if I (well not me because I don't like fighting) but somebody saw this guy, and moved on, but left behind a marker saying "This guy is mind controlled please help him" then at least he was doing something. And if the paladin had the chance, he/she should go back and try to get somebody else to break the spell

Generally speaking however, if taking him alive is an option in any non suicidal capacity, then one should go for it.



A paladin has decided it is wrong to have sex before you are married. His chaotic friend feels sad about all the sex the paladin is missing out on so finds a girl at a tavern and tries to "sell" his friend to her. Through great skills, he succeeds and said girl becomes very interested in the paladin. After some conversations between the girl and the paladin, he tells her that he does not intend to have sex before his is married. This just makes her even more interested, and tries to seduce him but he holds to his principles. She then tells him that if getting married is the only way to have sex, why don't they get married then? He tells her that no, that is not possible, first they must get to know one another better. So she tells him that in that case she will come with him on his journey to give them a chance to do just that. This worries that paladin to a great extend, as adventuring is rather dangerous, and his own quest even more so, and this young damsel wouldn't be safe. He does not wish to jeopardize her safety or place her in harms way. So he tells her that just that. Seeing an opportunity to put him on the spot, she says that he hardly can stop her from traveling on the road just behind him. She then proceeds to tell him that he has two options; either she will follow in his footsteps along the road, possibly putting her in all kinds of danger with the risk of her being killed or they can have sex tonight. So all he has to do to keep her out of harms way is to break his own code of not having sex before marriage. What is a poor paladin to do?

A few points. Firstly, I would like to remind everybody that chastity is neither a lawful nor a Paladin virtues, we are able to have as much sex as we like as long as it is consensual and we fill out the proper "Sexual intercourse" sheets. I don't obviously, because sex scares me and I don't like to leave my room, but many Paladins of my order have done so. So this is a moral issue for some people, but not for all Paladins, sex before marriage is not part of the paladin code, it is just some gods requirements. This could easily apply to a Fighter, a Knight, or a Cleric. Putting that aside, I would tell the man to abandon the code and have a good time.




The party is facing a white dragon who is sitting on a lot of gold stolen from the king's mine. They've spent the day cutting through the kobolds that work for the dragon, so they're not really in dragon slaying form. They try and talk the dragon down and convince him that even if they fail, there'll be an army coming along for the gold before long. Good rolls and arguments, so the dragon relents.

As the gold is being loaded in the wagons, one of the kobolds approaches the party with an offer: get rid of the dragon so I run things and I'll take our theiving clan to enemy lands and harrass them. The paladin doesn't know what's going on; he doesn't speak draconic. The party agrees, then tells the paladin that they're going back in to kill the dragon and would like his help. They explain that the dragon loves to steal and kill, that he'll continue to be a threat to the kingdom and its people, and that a kobold clan in enemy territory helps the war effort.


Considering this is just politics, things get messy. Attacking a Dragon who has already come to a deal would be an evil act, as the Dragon already surrendered. Unless of course, the Dragon is doing evil things currently, in which case the paladin is protecting the innocent. However, since Dragons are mortal, and you were able to make such a good deal with it, I would think you would want a Dragon ally. Even if the dragon was an evil bastard, if he isn't doing anything now, murdering him isn't really an option.

Also Paladins don't fall for lying when their is a good reason for it.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 03:51 PM
This one's abit more involved. Pick any moral dilemma posted elsewhere in this thread, but instead of following the normal code for Paladins, use this one instead:



Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. In addition, paladins have sworn to follow the follow code of conduct:


(If worshipping a lawful good god) A paladin obeys her god's teaching and defends her church.
A Paladin will only draw her sword when necessary; if possible, she must seek a peaceful solution.
A paladin's honour is to be trusted. A paladin will never knowingly lie or misinform, and if she must omit part of the truth, she will tell so. If a paladin swears on her honour to accomplish a task, she will do so exactly and to the very best of her ability.
A paladin is loyal to her king, her officers, her employers and her country. He must stick through thick and thin with them against anyone who is their enemy or badmouths them.
A paladin's duty is to be useful and help other; she is to do her duty before anything else, even though she gives up her own pleasure, or comfort, or safety to do it. When in difficulty to know which of two things to do, she must ask herself, "Which is my duty?" that is, "Which is best for other people?"---and do that one. She must Be Prepared at any time to save life, or to help injured persons.
A paladin is friend to all and sister to all other paladins; if a paladin meets another of her kind, she must speak to him, and offer to help in any way she can. A paladin will not look down her nose on others because they are poorer or of lower social standing, nor will she resent those who are richer or of higher status.
A paladin is courteous, towards all, but especially children, cripples and elderly people. She requires no acknowledgement or reward for being helpful and courteous.
A paladin respects nature and is friend to animals. She will not needlessly spoil the wilderness or ravage crops, and she will not kill animals except in self-defence or when necessary for sustenance. She will not cause undue suffering to animals, and will relieve them from any pain she can.
A paladin gives succour to orphans and widows, even those of slain enemies.
A paladin obeys any lawful order without question, even if she does not like it, because it is her duty. After she has done it she can come and state any reasons against it, but she must still carry out orders at once. If a paladin recognizes an order as unlawful or false, she must immediately state so and explain her denial.
A paladin will never turn a blind eye to evil. She must act against it when and wherever possible, and try to make evildoers abandon their wicked ways.
A paladin searches the truth in all matters. She will not accept a convenient lie in place of uncomfortable truth. She will act to reveal treachery whenever she recognizes it.
A paladin strives to exceed her boundaries and improve as a person. She will not lie dormant when avenues of self-improvement are available, and she will try to overcome her flaws to her best ability.


In all cases, remember that a paladin is a person who follows the spirit of the code, not just the letter, and the spirit of goodness underlines both the code and all actions of a paladin. If following the code would lead to evil actions or further evil causes, the paladin is only guilty of a minor violation if she opts to do what is good instead, and is not penalized. On the other hand, when a paladin follows the letter of the code, choosing merely lawful acts when good (but possibly non-lawful) options exist, she is guilty of a moderate violation. After five moderate violations, a paladin should atone for her sins.

Likewise, failure to heed the code due to personal defects (greed, laziness, lust, wrathfulness, vanity, envy, gluttony etc.) is a moderate violation.

Knowingly acting against both the spirit and letter of the code is a gross violation. Examples would be turning a blind eye when a neutral party member stabs prisoners of war to death, or slaughtering a hostile tribe of kobolds before attempting negotiations and checking their alignment. Gross violations require immediate atonement (see Ex-paladins).

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will not continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code and refuses to change his ways. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. A paladin will only associate with evil creatures in order to capture them and bring them to justice, redeem a captured enemy, or to chastize them for their actions. A paladin will only ally with evil creatures on a single adventure basis, and only to combat an evil threat of even worse proportions. After such alliance, a paladin must capture her former ally and try to redeem him.

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin, but retains all paladin special abilities. She regains her advancement potential if she returns to Lawful alignment and atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

A paladin who willfully commits an evil act or grossly violates her code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities, save for weapon and armor proficiencies and any [Fighter] feats she may have gained. She may not progress any further in paladin levels. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

A paladin who ceases to be good permanently loses all paladin spells and abilities, save for weapon and armor proficiencies and any [Fighter] feats she may have gained. She may never again take levels in paladin. Such fallen paladin can opt to change all her former paladin levels for levels in Fighter (Elite), or for levels in Blackguard if meeting the prerequisites.

After entering the paladin class, a character may take levels in other classes, but faces a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than fighter or paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Rhynn
2013-04-12, 04:00 PM
I'm going to assume mostly Roman-style "slaves for life, are chattel" (unless freed, although I won't assume that is easy or uncomplicated), rather than Norse thralls, or slaves who are freed after a certain period of time and are protected by law (other than as chattel of their owner).


The Paladin arrives at a new country. He has yet to familiriaze himself with the laws of the land, but knows that slave-keeping is common. On his first day there, he sees a master beating on a slave. Now, neither the master or the slave ping as evil, but the beating certainly is violent. What should he do?

Step in, as non-violently as possible, but unyieldingly - stand between them, take the blows, catch the whip/arm, etc. (No Robin of Sherwood -style shooting the master in the back from a bush. One of my favorite scenes in the show, though...) The matter will probably be escalated to authorities, and the paladin may have to step back rather than take on the entire system then and there, but it'd be a good impetus for a story involving reformation and possible revolution. (The paladin would probably keep interrupting any individual incident of slave-beating he came across, though.)

A master beating a slave is classic cruelty and tyranny ("help, help, I'm being oppressed!") and it seems like a no-brainer for me that a paladin, generally, should stop it, unless completely infeasible.


Second scenario, with the same Paladin: as a reward for a quest, he is offered a bunch of slaves. Should he accept the offer?

Yes, then free them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission), and then provide them a way to make a living (through his faith or order, if applicable/necessary, otherwise personally or through personal connections). Freeing them then leaving them to their fate would not be okay. They could be kept as (but not treated as) slaves temporarily if necessarily to get them to a better place safely.


Third scenario, again the same place and person: the Paladin has become an accepted member of the judicial system. His superiors are in favor of slave-keeping, and can overrule his decisions if they see fit. Should the Paladin try to change the laws of slave-keeping? If so, how and why, and in what way?

Yes, he should, because slavery is an evil institution (even if LG doesn't consider basic freedom a necessity - which I think it would/should - slavery specifically is usually quite cruel; serfs at least have somewhat more protections, being that there were usually laws that protected their right to stay on their land, and they weren't legally chattel).

The way depends on the situation and the paladin. If we're talking Roman Empire -level slavery, revolution may be necessary. Revolution is not always anti-Lawful, and unjust laws, authorities, and systems do need to be overturned. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," and all that.

IMO, a paladin will not consider evil authority legitimate, in most cases. (And, again, everything a paladin does is not, and perhaps can not, specifically to avoid falling.)

Otherwise, working within the political system may be possible - changing attitudes, getting support (either public or political, whichever is needed) for changes to the law, etc.

Janus
2013-04-12, 04:09 PM
I'm going to assume mostly Roman-style "slaves for life, are chattel" (unless freed, although I won't assume that is easy or uncomplicated), rather than Norse thralls, or slaves who are freed after a certain period of time and are protected by law (other than as chattel of their owner).
I'm going to have to look up thralls and whatnot now.


Yes, then free them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission), and then provide them a way to make a living (through his faith or order, if applicable/necessary, otherwise personally or through personal connections).
...why didn't I think of that?

Talakeal
2013-04-12, 04:12 PM
Strawmaaaaaaaaaan. :smallconfused:

And utilitarianism is hardly the only, or the superior, system of ethics. For a start, it's teleological, whereas there's the whole deontological branch... which, frankly, looks more like a paladin's cuppa.

How is that in any way a straw man? The comparing FR paladins to DL wizards is, in my mind it seems like a perfectly reasonable apples to apples comparison.

People should not assume that a connection between a certain class and a certain deity exists in one campaign setting that it is the norm for D&D as a whole. That is a statement. Not evidence to prove some larger argument.

I can't see how you would possibly think that was some sort of straw man argument, unless you are taking that paragraph as support for some argument I made earlier in the post, perhaps about utilitarianism, which is not the case. I was making a point about the danger of conflating the paladin's code with a deities code of ethics, nothing more.



Even if we assume that the person will never commit another crime again (rendering no need for punishment based on specific deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation) there still may be an utilitarian argument for punishment theory based off of general deterrence or restoration. For example, if executing a rehabilitated convicted murderer deters two potential murders, then the rationale of general deterrence is met. It depends on the benefits gleaned from deterrence or restoration versus the harm inflicted on the criminal.

IF a criminal has been redeemed and is now good I would argue that rehabilitation has been completed. At that point a former murderer is no more likely to commit future crime than anyone else, and is in fact less likely than the ~2/3rds of the population which are not good.

Also, while deterrence seems like a logical argument (and on a gut level I agree that it is sound reasoning) it is my understanding that most psychologists and sociologists agree that it has a negligible impact on human behavior. Let's not argue that point any further however, lest it degenerate into a political discussion.

Lord Torath
2013-04-12, 04:21 PM
1. I would interfere with the beating. I would forcefully interpose myself between the master and slave if needed, but I would not assault the master if he doesn't endanger my life.

2. Depends on the laws regarding freeing slaves. If I can free them without risk of them being re-captured, then certainly! I would free them as soon as I could, and offer them employment on my lands if desired, and aid any that wished to return to their homes.

3. Presumably accepting judicial duties would be part of the process to overturn slavery. As a Paladin, I would work within the law to change the law.

Can Paladins engage in civil disobedience against unjust laws? Or is peaceful protest only allowed if it is legal under current law? Sit-ins, Hunger Strikes, Road Blocking?

A lot of this depends on the nature of the slavery. The slavery of the Atans in David Edding's Tamulian trillogy, for example, was merely a way to prevent the Atans from wiping themselves out with inter-tribal warfare, and consisted almost entirely of saying "You may not kill except in self defense without our permission." I don't think my Paladin would have a problem with this kind of slavery. It should be noted that this was a voluntary slavery.

Then there is the slavery of the Raka in Tamora Pierce's Trickster's Choice and Trickster's Queen books. This was generally an Apartheid system where slavery was common, but not universal (ie. not all slaves were raka, and not all raka were slaves. Free raka could own raka and non-raka slaves). Most of the nobles were descendants of white-skinned conquerors from about 150 years earlier, but some of the old raka nobility survived by swearing fealty. (any similarities to real life are not my fault. I'm discussing her world, not the real one!).

This is the kind of place where if a noble was assassinated, all the raka from the surrounding villages were to be put to death, because they must have aided the assassins. Even if the assassins were hired by the king!

Janus
2013-04-12, 04:25 PM
we fill out the proper "Sexual intercourse" sheets.
:smallbiggrin:
The paperwork's the worst part of Lawful alignments...


Putting that aside, I would tell the man to abandon the code and have a good time.
What's the point in having a code if you're just going to dump it whenever it becomes inconvenient?
Where will it end? Are you saying he should always do this?
DEFEND YOURSELF, BLACKGUARD! *throws dawn gauntlet*

Talakeal
2013-04-12, 04:31 PM
I haven't read BoED, but I roll my eyes every time it gets brought up. I'll never use it to define Good in a D&D game.
Besides, why do people act like it's canon that applies to all D&D campaigns? It's a splat book, for crying out loud.


Man that sure would be nice.

BoED and BoVD really muddy up the relatively simple alignment guides given in the PHB. The problem is people want rules to precisely define alignments (which can be helpful in a debate) and so WoTC felt obliged to give it to them. And they do go a long way towards providing one clear RAW as far as far as D&D alignment goes, the problem is that it isn't always consistent with the fluff presented in other parts of the game (see manual of the planes vs. BoED stance on negative energy for example) and is certainly not consistent with people's real life beliefs on ethics.

Core only gives a few paragraphs on alignment that consist of guidelines rather than hard rules. If you don't resort to the BoED and BoVD then alignment arguments aren't going to be a debate of black and white RAW, just a philosophical debate using RL ethical positions to back them up.




The Paladin arrives at a new country. He has yet to familiarize himself with the laws of the land, but knows that slave-keeping is common. On his first day there, he sees a master beating on a slave. Now, neither the master or the slave ping as evil, but the beating certainly is violent. What should he do?


This is a bit of a tough one.

Slavery is evil according to both RAW and my personal beliefs, as is violence without a good cause.

Even if the slave master is somehow not evil he is engaged in evil activities, and I would stop him by any means necessary. I would, however, only resort to force as a last result, attempting to talk him out of it, bribe him, or offer myself in the slave's place first.

After the immediate threat was over I would then conduct a thorough investigation of why non evil people are owning slaves and what the slave did to invite slavery and beating and act from there.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-12, 04:52 PM
Again, it doesn't matter that the killer has "changed his ways," or "feels bad about it." He killed people. He has done nothing to atone for this. He hasn't turned himself in to pay for his crimes. This isn't stealing an apple from a cart. He murdered people. The paladin is oath-bound to bring him in. Also no where does it say he is going to be executed, just going back to face justice whatever that may be.

Letting him go just because he claims to have changed his ways and won't do anything evil again. Is a Chaotic action. Putting the individual ahead of the group. Although, I can't really see either a neutral or Chaotic good character letting a known murder go either.

On the slavery issue. It's rather obvious. He would have to do what he can to stop the people from owning slaves. Most likely speaking out, and trying to work within the system to change that. As long as the system isn't evil. By evil I mean they aggressively go out and ransack the country side getting as much slaves as they can. If that is the case, he would have to try to take the system down.

Scow2
2013-04-12, 05:09 PM
@ Frozen_Feet. None of my paladins would EVER swear an oath like that.


Again, it doesn't matter that the killer has "changed his ways," or "feels bad about it." He killed people. He has done nothing to atone for this. He hasn't turned himself in to pay for his crimes.Has he done nothing to atone for his crimes? Maybe not turn himself in, but I'd suspect he'd be able to do a lot more good to atone for his crimes by being free instead of executed or locked up to rot for eternity. Then again, Geas/Quest is recognized in D&D to be a frequent substitute punishment to achieve meaningful atonement.

A few points. Firstly, I would like to remind everybody that chastity is neither a lawful nor a Paladin virtues, we are able to have as much sex as we like as long as it is consensual and we fill out the proper "Sexual intercourse" sheets. I don't obviously, because sex scares me and I don't like to leave my room, but many Paladins of my order have done so. So this is a moral issue for some people, but not for all Paladins, sex before marriage is not part of the paladin code, it is just some gods requirements. This could easily apply to a Fighter, a Knight, or a Cleric. Putting that aside, I would tell the man to abandon the code and have a good time.To me, the situation made it clear that it stopped being about the vow. After being told of the Paladin's moral standards and values, she opted to blatantly disregard them, disrespecting him in the process.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 05:29 PM
@ Frozen_Feet. None of my paladins would EVER swear an oath like that.
Care to elaborate what is the dealbreaker?

Scow2
2013-04-12, 05:45 PM
Care to elaborate what is the dealbreaker?I overreacted, but 2 & 4 are sketchier than the rest. But, when followed to the spirit rather than letter, they make a LOT more sense.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-12, 06:17 PM
As an anectode, I fashioned that code based on Scout Law and code of chivalry. So it's the kind of honor code that's actually been used in military and pseudo-military organizations.

Malrone
2013-04-12, 07:51 PM
-snop-


Pretty much all of what this poster said.
Freeing the slaves might be trickier, depending on the law of the land. They might be slaves as recompense for past crimes, were just born into a lower caste, or are 'spoils of war.' In any case, one has to be sure both the law and the people themselves recognize these as ex-slaves. Otherwise, nothing has been changed.

And as I understand it, a Paladin is under no moral obligation to follow the laws that are unjust, ruthless, or otherwise [Evil]. A paladin can make the perfect leader of a rebellion, if the cause is worthy.

@Frozen_Feet: Only certain Paladins of mine would take that brand of oath. Some of the tenants I try to follow universally (violence only as last resort {barring undead/outsiders}), but always obeying orders forever and never doing anything ever that would even mildly bad to my superiors? Ha, no. It is hard enough following an absolute of good without also trying to be absolutely lawful. There are times where bending/breaking rules is necessary for the best end, and I feel like that exact reason is why a Paladin isn't bound to Law absolutely.

TuggyNE
2013-04-12, 08:07 PM
A few points. Firstly, I would like to remind everybody that chastity is neither a lawful nor a Paladin virtues, we are able to have as much sex as we like as long as it is consensual and we fill out the proper "Sexual intercourse" sheets. I don't obviously, because sex scares me and I don't like to leave my room, but many Paladins of my order have done so. So this is a moral issue for some people, but not for all Paladins, sex before marriage is not part of the paladin code, it is just some gods requirements. This could easily apply to a Fighter, a Knight, or a Cleric. Putting that aside, I would tell the man to abandon the code and have a good time.

You're seriously just saying "lol your code is stupid and you're stupid for following it, why do you need to do that when you could have so much fun this other way?" That's a very classic sort of "worldly temptation", and it seems probable that most such Paladins would have been specifically warned against it.

A Paladin who willingly and flagrantly breaks the code they agreed to (whether or not it may have been required for other Paladins of different orders) is getting a fast trip to Fallsville, population: You.

Mind you, if they're reasonably convinced that in point of fact their patron/order/code does not really require this, it'd be a different matter, but just abandoning the code when it's convenient is nothing but falling.

VeliciaL
2013-04-12, 10:55 PM
Paladin's code or no, "have sex with me or else" is a pretty clear cut case of sexual harassment. If I were playing the character, he'd probably gear up to give that woman a stern talking to, at the very least.

It really doesn't matter if the paladin's code prohibits sex or not. Trying to coerce sex out of someone is wrong.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-12, 11:03 PM
Paladin's code or no, "have sex with me or else" is a pretty clear cut case of sexual harassment. If I were playing the character, he'd probably gear up to give that woman a stern talking to, at the very least.

It really doesn't matter if the paladin's code prohibits sex or not. Trying to coerce sex out of someone is wrong.

Sexual harassment and sexual violence seem like things any Paladin should be obliged to oppose. I wouldn't fall the Paladin for subduing her, then depositing her at the local law enforcement HQ. And filing for a restraining order, if not pressing charges.

It's probably easier to visualize the morality of this issue (through our cultural perspective) by reversing the genders for a second. Suppose a man meets a woman in a bar, then demands that she have sex with him. She refuses on the grounds that she wants to wait until marriage. He rejects her decision, and threatens that unless she has sex with him that night, he will stalk her forever, endangering her goals, both their lives, and the lives and well-being of countless others.

I really hope that scenario makes things it clear that this person is demanding sex by making threats against another's safety and well-being. Which, in my opinion, is grounds for beating the snot out of the threatener, then throwing him/her in prison to rot with the rest of the scum therein.


Coercion is wrong, no matter who's doing it, or what anyone's gender is. In subduing her, the Paladin is not only defending his right to choose, but he is also preventing this clearly-disturbed individual from endangering herself and others.

TuggyNE
2013-04-12, 11:30 PM
It's probably easier to visualize the morality of this issue in our culture by reversing the genders for a second. Suppose a man meets a woman in a bar, then demands that she have sex with him. She refuses on the grounds that she wants to wait until marriage. He rejects her decision, and threatens that unless she has sex with him that night, he will stalk her forever, endangering her goals, both their lives, and the lives and well-being of countless others.

I really hope that scenario makes things a little more clear for you.

What? No! She should abandon her outmoded code and just have fun! Principles are for idiots!

Seriously though. This is a pretty good explanation.


1 Funny thing about paladin code issues and other alignment things is that anyone who says "such-and-such is an easy question! It's clearly X!" is usually leaving out some rather important considerations, if only because it clearly isn't easy for the person who asked it to begin with. Ah well, it's the nature of the beast.

Water_Bear
2013-04-13, 12:23 AM
Since I apparently have nothing better to do, here's my answers to all of the questions posed so far, and then one of my own at the bottom;

First Question: Mind Controlled Dude

I'm going to assume that this is a case where the obvious solutions (like "cast Protection from Evil" on him) don't work for whatever reason.

Firstly, at least in 3.5, Good implies respect for life or somesuch so killing the guy is right out. Even as a last resort, this person is an innocent and cannot be killed without auto-falling the Paladin; nonlethal damage and reasonable restraints only.

Basically, this person is now the Pally's responsibility; they need to keep him alive until the end of the dungeoncrawl, return them to a safe storage facility like a local Church of Good, and then go on a Quest for the cure. Classic good-guy stuff.

Second Question: Stalker Woman

Aside from the obvious fact that going back on a sacred vow is almost certainly a grievous violation of their code, it's not such a great precedent to teach this woman that she can coerce people into sex. So no sex then.

As for getting rid of her, hopefully the Paladin's Intelligence was rolled high enough for them to get some ranks in Diplomacy; put that Charisma score to use and talk it out. If not, then they can probably spend a few hours and Take 20, stacking enough circumstance bonuses on there to do the same thing. Worst case, a clean break is better than a messy death; breaking someone's heart to save their life is not nice but absolutely Good.

Third Question: Cowardly Dragon

Leaving the Dragon alive and free in the first place is a head-scratcher, just because it doesn't seem to jive with the Paladin mindset. Justice is more than Weregild, so just taking it's gold without actually helping it redeem itself or stopping it from hurting the innocent further means the job is half-done. But either way, the deal is made and a double-cross is absolutely enough to cause a fall.

Still, a clever Pally can kill two Dragons with one stone; incapacitate the Kobold and send it along with the rest of the party, then head back to the dragon and repeat it's proposal word-for-word. The dragon, now hoardless and realizing it can no longer command the fear of it's minions, is likely going to be having a bit of an existential crisis; it did everything right, why isn't Evil paying off? That's the time for the hard-sell; the power of Good is about the purity of your soul, and can never be taken away by force. Prove that Good is more powerful than Evil, and the Dragon will be on the road to redemption even if out of initially selfish motives.

Third Question: Dwarven Politics

Expose the corruption and mobilize the worshipers to demand reform. The Clerics are only doing this stuff in the first place to win popular support; once they see it's no longer working there will be no reason to continue. In the mean time there will be reprisals, but that's all in a days work for a Paladin.

That said, it must be fairly low priority because all the Clerics must still be within one step of their (presumably Lawful Good) deity, so there's little chance of the religion itself actually becoming a force for Evil.

Fourth Question: The Killer McPsycho Redemption

This one comes down to how Justice works in your campaign; is redemption an automatic Get Out of Jail Free card or does atonement require works of penance? Either way, the rap sheet itself is a red herring; a Paladin's duty to respect legitimate authority is a secondary concern to actually carrying out Justice.

Fifth Question: The Life of Brian, Elfgame Edition

If it walks like a Chosen One, talks like a Chosen One, fight Evil like a Chosen One, and rallies people to the side of Good like a Chosen One that's good enough for me.

Maybe the High Priests intended to lie, but obviously the Commoner's got some stuff; the supernatural luck, incredible personal magnetism and zero-to-hero story all scream Chosen One. The Paladin is better off staying with the guy, both to protect his life (Chosen One or not) and to help the cause. And if anyone asks about the dude, tell the truth; as far as I know the dude's legit.

Sixth Question: Blackguard Shenanigans

Use logic; if he kills the hostages, they're useless as bargaining chips so there's no legitimacy to his threat. He could kill them for fun or because souls are useful and expensive, but if so he would do that anyway especially if the Paladin surrendered.

Even if the Pally is doomed to die on the Blackguard's sword, they might be able to stop the ritual and give the hostages some time to flee, or at least break the receptacle the souls are/would be stored in to free them posthumously. Plus, just because you've lost before doesn't mean you can never win.

Seventh - Ninth Questions: Song of Slavery and Boredom

At least this one is easy; in D&D slavery in unequivocally Evil. A Paladin must protect and free slaves whenever encountered, is obligated to manumit any slaves who come into their possession, and is morally obligated to do fight a legal system which condones slavery through whatever (honorable and Good) means necessary. Culture is not a justification for Evil, and Paladins are not in the business of tolerating Evil.

New Question: A RAW Deal

A Paladin encounters a fellow adventurer; a Good-aligned Fiend. They've still got the Evil instincts, so being a Paladin or Exalted is out because they do occasionally commit Evil acts. Still, they are a champion for Good and use their natural abilities as a Fiend to do things other adventurers can't; just advancing with those outsider HD means they're leaps and bounds above the party Monk and Rogue, and good SLAs or a spellcasting progression can put lower tier spellcasters to shame. But at the same token, letting a Fiend exist is explicitly called out as an Evil act.

And worst of all, your Phylactery of Faithfulness is on the fritz and there's no time to get to a Magic Mart or cast commune before the Fiendish Champion gets out of Smiting range.

What's a Paladin to do?

Rhynn
2013-04-13, 01:32 AM
Sexual harassment and sexual violence seem like things any Paladin should be obliged to oppose. I wouldn't fall the Paladin for subduing her, then depositing her at the local law enforcement HQ. And filing for a restraining order, if not pressing charges.

That is one weird pseudo-medieval setting...

Malrone
2013-04-13, 01:51 AM
New Question: A RAW Deal

A Paladin encounters a fellow adventurer; a Good-aligned Fiend. They've still got the Evil instincts, so being a Paladin or Exalted is out because they do occasionally commit Evil acts. Still, they are a champion for Good and use their natural abilities as a Fiend to do things other adventurers can't; just advancing with those outsider HD means they're leaps and bounds above the party Monk and Rogue, and good SLAs or a spellcasting progression can put lower tier spellcasters to shame. But at the same token, letting a Fiend exist is explicitly called out as an Evil act.

And worst of all, your Phylactery of Faithfulness is on the fritz and there's no time to get to a Magic Mart or cast commune before the Fiendish Champion gets out of Smiting range.

What's a Paladin to do?

If it were in the setting I'm currently a player in, there would be no issue. The resident Paladin of Freedom has proved that well enough by converting three Erinyes to the cause (and his bedroom). By RAW? I'd probably kick the DM if they made a deal of it-
1. Letting Fiends Exist: [Evil]
2. Associating with [Evil] creatures: Code Breaking
3. Killing a Do-Gooder: Evil

So my only option is... make this one not-a-fiend, and preferably by their own volition. Was there anything in BoED for body horror?

Aquatosic
2013-04-13, 07:35 AM
Since I apparently have nothing better to do, here's my answers to all of the questions posed so far, and then one of my own at the bottom;

First Question: Mind Controlled Dude

I'm going to assume that this is a case where the obvious solutions (like "cast Protection from Evil" on him) don't work for whatever reason.

Firstly, at least in 3.5, Good implies respect for life or somesuch so killing the guy is right out. Even as a last resort, this person is an innocent and cannot be killed without auto-falling the Paladin; nonlethal damage and reasonable restraints only.

Basically, this person is now the Pally's responsibility; they need to keep him alive until the end of the dungeoncrawl, return them to a safe storage facility like a local Church of Good, and then go on a Quest for the cure. Classic good-guy stuff.

Second Question: Stalker Woman

Aside from the obvious fact that going back on a sacred vow is almost certainly a grievous violation of their code, it's not such a great precedent to teach this woman that she can coerce people into sex. So no sex then.

As for getting rid of her, hopefully the Paladin's Intelligence was rolled high enough for them to get some ranks in Diplomacy; put that Charisma score to use and talk it out. If not, then they can probably spend a few hours and Take 20, stacking enough circumstance bonuses on there to do the same thing. Worst case, a clean break is better than a messy death; breaking someone's heart to save their life is not nice but absolutely Good.

Third Question: Cowardly Dragon

Leaving the Dragon alive and free in the first place is a head-scratcher, just because it doesn't seem to jive with the Paladin mindset. Justice is more than Weregild, so just taking it's gold without actually helping it redeem itself or stopping it from hurting the innocent further means the job is half-done. But either way, the deal is made and a double-cross is absolutely enough to cause a fall.

Still, a clever Pally can kill two Dragons with one stone; incapacitate the Kobold and send it along with the rest of the party, then head back to the dragon and repeat it's proposal word-for-word. The dragon, now hoardless and realizing it can no longer command the fear of it's minions, is likely going to be having a bit of an existential crisis; it did everything right, why isn't Evil paying off? That's the time for the hard-sell; the power of Good is about the purity of your soul, and can never be taken away by force. Prove that Good is more powerful than Evil, and the Dragon will be on the road to redemption even if out of initially selfish motives.

Third Question: Dwarven Politics

Expose the corruption and mobilize the worshipers to demand reform. The Clerics are only doing this stuff in the first place to win popular support; once they see it's no longer working there will be no reason to continue. In the mean time there will be reprisals, but that's all in a days work for a Paladin.

That said, it must be fairly low priority because all the Clerics must still be within one step of their (presumably Lawful Good) deity, so there's little chance of the religion itself actually becoming a force for Evil.

Fourth Question: The Killer McPsycho Redemption

This one comes down to how Justice works in your campaign; is redemption an automatic Get Out of Jail Free card or does atonement require works of penance? Either way, the rap sheet itself is a red herring; a Paladin's duty to respect legitimate authority is a secondary concern to actually carrying out Justice.

Fifth Question: The Life of Brian, Elfgame Edition

If it walks like a Chosen One, talks like a Chosen One, fight Evil like a Chosen One, and rallies people to the side of Good like a Chosen One that's good enough for me.

Maybe the High Priests intended to lie, but obviously the Commoner's got some stuff; the supernatural luck, incredible personal magnetism and zero-to-hero story all scream Chosen One. The Paladin is better off staying with the guy, both to protect his life (Chosen One or not) and to help the cause. And if anyone asks about the dude, tell the truth; as far as I know the dude's legit.

Sixth Question: Blackguard Shenanigans

Use logic; if he kills the hostages, they're useless as bargaining chips so there's no legitimacy to his threat. He could kill them for fun or because souls are useful and expensive, but if so he would do that anyway especially if the Paladin surrendered.

Even if the Pally is doomed to die on the Blackguard's sword, they might be able to stop the ritual and give the hostages some time to flee, or at least break the receptacle the souls are/would be stored in to free them posthumously. Plus, just because you've lost before doesn't mean you can never win.

Seventh - Ninth Questions: Song of Slavery and Boredom

At least this one is easy; in D&D slavery in unequivocally Evil. A Paladin must protect and free slaves whenever encountered, is obligated to manumit any slaves who come into their possession, and is morally obligated to do fight a legal system which condones slavery through whatever (honorable and Good) means necessary. Culture is not a justification for Evil, and Paladins are not in the business of tolerating Evil.

New Question: A RAW Deal

A Paladin encounters a fellow adventurer; a Good-aligned Fiend. They've still got the Evil instincts, so being a Paladin or Exalted is out because they do occasionally commit Evil acts. Still, they are a champion for Good and use their natural abilities as a Fiend to do things other adventurers can't; just advancing with those outsider HD means they're leaps and bounds above the party Monk and Rogue, and good SLAs or a spellcasting progression can put lower tier spellcasters to shame. But at the same token, letting a Fiend exist is explicitly called out as an Evil act.

And worst of all, your Phylactery of Faithfulness is on the fritz and there's no time to get to a Magic Mart or cast commune before the Fiendish Champion gets out of Smiting range.

What's a Paladin to do?

Thank You, you have the best answers yet. To your dilemma, I say that in Christian mythology, the residents of Hell were originally angels. His evil mindset can be cured with time and without mind-rape, just stay near him to stop his occasional evil acts. Also, fall or not, any code that makes me kill a creature just for existing is not a code I want to follow.

Hyena
2013-04-13, 09:01 AM
Here's a situation brought to you by especially sadistic DM.


You're ~6 level paladin.
Due to a chain of event beyond your control, you are cut off from your homeland and find yourself in the strange lands you've never heard before. There are many cities here, but they are poor and their people - frightened and aggressive. As you try to return to your home, you accidently see the reason.
There also lives the 300-hundread year old individual, cleric of the dark gods (see Bane or the Devourer), who is unnaturally powerful - in fact, he is the most powerful being you've ever seen in your enitre life (22 ECL). For the decades he was using this land as his personal playground, pillaging, burning, raping and killing everything he pleases in the time free from participating in this universes' analogue for Blood War. Many tried to challenge him, no one have managed to land a hit on him yet. He also has a tendency to raze the cities that displease him.
If you try to oppose him, the dark gods themselves contact you and tell they are surprised by your bravery - in fact, they will help you bring the bastard down, if you do them a small favor - take the cleric's place as their arch-servant. Making the deal involves selling your soul (which means the eternity of torture in the afterlife) or human sacrfices.
Oh, and there is a horde of undead in your homeland, killing your friends, so you really should return as fast as you can.

Rhynn
2013-04-13, 09:16 AM
Here's a situation brought to you by especially sadistic DM.

Deal with dark deities is out of the question. Prioritization is going to be individual, but you need to become more powerful, find allies and magic items, etc., and deal with 1. the evil cleric and 2. the undead, in some order (probably the easier one first).

Doesn't seem particularly sadistic, and the deal with evil isn't even particularly tempting, IMO. It's obviously beyond the pale for a paladin, and the rest is just classic motivation for a paladin to become powerful.

Water_Bear
2013-04-13, 11:37 AM
Here's a situation brought to you by especially sadistic DM.

I like moral dilemmas like this because they're more lateral thinking puzzles than Profession (Munchkin) rolls. I love debating rules minutia, but solving in-game problems creatively is why RPGs are so fun in the first place.

My 2cp;

This is actually much like the Evil Dragon problem from before. Tell the Epic Dude what the Dark Gods told you; that three centuries of exemplary service, enacting their will for the Prime Material on a massive scale, enormous contributions to their extraplanar war efforts... all of that is of less consequence to them than corrupting the soul of a single Paladin. The Goodness of a Paladin who he could crush like an insect at any point is so important that the Dark Gods will risk one of their most powerful servants just to extinguish it. THAT is the power of Good, that such a lowly champion of it is worth so much more than even the greatest Lord of Evil.

How could a Cleric, someone whose life is built around interpreting and executing their God's will, fail to recognize the message that Good is more powerful and dangerous than Evil? And to gain that power for themself, all they have to do is figure out this whole "empathy" thing, which sounds like a piece of cake. After all, if even a foolish PALADIN can do it, why not them?

Talakeal
2013-04-13, 12:04 PM
Thank You, you have the best answers yet. To your dilemma, I say that in Christian mythology, the residents of Hell were originally angels. His evil mindset can be cured with time and without mind-rape, just stay near him to stop his occasional evil acts. Also, fall or not, any code that makes me kill a creature just for existing is not a code I want to follow.

That's not part of the paladin code (specifically) that's part of the good alignment as defined by BoED. By RAW it is an evil act for ANYONE to allow an evil outsider to exist. Paladins just have more consequences for evil acts than most.

By RAW, however, I believe killing a good creature is not necessarily an evil act, only the death of an innocent creature is defined as such. So in D&D messed up RAW on alignment I believe killing the fiend is the only thing a paladin can possibly do.

If they encounter a fiend who is somehow innocent, however, that appears to be a no win situation.

hamishspence
2013-04-13, 12:07 PM
That's not part of the paladin code (specifically) that's part of the good alignment as defined by BoED. By RAW it is an evil act for ANYONE to allow an evil outsider to exist.

BoVD, not BoED, in this case.

Given that at least one fiend paladin was statted out by WoTC- and didn't Fall for not killing herself- nor did the angel who redeemed her become corrupt in the process- this strongly suggests that this particular part of BoVD is ignored by most writers.

Hyena
2013-04-13, 12:08 PM
My 2cp;
Have been attempted. The cleric shrugged off and said he expected his gods to double cross him, but it doesn't matter to him in the slightest - after all, he would never serve them if he wasn't exactly like them. He ALSO knew that his masters would only offer that power to those, who would never agree to sign the deal, so he did not fear the paladin at the slightest.
Long story short, he also took a great interest in tempting the paladin into accepting the deal, because that seemed to be fun - he was confident in his ability to win even if the paladin was to gain all those powers given by the dark deities, and strongly annoyed by the strict code the paladin followed.
He even took such extremes as stalking the paladin, finding out he was particularty close to one of the natives and brutally killing said native in public. And mocking the pally about how everyone was too scared to even speak against the action.
I finished this scenario two times, dissatisfied with the first result, but never managed to get a happy ending where the code was unbroken and people did not suffer for years under cleric's rule.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-13, 12:18 PM
Given that at least one fiend paladin was statted out by WoTC- and didn't Fall for not killing herself- nor did the angel who redeemed her become corrupt in the process- this strongly suggests that this particular part of BoVD is ignored by most writers.

Maybe she's suicidal, and decided to go out adventuring in an attempt to kill herself while still doing good deeds?

hamishspence
2013-04-13, 12:25 PM
The article leaves it vague:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

and also has stats for Fallen versions of her- for those who want to cut short her career as a redeemed character.

Rhynn
2013-04-13, 02:02 PM
By RAW, however, I believe killing a good creature is not necessarily an evil act, only the death of an innocent creature is defined as such. So in D&D messed up RAW on alignment I believe killing the fiend is the only thing a paladin can possibly do.

If they encounter a fiend who is somehow innocent, however, that appears to be a no win situation.

This is a great illustration of why strictly RAW discussions of D&D paladins are close to pointless... :smallbiggrin:

Not that I think supplements should necessarily be considered "RAW" for a general discussion. Some people use them, some don't.

Aquatosic
2013-04-13, 02:54 PM
That's not part of the paladin code (specifically) that's part of the good alignment as defined by BoED. By RAW it is an evil act for ANYONE to allow an evil outsider to exist. Paladins just have more consequences for evil acts than most.

By RAW, however, I believe killing a good creature is not necessarily an evil act, only the death of an innocent creature is defined as such. So in D&D messed up RAW on alignment I believe killing the fiend is the only thing a paladin can possibly do.

If they encounter a fiend who is somehow innocent, however, that appears to be a no win situation.

screw the rules! I just said that Evil Act in the minds of the world or not, that is what I would do. A good fiend could be a powerful force for Good, so even if I fall, I can impart my worldview to him as a mentor. I would not follow a morality system that advocates killing any sentient being on sight. Have none of you heard of Planescape:Torment's Lawful Neutral chaste succubus Fall-From-Grace?

Water_Bear
2013-04-13, 04:02 PM
This is a great illustration of why strictly RAW discussions of D&D paladins are close to pointless... :smallbiggrin:

FTFY :smallcool:


Not that I think supplements should necessarily be considered "RAW" for a general discussion. Some people use them, some don't.

Choosing not to use material is a perfectly legitimate choice for a DM, and frankly using all of the stuff WotC put out would be as foolish as it is expensive. But that doesn't change the fact that the rules on the page are still there.


screw the rules! I just said that Evil Act in the minds of the world or not, that is what I would do. A good fiend could be a powerful force for Good, so even if I fall, I can impart my worldview to him as a mentor. I would not follow a morality system that advocates killing any sentient being on sight.

Paladins who say "screw the rules," willingly commit evil acts with the justification that it will help Good in the long run, and consort with Fiends are well on their way to being Blackguards. All that heavy armor means that Falling on a slippery slope is inadvisable.

Kyberwulf
2013-04-13, 04:42 PM
One of the problems I have with these, "Crappy Choice" vs. "Crappy choice" questions, is that it doesn't address what really makes a paladin fall. In such a case, he has to do something and make a choice. Either one has consequences and if he takes the time to think about what his choice will do. Which choice will have the better outcome, he is safe from falling. As long as its the best choice out of the situations, and isn't effecting what will be the best outcome for the paladin. If he chooses the choice where it is most beneficial for him, that is when he is neglecting his code.

If you do your best with what skill and information you have. You are in no real danger of falling.

Coidzor
2013-04-13, 06:41 PM
Here's a situation brought to you by especially sadistic DM.


You're ~6 level paladin.
Due to a chain of event beyond your control, you are cut off from your homeland and find yourself in the strange lands you've never heard before. There are many cities here, but they are poor and their people - frightened and aggressive. As you try to return to your home, you accidently see the reason.
There also lives the 300-hundread year old individual, cleric of the dark gods (see Bane or the Devourer), who is unnaturally powerful - in fact, he is the most powerful being you've ever seen in your enitre life (22 ECL). For the decades he was using this land as his personal playground, pillaging, burning, raping and killing everything he pleases in the time free from participating in this universes' analogue for Blood War. Many tried to challenge him, no one have managed to land a hit on him yet. He also has a tendency to raze the cities that displease him.
If you try to oppose him, the dark gods themselves contact you and tell they are surprised by your bravery - in fact, they will help you bring the bastard down, if you do them a small favor - take the cleric's place as their arch-servant. Making the deal involves selling your soul (which means the eternity of torture in the afterlife) or human sacrfices.
Oh, and there is a horde of undead in your homeland, killing your friends, so you really should return as fast as you can.


Re-evaluate who I was playing with.

Fibinachi
2013-04-13, 06:47 PM
Option A:

They've offered me the powers to bring him down
I would replace the cleric as their arch-servant
The cleric is aware of this offer, and is continuing to serve the gods despite it
The gods are like him, and what they're interested in is the corruption of goodness.


Conclusion: The cleric is still in possession of his own faculties, so he is making the choices to do the things he does. Thus, I'm fine accepting the deal.

What? He gets brought down (so he's out), I get the powers to replace him, and no part of that deal implied I had to continue serving them afterwards- merely replace him as their arch-servant. I can quit. I'm ECL 22 now. Can I take on the Dark Gods?

They may take my soul, but they can't take my alignment or my self determination, because that's the bit that's important, the willing choice to do evil, and I don't have to make that choice. If they back out of the deal, no one is any worse off than before (Well, except me, I guess, what with the eternal torture for mocking the Dark Ones, but hey, comes with the job).

[Honour intact, integrity intact, no betrayals.]

Option B

If the Dark Gods specifically annoint a champion so dire, one that razes entire towns at will, and who serves the whim of his cruel deities despite their own stated preference in casting him off at the merest opportunity, how much back up can I call in? I'm not talking my country, that has an undead infestation to deal with - I'm talking planer intervention. If the Dark Gods are allowed to support, help and have a champion they actively watch over and collude with, what's stopping my side? And if nothing is, I'd like to point out the manifest unfairness of this flagrant violation of the principles of balance to Mechanus. Suck on Inevitable(s), ECL 22 Guy! You're in violation of Balance of the multiverse.

[Refering To Higher Authority, still Paladin]

Option C

All else fails, and being sneaky doesn't cut it? Fine. Time to go have a talk with Evil.

I'm not going to try to convert him, because that's been tried and clearly doesn't work, but I do want to ask him one question: If he follows his gods because they're like him, and they grant him the power to do as he pleases, why isn't he a god? Being the lackluster servant of things that'll cast you down to replace you for their own gain isn't exactly a long term prospect, and how many times have you razed this capital again? I mean, what's your long term plan here, mate? What's the end-goal? Corpses of the Corpse god? That's it? I mean, phenomenal cosmic power, minimal ambition and you live in a quagmire of destruction?

Sure, suits the lowly, I guess. When was the last time you built something? You choose gods that were like you, so must have ambition, drive, focus, desire and the keen need for backstabbing and Evil. If not, you're nothing but a patsy and my beef isn't with you, and if you do, then why aren't you God?

[Pointing Out Obvious Alternatives, Still Paladin]

Option D

The Long Con:

Clearly this is a local problem. Despite the terror and dread, this was all discovered the moment I have arrived. It is a terrible cesspit of misery, and it needs to be stopped.

Clearly, I am not up to par to stop it now, however. So first, return home, stop the undead invasion (assuming that isn't likewise led by a minor demigod) [Aside, when did "Stop the undead invasion" end up being like "Have a cup of tea 5:00-5:05"?], then rally trusted allies and commence the Long Game.

The cleric has a weakness, and it can be found. It requires checking out the historical precedent but the possibilities are there. Can the connection between Gods and Man be severed, if so, how? Do the Gods need him to act, or can they bestow their powers upon anyone - if so, I must know someone I can bring along to take up their offer, but who won't be a mass-murderer. Is he only empowered in this local area (I never head about him before)? If so, he can be lured away and then taken care of. If everything here is completely impossible, then the objective is impossible and Evil has won and the Multi-Verse is thus doomed.

[Possible dereliction of duty charges, possible gross negligence, Paladin-status debatable]

Eh, I tried. :smallfrown:

VeliciaL
2013-04-13, 07:43 PM
It does seem to me to be rather cheap to put a paladin up against a villain he can't hope to defeat on his own and say "If you don't defeat him, you'll fall."

Moreb Benhk
2013-04-13, 07:57 PM
Option A:

They may take my soul, but they can't take my alignment or my self determination, because that's the bit that's important, the willing choice to do evil, and I don't have to make that choice.

[Honour intact, integrity intact, no betrayals.]

Surely doing a deal with Evil Gods for (evil, corrupting) power at the cost of your soul, no matter how good your intentions, is a falling offense. What's more, having forfeited your soul and immersed yourself in this evil power, how are you still LG? Sounds like you are now a Grayguard, or even a Blackguard. Still... sweet character progression.


Option B
....

[Refering To Higher Authority, still Paladin]

Nice lateral thinking. It seems to me that a Level 6 Paladin would struggle to pull this off, even if they were to be interested.


Option C
....

[Pointing Out Obvious Alternatives, Still Paladin]

Seems more than just pointing out the obvious, seems like encouraging an evil power to get out there and do some bigger scale evil. Aren't Paladins supp


Option D

The Long Con:
....
[Possible dereliction of duty charges, possible gross negligence, Paladin-status debatable]

I'd actually argue that this is one of the less debatable options. Paladins aren't required to fight a battle they know they can't win now. Pointless suicide does nothing to advance the cause of Good or Law. Some wars just take a long time to position yourself for the win. Going back for backup seems ten kinds of sensible, because the only actual good you can accomplish here is down-the-road-when-I-have-more-punch good. If Paladins are required to immediately and personally fight every evil they come across, they are guaranteed to fall (2 instances of evil are before me and I can't battle both immediately, only one at a time), and/or they would all be dead from effective suicides.

The only bit of Plan D that sounds fall-worthy to me is the bit about finding someone else to take on the evil-power to fight the bad guy.

Fibinachi
2013-04-13, 08:24 PM
Hey, if the cost of that particular paladin in that particular scenario is falling...
... then I intend to so hard and so fast that the impact carries me and the cleric through the core of the planet and out the other side, streaking blood, grit, gore, law, evil, good and the precepts of my convictions far, far behind me. If being a rapidly moving comet soaring across the multiverse is the price one must pay to defeat a demigod of Evil, then that'll be the price. And I'll streak across through the mantles of the earth with an embrace and a smile.

But you know, it's probably better to just call for back up in that case. Not being obliged to suicide, as you say, the situation is less "You're going to fall" and more "This is currently beyond your reach, and moderation is the better part of valor"

Moreb Benhk
2013-04-13, 08:30 PM
It makes me wonder though, is actively embracing your own Fall as a means to destroy a powerful evil an ironically Paladinly thing to do?

Talakeal
2013-04-13, 08:41 PM
It makes me wonder though, is actively embracing your own Fall as a means to destroy a powerful evil an ironically Paladinly thing to do?

Nope. BoED explicitly states that it is not. The ends never justify the means, and your own purity is objectively NEVER a worthwhile sacrifice. D&D logic is wierd.

Aquatosic
2013-04-13, 09:29 PM
Paladins who say "screw the rules," willingly commit evil acts with the justification that it will help Good in the long run, and consort with Fiends are well on their way to being Blackguards. All that heavy armor means that Falling on a slippery slope is inadvisable.

yes, I admit "screw the rules" was a bad way to say it, but the fact that this fiend is good-aligned shows that "evil" outsiders are not irredeemable. If they were pure embodiments of evil and sadism from birth and had no desire to change, it would be a different story. If I was a paladin of a god known as an unrelenting scourge of evil, I would probably kill him, but I would never create a paladin character under that type of God. Rules are important and they remind you of your responsibilities, but they can be bent.

BarnabasBailey
2013-04-13, 10:16 PM
Here's a more general issue, involving an overarching philosophy more than a specific instance:

You, a paladin, signed up for the cause for the wrong reasons. Rather than an inherent desire to see justice done or to defend the innocent, your primary motivations are more personal in nature. Perhaps you wish to be seen by the world as a paragon of virtue. Perhaps you wish to be famous. Perhaps taking up the holy vows seemed to you to be the most expedient way to properly tackle whatever major threat your world suffers under (having neither the mental acumen for wizardry nor the courage and fortitude to go it alone as a fighter). In any case, you lack the necessary convictions to be an appropriate example of a paladin, even if you otherwise follow the letter of the code of conduct and are generally seen by those around you as typical for your ilk.

In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling? I have a personal stake in the question, since I once thought something like this might be viable but did not want to risk making my fellow players nervous, like they were traveling with a ticking time-bomb.

TuggyNE
2013-04-13, 10:24 PM
In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling?

Yes, because (if nothing else) when faced with any of the problems in this thread (or others) you're likely to choose poorly, based on your actual motives rather than the convictions you don't really possess. For example, a paladin wishing to be famous would probably have no particular problem sleeping with the persistent woman from up-thread, and would be strongly averse to being known for getting someone killed.

Water_Bear
2013-04-13, 10:24 PM
yes, I admit "screw the rules" was a bad way to say it, but the fact that this fiend is good-aligned shows that "evil" outsiders are not irredeemable. If they were pure embodiments of evil and sadism from birth and had no desire to change, it would be a different story. If I was a paladin of a god known as an unrelenting scourge of evil, I would probably kill him, but I would never create a paladin character under that type of God. Rules are important and they remind you of your responsibilities, but they can be bent.

Yeah, the whole "allowing a Fiend to exist is Evil" thing was really poorly thought out. The most Evil Fiends are still only Always Evil, so the capacity for Good Fiends is baked into the system, and there are types of Fiends like Tieflings that aren't any more evil than your average Goblin. Besides, I prefer my Evil Acts to be actual acts; it should take some pretty serious inaction before not doing something becomes Fall-worthy.

Also, remember that Paladins may choose to serve Gods but their power comes from abstract principles of LG. If Hieronius tells you to eat a kitten, the proper Paladin response is to (politely) tell him to go screw himself. Justice is a multiversal principle beyond the Gods and not something dictated by them.


You, a paladin, signed up for the cause for the wrong reasons. Rather than an inherent desire to see justice done or to defend the innocent, your primary motivations are more personal in nature. Perhaps you wish to be seen by the world as a paragon of virtue. Perhaps you wish to be famous. Perhaps taking up the holy vows seemed to you to be the most expedient way to properly tackle whatever major threat your world suffers under (having neither the mental acumen for wizardry nor the courage and fortitude to go it alone as a fighter). In any case, you lack the necessary convictions to be an appropriate example of a paladin, even if you otherwise follow the letter of the code of conduct and are generally seen by those around you as typical for your ilk.

I'm not sure that would even work.

Technically, all you need to be a Paladin is a Lawful Good alignment (and some seriously lucky rolls in most older editions), but the fluff of the Paladin's abilities doesn't make sense if the Paladin isn't 100% committed. Like, how does their Immunity to Fear (Ex) work if not through that conviction?

I suppose, depending on your DM, this could work but then it's really just a matter of time until you Fall. Even most LG people will commit Evil acts every once in awhile, especially the stupid ones no-one thinks about like allowing Fiends to exist. Without the actual desire to be a Paladin, eventually pragmatism will win out and your character will be shopping for an Atonement or investigating the PHB II's retraining rules.

BarnabasBailey
2013-04-13, 10:36 PM
Yes, because (if nothing else) when faced with any of the problems in this thread (or others) you're likely to choose poorly, based on your actual motives rather than the convictions you don't really possess.

That's actually a pretty salient point. It does, however, allow for a particular loophole: The paladin would be in little danger of falling if they weren't faced with problems like that. As long as no serious tests of faith ever show up, the rest of the community would keep him in shiny armor, convinced that he was just as trustworthy as the next guy in the absence of proof to the contrary. Still, given the propensity of DM's to be what they are, they would probably smell that particular blood in the water right quick, and "he halfheartedly becomes a paladin and absolutely nothing bad comes of it" would be a pretty weak dramatic story-line. Still, if you were willing to accept the eventual gank, it might make for a wonderful tragic character piece. If you're the kind of "story first" nut-job who's perfectly okay sacrificing playability for the sake of a gripping drama.



Technically, all you need to be a Paladin is a Lawful Good alignment (and some seriously lucky rolls in most older editions), but the fluff of the Paladin's abilities doesn't make sense if the Paladin isn't 100% committed. Like, how does their Immunity to Fear (Ex) work if not through that conviction?

I just sort of assumed it was the powers that be bestowing that. Obviously, having the divine favor of one of the most powerful deities in the world would make one feel rather secure.

Rhynn
2013-04-13, 11:11 PM
In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling? I have a personal stake in the question, since I once thought something like this might be viable but did not want to risk making my fellow players nervous, like they were traveling with a ticking time-bomb.

I generally think that such a character wouldn't be a paladin at all. Just taking the oaths or whatever doesn't get you paladin powers - you get them from actually being pure of heart, etc. You'd be a Lawful Good Fighter.

Even if paladin powers come from deities in that setting, they IMO wouldn't be bestowing them to someone who wasn't pure of heart and all that good stuff. However, they might! Who knows! I do like settings where you can have "corrupt" clerics that can still pass as clerics. (Although I far prefer settings where priests are everywhere but clerics are rare as anything.)

Edit: To clarify, if clerics can wield divine power without actually being faithful, then paladins surely could; and in some settings, paladins might need less approval from the deity, weird as that may seem. And, generally, in my games, chivalric orders that have paladin codes of conduct are actually full of (mostly Lawful and mostly Good) fighters, with a rare few paladins. Even the Round Table, IMO, included maybe 1-2 paladins (Galahad, pretty much).

Coidzor
2013-04-14, 01:24 AM
Here's a more general issue, involving an overarching philosophy more than a specific instance:

You, a paladin, signed up for the cause for the wrong reasons. Rather than an inherent desire to see justice done or to defend the innocent, your primary motivations are more personal in nature. Perhaps you wish to be seen by the world as a paragon of virtue. Perhaps you wish to be famous. Perhaps taking up the holy vows seemed to you to be the most expedient way to properly tackle whatever major threat your world suffers under (having neither the mental acumen for wizardry nor the courage and fortitude to go it alone as a fighter). In any case, you lack the necessary convictions to be an appropriate example of a paladin, even if you otherwise follow the letter of the code of conduct and are generally seen by those around you as typical for your ilk.

In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling? I have a personal stake in the question, since I once thought something like this might be viable but did not want to risk making my fellow players nervous, like they were traveling with a ticking time-bomb.

Well, my understanding was that such a person could not have become a Paladin in the first place, as Paladinhood is more like "The Call" than something you'd find at even a high fantasy job fair.

While they may have been more initially vulnerable, their formative Paladin experiences would build upon whatever part of the core of the person lead them to be chosen and one another until there was no real discernible difference in character aside from the history. Not already being the paragon of Paladins before becoming a Paladin in the first place wouldn't cause a newly-minted Paladin to fall, though, as that's just kind of silly.

Unless Paladin is "Knight with minor religious powers/duties," then you're going to be running into a becoming the mask situation if nothing else.

GolemsVoice
2013-04-14, 06:29 AM
In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling? I have a personal stake in the question, since I once thought something like this might be viable but did not want to risk making my fellow players nervous, like they were traveling with a ticking time-bomb.

Yeah, as the others said, it's unlikely such a person would have become a Paladin in the first place, since, as far as I know, being a Paladin requires at least some power granted by an outside force, either gods, or the literal concept of good and law.

But assuming you DID manage it and became a Paladin, powers and all, the things that Paladins are supposed to do could prove too much for your character quickly. Remember, Paladins don't usually guard temples or oversee churches, that's either for clerics or for senior Paladins. Paladins go out into the world and vanquish evil with sword in hand and a prayer on their lips. If you lack the courage and fortitude for a fighter, how could you manage what a Paladin is supposed to do? Because a fighter could just say "Eh, this is too much for me, I'm out" and lose nothing, potentially, but for a Paladin, abandoning a fight because you're not brave enough could warrant a fall.

However, if he joined up to fight what is threatening his world, he might have it in himself after all? Because in the end, he wants to protect his world!

TL, DR: it might not make you auto-fall, but it might make it much more likely that you do.

Hyena
2013-04-14, 06:29 AM
The Long Con:

*cue to corrupt general drinking and smoking*
- So, have I heard you correctly? There's some demigod that we've never heard of in the land we've never heard off, who does horrible things to people we've never seen, and all that can back it up is a word of a low-ranking paladin, who joined the army and then dissappeared in the middle of the major battle, causing us to lose? Well, excuse me, I don't care.

*cue to the equally corrupted and bigot high priest*
- Excuse me, but you are not too low of rank to speak to me, but you are also a mudblood. Guards, take it away!

*cue to the freaking king of the land*
- I don't remember offering an audience to you. If you want to discuss this, talk to the general or to the high priest.


Mechanus
Doesn't exist in this multiverse.


Thus, I'm fine accepting the deal.
That's what I have done in my second playthrough. I smashed the cleric's head, then raised him as undead, destroyed him the second time (he could reincarnate), teleported to my homeland, dealt with the undead threat and that drank poison.
Because I don't want to go mad with power and truly replace the previous guy. And the eternity of torture was totally worth it.



In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling?.

No, it's nothing wrong as itself. But the thing is, when you need it, are you going to do the right thing or the popular one? When in the dark, where nobody will ever know, are you going to do the right thing? If you didn't have character development previous to that, the answer is, most likely, "not the right one".

Rhynn
2013-04-14, 06:39 AM
Well, my understanding was that such a person could not have become a Paladin in the first place, as Paladinhood is more like "The Call" than something you'd find at even a high fantasy job fair.

While they may have been more initially vulnerable, their formative Paladin experiences would build upon whatever part of the core of the person lead them to be chosen and one another until there was no real discernible difference in character aside from the history. Not already being the paragon of Paladins before becoming a Paladin in the first place wouldn't cause a newly-minted Paladin to fall, though, as that's just kind of silly.

Yeah, this is pretty much my views, too. I'm not that far into The Deed of Paksenarrion yet (12/31, first book of three), but it's basically a story of this so far. Paks is trained as a fighting-woman, and she's obviously Lawful Good... for instance, having come of age, she flees home to avoid a marriage her father would force her into, but when she finally gets paid by the mercenary company, he first thought is how long it'll take her to pay back her dowry to her father. But she's not, yet, a shining example of paladinhood (she's not even religious, yet).


Yeah, as the others said, it's unlikely such a person would have become a Paladin in the first place, since, as far as I know, being a Paladin requires at least some power granted by an outside force, either gods, or the literal concept of good and law.

I actually like the idea that it is, at least partly, an internal thing. Maybe a deity or the Cosmic Good invests some power in you (like spellcasting; I sort of like knightly order paladins over temple paladins), but a lot of it - like being immune to fear - is you, being so pure and disciplined and good and principled that you gain these abilities.

Aquatosic
2013-04-14, 09:08 AM
Also, remember that Paladins may choose to serve Gods but their power comes from abstract principles of LG. If Hieronius tells you to eat a kitten, the proper Paladin response is to (politely) tell him to go screw himself. Justice is a multiversal principle beyond the Gods and not something dictated by them.

Would a cleric of such a god of unrelenting justice lose his powers if he didn't kill the fiend? This is purely theoretical since if you follow that god you obviously share that mindset.

Frozen_Feet
2013-04-14, 10:33 AM
I like moral dilemmas like this because they're more lateral thinking puzzles than Profession (Munchkin) rolls...

To be frank, Profession (Munchkin) would help you more here.

Reality check: ECL 6 Paladin VS. ECL 22 Cleric. You are physically, spiritually and morally outmatched. Yes, morally. Think for a second, what's the Wis & Cha of the cleric? It's safe to assume that at this point, he either has very good reasons for doing what he does, or he is completely immune to any reason whatsoever. If you go and challenge him in a debate, it's not him who's going to have a perspective shift.

I think that while the scenario posed is interesting, it's not a good fit for the thread because the difficulties of the situation do not derive from the Paladin's code. The code is fairly clear - ignore the fiends and lay low as long as required to get the power and help needed to tackle the cleric and the undead, starting with the easier one and ending with the harder.

While the deal with the devil might solve the situation, no self-respecting paladin would be foolish enough to trust evil gods in such scenario. In any case, either selling his soul or someone else's violates the Paladin code.

If you don't care about your status as a paladin, you might as well start chanting "Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu" at this point, but winning the scenario as presented is simply out of the league for the paladin. He must choose tasks that are within his scope for now, and hopefully, he can become powerful enough to tackle the cleric some day.

It's not quite no-win scenario, but the deck is stacked against the paladin to such an extent that no matter what he chooses, chance of victory is slim. Remaining a paladin, however, is not really the issue.



In short: does having ulterior motives (short of truly evil ones like pure power or greed) put the otherwise well-behaved paladin at risk of falling? I have a personal stake in the question, since I once thought something like this might be viable but did not want to risk making my fellow players nervous, like they were traveling with a ticking time-bomb.


Not directly. As long as your ulterior motives don't come into conflict with Paladin's code or Lawful Good alignment, you're good to go. Once they do come in conflict, you might be in a pinch, however. So it's going to lead to a tough choice or two somewhere down the line.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-14, 11:01 AM
Would a cleric of such a god of unrelenting justice lose his powers if he didn't kill the fiend? This is purely theoretical since if you follow that god you obviously share that mindset.

Clerics fall when their gods say so, or when their alignment shifts too far. It's like having a boss; you can slip up sometimes, but he'll usually give you some slack before firing you. This gives Clerics much more flexibility than Paladins.


Paladins fall when they fail to follow their creed. The Paladin's unwavering adherence to absolute moral purity gives him power. When that's tarnished, however slightly, it cuts him off, and he must either clean it up (via Atonement), or take strength from a different source (Blackguard, Antipaladin).

Aquatosic
2013-04-14, 12:31 PM
Clerics fall when their gods say so, or when their alignment shifts too far. It's like having a boss; you can slip up sometimes, but he'll usually give you some slack before firing you. This gives Clerics much more flexibility than Paladins.


Paladins fall when they fail to follow their creed. The Paladin's unwavering adherence to absolute moral purity gives him power. When that's tarnished, however slightly, it cuts him off, and he must either clean it up (via Atonement), or take strength from a different source (Blackguard, Antipaladin).
Would a god of unrelenting justice be that lenient? :confused:

Hyena
2013-04-14, 02:31 PM
You appear to be a little extreme. Justice is... just. God will not disown his champion because he made a mistake in his judgement - mistakes are to be corrected, and if cleric is repenting, he is to be forgiven.
Paladins are special case for a reason - they are superpowered BECAUSE they are so pure and flawless. If a paladin ceases to be flawless, he ceases to be superpowered.

Water_Bear
2013-04-14, 02:57 PM
Reality check: ECL 6 Paladin VS. ECL 22 Cleric. You are physically, spiritually and morally outmatched. Yes, morally. Think for a second, what's the Wis & Cha of the cleric? It's safe to assume that at this point, he either has very good reasons for doing what he does, or he is completely immune to any reason whatsoever. If you go and challenge him in a debate, it's not him who's going to have a perspective shift.

The Diplomacy DC doesn't change based on the other guy's Wisdom modifier. As long as we're bypassing RP with mechanics, might as well go all out. :smallwink:

But seriously, assuming this guy isn't optimized better than his deity (or else he'd have already beaten it up and stole it's lunch money Divine Ranks by now) he's not going to be rocking much more than a modified 34 or so Wisdom and 26-ish Charisma. A Paladin who's rolled well enough to be justified in taking the class in the first place* ought to have about an 18 Charisma and 16 Wisdom by now. That's a big difference, but it only comes out to about a +9 advantage on Wisdom and a +4 on Charisma; hardly insurmountable when both sides are rolling d20s.

I like people to RP their mental ability scores as much as the next guy, but there's no reason I can think of why the Paladin can't make an argument the Cleric hasn't got a good answer to.

*Ability Score minimums for classes were annoying, but at the very least they ensured you could actually play the class. The Paladin especially can't work without having at least the 2e minimum scores.

Janus
2013-04-14, 03:13 PM
Aside from agreeing that no worthwhile paladin will trust an evil deity, here's something else that bugs me-

And the eternity of torture was totally worth it.
Eternity's a really, really long time, you know. You could count every individual bit of sand in the world and by the time you were done, eternity wouldn't have even truly begun.

Hyena
2013-04-14, 03:42 PM
Eternity's a really, really long time, you know
I know. I decided my character would try to comfort herself in the knowledge she saved countless people from tyrannical demigod and no champion of the dark ones can pop out anymore.

What pissed me off, though, was that DM congratulated me on my "victory" and said that my character got her place in Heaven. He also said that the entire scenario was created to teach me to discard the Codes and "think with my own head and decide what's best". Because selling your soul is great decision, it seems. As is poisoning the cleric, dealing with the dark gods further and lying to him to gain the upper hand.
I tried to find out here if there's any honest and good way to deal with the cleric, but it seems that only two ways are either going evil or going away from that land and trying to level grind pigs.

Moreb Benhk
2013-04-14, 04:08 PM
Sounds like your GM is Chaotic. Possibly Neutral.:smallsmile:

Slipperychicken
2013-04-14, 04:27 PM
Would a god of unrelenting justice be that lenient? :confused:

I don't know*. Your campaign setting, not mine. The point I was trying to make, though, is that gods vary in their forgiveness (or harshness), but a Paladin's creed is absolute and uncompromising.


*For all I know about the god, his idea of justice may well involve forgiving his Clerics for their missteps. Gods make their own decisions, just like normal people.

NichG
2013-04-14, 04:30 PM
Aside from agreeing that no worthwhile paladin will trust an evil deity, here's something else that bugs me-

Eternity's a really, really long time, you know. You could count every individual bit of sand in the world and by the time you were done, eternity wouldn't have even truly begun.

The funny thing though is that given the stability of D&D settings, Eternity is probably effectively about 1000 years or so. Within that time, someone will kill the deity that's torturing you, destroy the plane you're on, or mess up the entire cosmology enough to cause an edition change.

Coidzor
2013-04-14, 04:30 PM
Hyena: Then the only option left is to go through the DM for putting the scenario together. Or possibly myself for agreeing to play in such a wonderful setting.

More seriously, if you still are in contact with this guy, get him to just run Deathwatch.

Water_Bear
2013-04-14, 04:56 PM
The funny thing though is that given the stability of D&D settings, Eternity is probably effectively about 1000 years or so. Within that time, someone will kill the deity that's torturing you, destroy the plane you're on, or mess up the entire cosmology enough to cause an edition change.

But with variable-time Dead Magic demiplanes, that might still come out to quadrillions of years of subjective time. Absolute infinity is unlikely, but stacking an arbitrarily large amount of subjective time is still well within reason.

Talakeal
2013-04-14, 06:22 PM
But with variable-time Dead Magic demiplanes, that might still come out to quadrillions of years of subjective time. Absolute infinity is unlikely, but stacking an arbitrarily large amount of subjective time is still well within reason.

Runaway RAW aside altered time demiplanes explicitly do not exist in printed D&D cosmology.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-14, 07:46 PM
Runaway RAW aside altered time demiplanes explicitly do not exist in printed D&D cosmology.

Isn't time meaningless in the Far Realm? AFAIK, it has the variable time trait.

NichG
2013-04-14, 08:18 PM
Really if you want to pull off 'eternity' you need to play with time-loop shenanigans. Make an infinite loop so even if the universe ends, things within the loop are still infinite. Basically Forced Dream Psicrystal save-state stuff. The good news is, the guy being tortured only remembers the last cycle, even if the gods in question get to experience an eternity of torturing them.

I guess if you could for the subject of the torture to take the action needed to reset the Forced Dream, you could get them to experience the infinity and have the dark gods only experience one cycle...

Water_Bear
2013-04-14, 10:15 PM
Runaway RAW aside altered time demiplanes explicitly do not exist in printed D&D cosmology.

How does something "explicitly not exist," I literally cannot parse that sentence?

Assuming you mean that they are never mentioned, the fact that the Altered Time planar trait exists and demiplanes can have any Planar traits means that Gods who are capable of creating demiplanes ought to be able to create them. And really, what is more fitting for an angry deity than shuffling you into an empty abyss for all eternity with a standard action.

Talakeal
2013-04-15, 12:15 AM
How does something "explicitly not exist," I literally cannot parse that sentence?

Assuming you mean that they are never mentioned, the fact that the Altered Time planar trait exists and demiplanes can have any Planar traits means that Gods who are capable of creating demiplanes ought to be able to create them. And really, what is more fitting for an angry deity than shuffling you into an empty abyss for all eternity with a standard action.

Simply not listing any examples would be "implicitly".

By explicitly I mean the rules for time traits specifically say that no plane in the standard D&D cosmology has an altered time flow.

Manual of the Planes page 10 (the same page that gives the rules for time traits) states:

"Within the D&D cosmology time flows at a normal rate and all planes have the normal time trait. Planes with the erratic time trait or the flowing time trait change the game too dramatically for most players tastes. The only exception is the astral which counts as timeless for the purposes of aging, hunger, thirst, and healing."

Whether or not such a plane "could" exist in the standard cosmology is never answered and I would imagine such a thing would be the DM's call.

Water_Bear
2013-04-15, 09:31 AM
Simply not listing any examples would be "implicitly".

By explicitly I mean the rules for time traits specifically say that no plane in the standard D&D cosmology has an altered time flow.

Manual of the Planes page 10 (the same page that gives the rules for time traits) states:

"Within the D&D cosmology time flaws at a normal rate and all planes have the normal time trait. Planes with the erratic time trait or the flowing time trait change the game too dramatically for most players tastes. The only exception is the astral which counts as timeless for the purposes of aging, hunger, thirst, and healing."

Whether or not such a plane "could" exist in the standard cosmology is never answered and I would imagine such a thing would be the DM's call.

Ah, right. My bad for not reading the fluff.