Of Paladins and Sin

[Reogan]

My players and I were recently discussing an event from far back in our campaign when the party Paladin lost his powers.

There was a city whose economy was based mostly on mining. However, their mines had been occupied by Formians and the town was dying. The party, being Good, went to drive out the invaders and save the town.

Now, in the mine were primarily Warriors and Workers (types of Formians). The Warriors fought the party on sight. The Workers ignored them. This was well established after a few rooms. The party never harmed the Workers and the Workers ignored them.

In a later room, the Paladin was fighting in a pit while his cohort was being the party meatshield on its rim. Suddenly, his cohort was dealt a mortal wound, and the Paladin rushed to him. However, a Worker was walking down the ramp (seemingly oblivious to the battle), and rather than try to get around him, the Paladin cut him down.

Now, I maintain this would cost him his powers until such a time he might atone. He attacked a noncombatant, of a sort well established in and out of game to be a noncombatant. My players disagree. Thoughts?

(Note: He then went on a murderous rampage over the death of his cohort and easily violated the Paladin Oath, so the point is moot; we're just curious)

[Hyena]

Well, they were kinda planar invaders and all. It does not matter if they are non combatants, they will not just go away, and if they will, they would just occupy another mine and starve other people.
I say paladin was completely right.

[Sgt. Cookie]

The way it seems to me is that the party was avoiding the Worker Formians as a matter of convenience, rather than anything else. The Worker Formians were technically invading a Mining Village, meaning that the Paladin was well within his right to kill them.

The fact that the Formian Workers weren't attacking is irrelevant, it's a similar situation to a man who buys and sells slaves, despite not actually enslaving or breaking them himself. He hasn't personally done any physical harm to them, but the fact remains he is still dealing in slaves, and a Paladin would be well within his right to kill him.

So, no. The Paladin would not fall for killing the Formain Workers, even if it was in a rampage. No where in the Code does it say a Paladin can't be angry.

[hamishspence]

The fact that the Formian Workers weren't attacking is irrelevant, it's a similar situation to a man who buys and sells slaves, despite not actually enslaving or breaking them himself. He hasn't personally done any physical harm to them, but the fact remains he is still dealing in slaves, and a Paladin would be well within his right to kill him.

Might depend on the setting. In Forgotten Realms Mulhorand, slavery is accepted, despite the ruler being a paladin.

"dealing in slaves" isn't necessarily a kill-worthy act, depending on the DM.

Similarly, "Noncombatants" do have certain protections, going by BoED- just killing them isn't necessarily OK for paladins and similar characters.

[LtPowers]

Killing a non-combatant is a no-no for any Good-aligned character, but especially for Paladins. It would not precipitate an immediate alignment change, but requiring actual remorse and an atonement spell would certainly not be out of line.


Powers &8^]

[Slipperychicken]

It might qualify as Murder, if we consider lashing out in anger to be a "nefarious purpose".

You could also make the argument that destroying all the Formians is morally justified because their lives are somehow less valuable than the mine-town's prosperity (this argument loses a lot of steam since Formians are sentient, but can still be salvaged if the mining operations are crucial to many people's livelihood).

[yougi]

The fact that the Formian Workers weren't attacking is irrelevant, it's a similar situation to a man who buys and sells slaves, despite not actually enslaving or breaking them himself. He hasn't personally done any physical harm to them, but the fact remains he is still dealing in slaves, and a Paladin would be well within his right to kill him.


I totally disagree with the slaver example. If one of my players played a paladin who did this, he'd fall, not for making an evil act, but for a non-lawful act. The way to go for an LG character in my game (barring specific exceptions) would be to chain the man up and bring him to face the law. A paladin is not jury, judge and executioner. I'm not saying that's the right way, but that is how I enforce LG in my games.

Now if the slaver attacked, then it's a totally different thing.

As for the OP's question, I wouldn't have him fall for this. It's not a good act, it's not a lawful act, but at the same time, the Formian is a planar invader. And mainly, in the heat of battle, that kind of thing can happen. I mean, I'd make a mental note of that action, but unless there have been other non-good but non-evil either acts, it wouldn't be an auto-fall.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Might depend on the setting. In Forgotten Realms Mulhorand, slavery is accepted, despite the ruler being a paladin.

I don't know my Forgotten Relms lore, so, tell my is that slavery closer to Ancient Rome slavery, or American Prison "You will do this because you are a criminal" sort of thing?


"dealing in slaves" isn't necessarily a kill-worthy act, depending on the DM.

Maybe, but page 11 of the BoED does explicitly state that Slavery is evil. Paladins of Freedom would disagree with a vengeance, while regular Paladins would probably just disagree.


Similarly, "Noncombatants" do have certain protections, going by BoED- just killing them isn't necessarily OK for paladins and similar characters.

Formains have a hive mind, though, so although the Workers are not physically taking part in the battle, they are a direct aid to the Soldiers, which thusly makes them a threat.


EDIT:


I totally disagree with the slaver example. If one of my players played a paladin who did this, he'd fall, not for making an evil act, but for a non-lawful act. The way to go for an LG character in my game (barring specific exceptions) would be to chain the man up and bring him to face the law. A paladin is not jury, judge and executioner. I'm not saying that's the right way, but that is how I enforce LG in my games.

A Paladin doesn't fall for committing a non-lawful act. Slavery might be legal in that particular place, but it doesn't make it any less evil.

So, yes. It might not a lawful act, but it's certainly far from evil.

[Xerxus]

If I jump over the fence to the white house and start running up to it, refusing to stop even though the security insists on it, it wouldn't exactly be evil to shoot me. Nonviolent actions can still be hostile, and slaying something which is hostile to my kin isn't evil.

[Coidzor]

My players and I were recently discussing an event from far back in our campaign when the party Paladin lost his powers.

There was a city whose economy was based mostly on mining. However, their mines had been occupied by Formians and the town was dying. The party, being Good, went to drive out the invaders and save the town.

Now, in the mine were primarily Warriors and Workers (types of Formians). The Warriors fought the party on sight. The Workers ignored them. This was well established after a few rooms. The party never harmed the Workers and the Workers ignored them.

In a later room, the Paladin was fighting in a pit while his cohort was being the party meatshield on its rim. Suddenly, his cohort was dealt a mortal wound, and the Paladin rushed to him. However, a Worker was walking down the ramp (seemingly oblivious to the battle), and rather than try to get around him, the Paladin cut him down.

Now, I maintain this would cost him his powers until such a time he might atone. He attacked a noncombatant, of a sort well established in and out of game to be a noncombatant. My players disagree. Thoughts?

(Note: He then went on a murderous rampage over the death of his cohort and easily violated the Paladin Oath, so the point is moot; we're just curious)

Given the way Formians work, I would have to say that while it might not have been an active combatant it was part of the hive which is the aggressor in this case. So while not nice, well, Good is not Nice. Not fall worthy. Definitely not "sin."

Define murderous rampage. Who was he murdering? The townspeople? :smallconfused: If he just went through and cleared out all of the Formians that were left after the combatants were all slain, that's less murder and more mopping up.


I totally disagree with the slaver example. If one of my players played a paladin who did this, he'd fall, not for making an evil act, but for a non-lawful act. The way to go for an LG character in my game (barring specific exceptions) would be to chain the man up and bring him to face the law. A paladin is not jury, judge and executioner. I'm not saying that's the right way, but that is how I enforce LG in my games.

:smallconfused: That's a great way to make Law more important than Good, but it rather misses the point of the archetype that is attempted by the vanilla paladin. I wouldn't really feel right about calling your houserule a paladin, as it's much more of a knight templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar).

[hamishspence]

I don't know my Forgotten Relms lore, so, tell my is that slavery closer to Ancient Rome slavery, or American Prison "You will do this because you are a criminal" sort of thing?

In the case of Mulhorand, they have a lot more legal protections than in most other slave states of the region.

"It's evil" doesn't necessarily mean that the appropriate response is "kill slave owners".

[Sgt. Cookie]

In the case of Mulhorand, they have a lot more legal protections than in most other slave states of the region.

So, they're closer to Servants than the term "Slave" implies?


"It's evil" doesn't necessarily mean that the appropriate response is "kill slave owners".

It it if you're a Paladin of Freedom.

[Coidzor]

In the case of Mulhorand, they have a lot more legal protections than in most other slave states of the region.

"It's evil" doesn't necessarily mean that the appropriate response is "kill slave owners".

Thankfully Formians aren't just slave owners, they're also slavers and slave-takers, marauders, murderers, thieves, etc.

[lunar2]

1. the formian workers are bystanders. they are noncombatants, in the same way that a cleric who is casting nothing but cure spells is a noncombatant. it would be evil to kill the cleric in order to deny your opponent healing, and it is evil to kill the formian worker who just happens to be standing in the way. the fact that they are part of a hive mind does not make them combatants, since the hive mind would be in effect even if the workers weren't there.

2. without any background information, the formians are the essence of law. they wouldn't just steal the mine, they had some legitimate way to get hold of it, such as buying the mine from the owner, which means that their actions aren't necessarily evil, even if harm is caused by it. if the formians aren't involved in any actually evil acts, the paladin should have fallen the first time he attacked a warrior, even if the warrior fought back, since the warrior is acting in defense of the mine owned by the formians. again, i'm not privy to background information, just assuming that the formians are actually acting in a purely lawful manner, so no stealing or related acts.

3. nonlethal actions do not deserve a lethal response, ever. the paladin should not draw his blade unless lives are on the line. a dying town does not mean dying people. the people can always move somewhere else. the fact that they are in this situation is the result of their own stubbornness and refusal to adapt to changing situations. the formians are not responsible for peoples' response to their actions.

in short, the paladin should have fallen before he hit the worker if the mine is not actually stolen, and even if it is, he should have fallen when he hit the worker.

[hamishspence]

Thankfully Formians aren't just slave owners, they're also slavers and slave-takers, marauders, murderers, thieves, etc.

And Lawful Neutral.

Suggesting that whatever it is Formians do, it generally isn't enough to make them Lawful Evil, for some reason.

[Sgt. Cookie]

2. without any background information, the formians are the essence of law. they wouldn't just steal the mine, they had some legitimate way to get hold of it, such as buying the mine from the owner.

Hardly. The Formains would have taken over by force and conscripted everyone in the village. It's right there in the Monster Manual.

[Xerxus]

They don't do it because they enjoy making life miserable for the villagers, but they sure don't care what happens to them. If they as a hive invade their mine, then all members of the hive are guilty - just like killing goblin babies isn't evil in dnd.

[lunar2]

They don't do it because they enjoy making life miserable for the villagers, but they sure don't care what happens to them. If they as a hive invade their mine, then all members of the hive are guilty - just like killing goblin babies isn't evil in dnd.

actually, yes it is. it is not enough for something to have an evil alignment. it has to be actively engaged in evil acts. this is actually one of the textbook examples from the BoED, which specifically states that you do not attack noncombatants. if you raid an orc village that has been harassing the nearby town, you don't kill the women and children, you don't kill anyone that surrenders, you don't kill anyone who isn't involved in the fight.

also, it even states in the BoED that exalted paladin is redundant. all paladins are supposed to be living by the BoED rules, so no, they don't kill noncombatants.

[dascarletm]

He should not have lost his powers.

1. Formians are like Buggers from Ender's Game (though I haven't read much on them so I may be mistaken). An individual is more like a piece of a greater body.
2. The Formian wasn't responding, wasn't getting out of his way keeping him from taking the most direct path toward saving his friend. Since the worker was not staying out of combat (even if it wasn't directly attacking) it's still being an obstacle as well as mining away the towns livelihood. The worker cannot be redeemed or told to stop. It will just keep taking the town's livelihood. It must be dealt with one way or another, and if dealing with it now saves your friends life...

[Coidzor]

And Lawful Neutral.

Suggesting that whatever it is Formians do, it generally isn't enough to make them Lawful Evil, for some reason.

It might behoove us all to examine why certain creatures have the alignments they are given, aye.

It's not like we don't have plenty of examples of DM and designer fiat cluttering up the headspace of the game.


1. the formian workers are bystanders. they are noncombatants, in the same way that a cleric who is casting nothing but cure spells is a noncombatant. it would be evil to kill the cleric in order to deny your opponent healing, and it is evil to kill the formian worker who just happens to be standing in the way. the fact that they are part of a hive mind does not make them combatants, since the hive mind would be in effect even if the workers weren't there.

A healer is part of the enemy party and contributing to the battle. It is not evil to take that enemy out of the fight just because it is not using its own actions to try to kill you directly. They are not bystanders by virtue of the Formian hivemind. Either A. they agree with the soldiers and see their potential contribution to the physical fight as unnecessary at this time or B. they're part of the same entity that one is really fighting against as they lack true individuality, so killing an individual Formian is more like cutting off the finger of a guy who is trying to kill you.


2. without any background information, the formians are the essence of law. they wouldn't just steal the mine, they had some legitimate way to get hold of it, such as buying the mine from the owner, which means that their actions aren't necessarily evil, even if harm is caused by it. if the formians aren't involved in any actually evil acts, the paladin should have fallen the first time he attacked a warrior, even if the warrior fought back, since the warrior is acting in defense of the mine owned by the formians. again, i'm not privy to background information, just assuming that the formians are actually acting in a purely lawful manner, so no stealing or related acts.

If the Formians bought the mine then that would change the situation entirely and not have lead to this save as an attempt to distract people from the person who sold the mine as he got out of dodge and would have been defused by simply showing ownership by the Formians.

Formians recognize no law but their own. Being LN in alignment does not make their actions inherently right and lawful such that committing theft becomes magically OK. They are not native to Mechanus, there they are invaders who are trying to steal an entire plane of existence from the modrons who are the exemplars of that plane and who care for it.

Taking over a mine by force and taking its contents, while not solely theft includes the spirit of theft in there.


3. nonlethal actions do not deserve a lethal response, ever. the paladin should not draw his blade unless lives are on the line. a dying town does not mean dying people. the people can always move somewhere else. the fact that they are in this situation is the result of their own stubbornness and refusal to adapt to changing situations. the formians are not responsible for peoples' response to their actions.

So a Paladin should not fight to end banditry so long as the bandits leave people alive so that they can starve to death. I'm kind of obligated to disagree with the line of thinking you're following here.

The Formians violated the mine, assaulted and/or intimidated the people of the town, and somehow they are special snowflakes who shouldn't reap the consequences of their actions but the Paladin should auto-fall for killing one of them? This isn't a goblin babe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8) being dashed upon the rocks after killing off all of the warriors of a tribe of goblin-bandits.

[Deathkeeper]

Considering the entire Formian hive was hostile to the people the Paladin had decided to aid, it should not be a Fall-worthy act to kill a worker, especially if doing so was explicitly to save someone. The Workers would not have vanished or died when the soldiers were killed, and I don't remember them doing so if the Queen is eliminated, so at some point they would have to be driven out anyway. Now, it's certainly not Good and a mark against him, but I really don't think that making a mistake in the heat of battle, with his friend close to death and an indirectly hostile outsider in the way is worth an immediate fall. But then I'm usually against immediate falls from acts not blatantly evil, so I'm biased.

[hamishspence]

It it if you're a Paladin of Freedom.

Not necessarily. "Punish those who threaten or curtail personal freedom" isn't a licence to commit murder, just as "Punish those who threaten or harm innocents" isn't, for a standard paladin.

"Respect for life" is a cornerstone of Goodness in general- and that means not killing unless there are very strong reasons to.

[lunar2]

He should not have lost his powers.

1. Formians are like Buggers from Ender's Game (though I haven't read much on them so I may be mistaken). An individual is more like a piece of a greater body.
2. The Formian wasn't responding, wasn't getting out of his way keeping him from taking the most direct path toward saving his friend. Since the worker was not staying out of combat (even if it wasn't directly attacking) it's still being an obstacle as well as mining away the towns livelihood. The worker cannot be redeemed or told to stop. It will just keep taking the town's livelihood. It must be dealt with one way or another, and if dealing with it now saves your friends life...

1. actually, they aren't. an individual formian has its own mind, and can act on its own initiative. it is not dependent on the hive at all. it merely functions better as part of the hive. the buggers are not individuals, but merely conduits of the queen's will. if the queen dies, most of the normal buggers immediately die, too, and the other's just kind of sit there until they starve to death.

2. simply standing there is not justification for killing it. the formian has no responsibility to move, and the paladin could just as easily have taken one diagonal step to get around the small creature. the fact that he attacked the formian actually slowed him down, making him take longer to get to his friend, so he doesn't even have the argument that it was more practical to kill it. he attacked in a fit of rage, not for any practical purpose whatsoever.

[Erik Vale]

I would say you put him in a impossible situation, he either had to let his cohort die, or he had to kill a non-combatent that technically assists in the battle [through hive mind, and in this case, preventing the paladin's movement, like if a random villager got up and stood in front of a orcish warrior to prevent the paladin from killing it. I think that actually makes it a combatent]. This is the sort of situation DM's are specifically told not to create as it is a d*ck move, reducing the paladin to a not-quite fighter.

Edit: @^, on a ramp it may not have been possible to move around. Though I do agree that perhaps a bullrush or some other move that could have allowed the paladin to move through without killing it may have been better, but that is what is called heat of the moment.

[Coidzor]

2. simply standing there is not justification for killing it. the formian has no responsibility to move, and the paladin could just as easily have taken one diagonal step to get around the small creature. the fact that he attacked the formian actually slowed him down, making him take longer to get to his friend, so he doesn't even have the argument that it was more practical to kill it. he attacked in a fit of rage, not for any practical purpose whatsoever.

The Formian knows full well that there is a combat going on and that it is blocking a combatant from aiding one of his allies. The Formian is not "simply standing there," the Formian is actively blocking the path of the Paladin. Therefore the Formian is knowingly becoming part of said combat by deliberately acting as an obstacle.

[hamishspence]

The implication in the OP's post:


The Warriors fought the party on sight. The Workers ignored them. This was well established after a few rooms. The party never harmed the Workers and the Workers ignored them.
...
However, a Worker was walking down the ramp (seemingly oblivious to the battle), and rather than try to get around him, the Paladin cut him down.

is that the worker is not deliberately acting as an obstacle- just going about its work.

[lunar2]

It might behoove us all to examine why certain creatures have the alignments they are given, aye.

It's not like we don't have plenty of examples of DM and designer fiat cluttering up the headspace of the game.



A healer is part of the enemy party and contributing to the battle. It is not evil to take that enemy out of the fight just because it is not using its own actions to try to kill you directly. They are not bystanders by virtue of the Formian hivemind. Either A. they agree with the soldiers and see their potential contribution to the physical fight as unnecessary at this time or B. they're part of the same entity that one is really fighting against as they lack true individuality, so killing an individual Formian is more like cutting off the finger of a guy who is trying to kill you.



If the Formians bought the mine then that would change the situation entirely and not have lead to this save as an attempt to distract people from the person who sold the mine as he got out of dodge and would have been defused by simply showing ownership by the Formians.

Formians recognize no law but their own. Being LN in alignment does not make their actions inherently right and lawful such that committing theft becomes magically OK. They are not native to Mechanus, there they are invaders who are trying to steal an entire plane of existence from the modrons who are the exemplars of that plane and who care for it.

Taking over a mine by force and taking its contents, while not solely theft includes the spirit of theft in there.



So a Paladin should not fight to end banditry so long as the bandits leave people alive so that they can starve to death. I'm kind of obligated to disagree with the line of thinking you're following here.

The Formians violated the mine, assaulted and/or intimidated the people of the town, and somehow they are special snowflakes who shouldn't reap the consequences of their actions but the Paladin should auto-fall for killing one of them? This isn't a goblin babe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8) being dashed upon the rocks after killing off all of the warriors of a tribe of goblin-bandits.

1. even in real life it is recognized as a big nono to attack a medic. in the simplified morality of D&D, it is even moreso an evil act to kill the guy that is doing nothing but healing. he's not the one swinging the sword, and he is not responsible for the one swinging the sword.

2. all the information the OP gave was that the formians "took over" the mine. no mention of methods were made. theft is a chaotic act, so lawful outsiders typically aren't going to do it. without further information, i'm going to assume that the lawful outsiders did not acquire the mine by chaotic means.

3. the bandits are acting with violence and leaving people to die. the formians are not. apples to oranges, here.

and for the last time, although formians possess a hive mind, each formian is an individual creature with their own mind within that hive mind. lethal force is not needed for dealing with small noncombatants. you can just pick them up and carry them out once the warriors are dealt with. but at this time, they are not actively assisting the warriors, nor are they fighting, so there is not even a practical benefit to killing them. there is no "for the greater good" here, because killing them is simply wasting time that you could have been using to finidh off the warriors.

[dascarletm]

1. actually, they aren't. an individual formian has its own mind, and can act on its own initiative. it is not dependent on the hive at all. it merely functions better as part of the hive. the buggers are not individuals, but merely conduits of the queen's will. if the queen dies, most of the normal buggers immediately die, too, and the other's just kind of sit there until they starve to death.
Via Mechanics, yes. If you know a source of formian fluff is I'm curious.:smallbiggrin:


2. simply standing there is not justification for killing it. the formian has no responsibility to move, and the paladin could just as easily have taken one diagonal step to get around the small creature. the fact that he attacked the formian actually slowed him down, making him take longer to get to his friend, so he doesn't even have the argument that it was more practical to kill it. he attacked in a fit of rage, not for any practical purpose whatsoever.

Well the op says that he would have to try and get around him. The ramp could of been 5 ft or less in width. More information would be required to know what action would of been quicker.

Player knowledge is not equivalent to character knowledge. I know all "small" creatures (which are more than half the warriors size) are non-combantants. I know that one in front of me is small (I see the small mini) but Sir Lawman Goodfellow doesn't necessarily. At this point it is up to why the player attacked the Formain, which needs to be found out.

[Coidzor]

is that the worker is not deliberately acting as an obstacle- just going about its work.

Knowledge of the situation makes the Formians' actions deliberate.


1. even in real life it is recognized as a big nono to attack a medic. in the simplified morality of D&D, it is even moreso an evil act to kill the guy that is doing nothing but healing. he's not the one swinging the sword, and he is not responsible for the one swinging the sword.

We can't really pursue this fully without getting into politics, but there's a few things here that make your comparison apples to oranges. Medics aren't keeping your enemies up and attacking, they're basically stabilizing dying people and removing them from the battlefield which is worlds apart from what happens in D&D. The morality of D&D does not necessarily translate in the way that you are claiming. Further, by making this claim and holding to it you open the door to making it EVIL to kill a summoner, an enemy bard, or an enemy focused on buffing.

And how can he not be connected to the guy swinging the sword? You drop someone trying to kill you and the healer decides that he really needs to keep trying to kill you so he gets the other guy back on his feet to try to kill you some more. His actions lead to prolonged bloodshed, he's healing the other guy for the precise purpose of trying to kill you, but somehow he has no culpability for his actions? Horse pucky, sir. Horse. Pucky.


2. all the information the OP gave was that the formians "took over" the mine. no mention of methods were made. theft is a chaotic act, so lawful outsiders typically aren't going to do it. without further information, i'm going to assume that the lawful outsiders did not acquire the mine by chaotic means.

If the guy would make the paladin fall for this, he would have already made him fall for fighting the Formians at all if the Formians acquired the property in a legitimate manner. Ergo the Formians are in the wrong. Practically occam's razor.


3. the bandits are acting with violence and leaving people to die. the formians are not. apples to oranges, here.

The Formians are also acting with violence and due to a loss of livelihood due to the Formians' actions, people are going to starve without intervention, at least going by the standard fantasy narrative for this sort of thing. So while not perfect, it's close enough.


and for the last time, although formians possess a hive mind, each formian is an individual creature with their own mind within that hive mind. lethal force is not needed for dealing with small noncombatants. you can just pick them up and carry them out once the warriors are dealt with. but at this time, they are not actively assisting the warriors, nor are they fighting, so there is not even a practical benefit to killing them. there is no "for the greater good" here, because killing them is simply wasting time that you could have been using to finidh off the warriors.

A hivemind where they're all somehow fanatically devoted to the queen and the hive but also individuals worthy of respect. Right. There's some contradictions in their nature and characterization that require them to take a stand on them once they're actually in a game world, such as the aforementioned disconnect between being marauding slavers and lawful neutral. I feel that this is merely one more such disconnect.

[hamishspence]

While the OP's description is rather short- it doesn't seem to me that the workers are using their healing ability - which might be why the players, until they reached the pit, only killed warriors and not workers.

[lunar2]

Knowledge of the situation makes the Formians' actions deliberate.



We can't really pursue this fully without getting into politics, but there's a few things here that make your comparison apples to oranges. Medics aren't keeping your enemies up and attacking, they're basically stabilizing dying people and removing them from the battlefield which is worlds apart from what happens in D&D. The morality of D&D does not necessarily translate in the way that you are claiming. Further, by making this claim and holding to it you open the door to making it EVIL to kill a summoner, an enemy bard, or an enemy focused on buffing.

And how can he not be connected to the guy swinging the sword? You drop someone trying to kill you and the healer decides that he really needs to keep trying to kill you so he gets the other guy back on his feet to try to kill you some more. His actions lead to prolonged bloodshed, he's healing the other guy for the precise purpose of trying to kill you, but somehow he has no culpability for his actions? Horse pucky, sir. Horse. Pucky.



If the guy would make the paladin fall for this, he would have already made him fall for fighting the Formians at all if the Formians acquired the property in a legitimate manner. Ergo the Formians are in the wrong. Practically occam's razor.



The Formians are also acting with violence and due to a loss of livelihood due to the Formians' actions, people are going to starve without intervention, at least going by the standard fantasy narrative for this sort of thing. So while not perfect, it's close enough.



A hivemind where they're all somehow fanatically devoted to the queen and the hive but also individuals worthy of respect. Right. There's some contradictions in their nature and characterization that require them to take a stand on them once they're actually in a game world, such as the aforementioned disconnect between being marauding slavers and lawful neutral. I feel that this is merely one more such disconnect.

1. summoners and buffers are not healers. they are combatants, just like the soldier on the radio calling in air support. also, because healers are more effective, that makes it okay to kill them? i guess once medical tech gets to the point we can heal people in minutes or hours,we'll have to throw out the geneva conventions, because healing is too good to allow the doctors to do their job. yeah,t he difference here is merely one of degree, not one of kind kind.

2. again, that was merely an assumption on my part, and my point was that at some point this combat, the paladin is doing something fall worthy. either he should have already fallen, or he falls with the worker.

3. plot induced stupidity is not justification. the people are perfectly capable of moving to another town, they just don't because it's a story.

4. yep. they are fanatical individuals with telepathic powers. they are still individuals in the most basic sense though. if the workers were mindless on their own, and only acted on the direction of the queen, then killing them would't pose a problem, but they are each sentient in their own right. they are just really good at following orders.

@heat of battle. paladins don't get to make excuses, they are held to a higher standard than typical adventurers. they either follow the code, or they don't, there is no other way. this paladin did not follow the code, because he attacked a noncombatant who just happened to be in his way. it was even stated in the OP that the worker was apparently oblivious to the battle. he wasn't even paying attention to what was going on.

[Coidzor]

1. summoners and buffers are not healers. they are combatants, just like the soldier on the radio calling in air support. also, because healers are more effective, that makes it okay to kill them? i guess once medical tech gets to the point we can heal people in minutes or hours,we'll have to throw out the geneva conventions, because healing is too good to allow the doctors to do their job. yeah,t he difference here is merely one of degree, not one of kind kind.

You're the one making it about the real world and I'm not going to touch that with someone else's 10 foot pole save that it is not merely degree it is a difference of kind to the point where we'd be required to dissect the thought processes and tactical approach of each individual character rather than issue a blanket statement anyway.


2. again, that was merely an assumption on my part, and my point was that at some point this combat, the paladin is doing something fall worthy. either he should have already fallen, or he falls with the worker.

And I think the assumption and conclusion are both wrong. Formian workers are materially different from Formian larvae, dragon eggs, goblin infants, or the toddler son of the slaver-chief. If they choose to go along with the hives' acts, they are complicit in the hives' acts in a way that the noncombatants of an orc village are not complicit.


3. plot induced stupidity is not justification. the people are perfectly capable of moving to another town, they just don't because it's a story.

These people all have working legs, so it's OK to burn their town to the ground, they can always walk to another one.

Since when was it stupid to not want to be forced out of your livelihood by criminals? Since when was it stupid to not want to have to deal with the poverty and abuse and hardship of being a displaced person or refugee?


4. yep. they are fanatical individuals with telepathic powers. they are still individuals in the most basic sense though. if the workers were mindless on their own, and only acted on the direction of the queen, then killing them would't pose a problem, but they are each sentient in their own right. they are just really good at following orders.

Fine then. Either they're tools of the queen and so it's OK to kill them or they're fully aware and complicit individuals. We'll go with fully aware and complicit individuals and it looks like, yes, still OK. No one is arguing that the Paladin did great or was being a Paladin with flying colors, merely that it's not fall-worthy, which is a pretty easy baseline anyway.


@heat of battle. paladins don't get to make excuses, they are held to a higher standard than typical adventurers. they either follow the code, or they don't, there is no other way. this paladin did not follow the code, because he attacked a noncombatant who just happened to be in his way. it was even stated in the OP that the worker was apparently oblivious to the battle. he wasn't even paying attention to what was going on.

Apparently oblivious is not the same thing as truly oblivious. Again, hivemind here. All kinds of chatter to be sure.

[hamishspence]

A case could be made that there is a continuum, between "complete noncombatant" and "combatant".

Also, between "mindless tool" and "fully aware and complicit".

Formian workers are Int 6, after all.

[Reogan]

Well, this got a lot of response. Thanks everyone!
I'll try to fill in information/respond to the major points here.

Very early, it was noted that regardless of their combat status, they were planar invaders. True. However, I see this as a situation that would parallel a violent takeover of a city resulting in a city filled with civilians from the invading country, albeit with a heavy military presence. The civilians (Workers) are just doing their jobs and living their lives. They did not take the city. They are not holding the city. They simply occupy what is now a city of their country. Not necessarily right, but not an awful crime.

The comparison of a slave salesman brought the point that the Workers may not actively do anything wrong, they are complicit and aiding. Against this, I claim that they are not. They are merely mining in their new territory. They did not attack. They do not protect the mine. They would certainly require relocation, but they are not an invading force, just the civilians thereof, so to speak.

(spoilered to prevent players from reading. Unrevealed secrets and such)
Arguments of the hive mind are potent. I would like to note two things, though. Neither the players nor their characters knew anything about the hive mind. Secondly, the workers were, by my ruling on a different 'wavelength' so to speak. These are idiot creatures who do not care about the battle and are uncommunicative with the Warriors. Though, again, neither the players nor characters know.

The mine was taken by force. Formians are lawful, but a law unto their own. They colonize.

Despite my opinion that people oughtn't be forced to move because someone steals their mine, it actually was impossible for them to. The city is a rogue city-state in the caldera of a dead volcano atop a very dangerous mountain. There is no safe escape.

The Worker was in the way, but to cut him down is the slowest way past. If the ramp was too thin (not sure right now), a bull rush would likely have worked and been much faster. Not being in battle, the Worker would likely just let the Paladin through. Even if it hadn't, the Paladin could see he could push by easily.

They were clearly different in and out of game. Workers and Warriors by my ruling are obviously different, even to the human eye.

I also want to clarify: the Workers were not healing. They were just mining. They were completely noncombatant.

[Hyena]

I still fail to realize how killing alien invaders, especially unintelligent ones, is a bad thing. They did not fight - so? They are occupying the mine and if we relocate them, they will simply bother another village. Those creatures are unintelligent - so there can be no reasoning with them. Purging them it is.

[lunar2]

they are somewhat intelligent, though. Int 6. these aren't dogs, they are people.

also, as the OP pointed out in his explanation, the workers were not even paying attention to the fight, and not aiding the warriors in any way, because he'd ruled that the warriors and workers were on separate "networks" in the hive mind. the workers were just there working.

he also gave a very good explanation about why simply being "planar invaders" is not justification to kill them. the workers are essentially civilians occupying a captured town. if the mine were captured by another city, and the paladin murdered a deaf mine worker who didn't realize there was fighting going on, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because we would have instantly gone to the "noncombatant = off limits".

[Hyena]

We're not talking about people here, are we? We're talking about not creatures even less smart then ants - so stupid, they don't even realize there's a fight going on nearby. They don't have dreams and goals, they are living robots, drones who do stuff that hivemind commands them to - even if it's not the same hivemind that was guiding the warriors. They are things, tools of the hivemind. And it's never a sin to break a thing.

[hamishspence]

Int 6, not Int -. They're not mindless, just very, very focussed.

[Water_Bear]

However, I see this as a situation that would parallel a violent takeover of a city resulting in a city filled with civilians from the invading country, albeit with a heavy military presence. The civilians (Workers) are just doing their jobs and living their lives. They did not take the city. They are not holding the city. They simply occupy what is now a city of their country. Not necessarily right, but not an awful crime.

The comparison of a slave salesman brought the point that the Workers may not actively do anything wrong, they are complicit and aiding. Against this, I claim that they are not. They are merely mining in their new territory. They did not attack. They do not protect the mine. They would certainly require relocation, but they are not an invading force, just the civilians thereof, so to speak.

The problem with this is that they might not exactly be fighters, but they are not exactly civilians either.

The Formian Workers followed the Soldiers into a war zone, presumably of their own free will, and their labor is directly contributing to the Formian War Effort. They might not be fighting, might not even be healing, but they are acting in support of the ones who are.

Personally, I don't see why killing them is any different than attacking the baggage train or engineers of an enemy army.


Arguments of the hive mind are potent. I would like to note two things, though. Neither the players nor their characters knew anything about the hive mind. Secondly, the workers were, by my ruling on a different 'wavelength' so to speak. These are idiot creatures who do not care about the battle and are uncommunicative with the Warriors. Though, again, neither the players nor characters know.

Why are they on a different wavelength? That seems like it would make it very difficult for the Formians to coordinate their actions, especially since the Workers are a useful combat asset.


The Worker was in the way, but to cut him down is the slowest way past. If the ramp was too thin (not sure right now), a bull rush would likely have worked and been much faster. Not being in battle, the Worker would likely just let the Paladin through. Even if it hadn't, the Paladin could see he could push by easily.

I don't like the idea of penalizing Paladins for poor tactics; it's bad enough that they have the moral restrictions, but how on earth is a Player supposed to figure out any of that without advanced rules knowledge?

[hamishspence]

The problem with this is that they might not exactly be fighters, but they are not exactly civilians either.


"Camp followers" so to speak?

[Amnestic]

We're not talking about people here, are we? We're talking about not creatures even less smart then ants - so stupid, they don't even realize there's a fight going on nearby. They don't have dreams and goals, they are living robots, drones who do stuff that hivemind commands them to - even if it's not the same hivemind that was guiding the warriors. They are things, tools of the hivemind. And it's never a sin to break a thing.

They're Int 6. PHB gives examples of Int 6-7 creatures as "Troll, hell hound, ogre, yrthak". They are part of a hive mind, yes, but they have equivalent mental capacity to that of an ogre or troll. They are not "things".

[Water_Bear]

"Camp followers" so to speak?

:smalleek:

Formian "Camp Followers"... that might be the skeeviest mental image I've ever gotten reading Giant.

[hamishspence]

The term applies to all noncombatants who go around with an army- not just what you're thinking of.

[Coidzor]

I still fail to realize how killing alien invaders, especially unintelligent ones, is a bad thing. They did not fight - so? They are occupying the mine and if we relocate them, they will simply bother another village. Those creatures are unintelligent - so there can be no reasoning with them. Purging them it is.

Because some men just like to see Paladins fall, mostly.


Very early, it was noted that regardless of their combat status, they were planar invaders. True. However, I see this as a situation that would parallel a violent takeover of a city resulting in a city filled with civilians from the invading country, albeit with a heavy military presence. The civilians (Workers) are just doing their jobs and living their lives. They did not take the city. They are not holding the city. They simply occupy what is now a city of their country. Not necessarily right, but not an awful crime.

Sophistry and justification of illicit and immoral acts. The mine is not theirs in any real sense, especially while it is being taken from them. You can't even argue might makes right or that it is theirs by force because they're getting slaughtered by the might of the party.

The hivemind changes that so that it does not parallel properly anyway. By being there they are helping hold the mine anyway, as they are the support and logistical network for the soldiers. As has been mentioned "baggage train." And if they were to be respected as persons, well, they're not blind and they're not deaf, so it would have behooved them to avoid the combat areas anyway. So that's on you for both playing them one way and deciding to penalize the only player who could be penalized for removing them when they became active obstacles.


The comparison of a slave salesman brought the point that the Workers may not actively do anything wrong, they are complicit and aiding. Against this, I claim that they are not. They are merely mining in their new territory. They did not attack. They do not protect the mine. They would certainly require relocation, but they are not an invading force, just the civilians thereof, so to speak.

And you'd still be wrong. Sure, you're the DM and the world is your plaything, but this goes against the tempo you set up for the players, the expectations of the base game, and what could be reasonably concluded by a player even laying aside the metagame knowledge of what Formians are.


(spoilered to prevent players from reading. Unrevealed secrets and such)
Arguments of the hive mind are potent. I would like to note two things, though. Neither the players nor their characters knew anything about the hive mind. Secondly, the workers were, by my ruling on a different 'wavelength' so to speak. These are idiot creatures who do not care about the battle and are uncommunicative with the Warriors. Though, again, neither the players nor characters know.

1. Irrelevant.

2. Irrelevant and it just makes you look like you're deliberately trying to make something evil out of nothing.


The mine was taken by force. Formians are lawful, but a law unto their own. They colonize.

No, it's still theft, regardless of their sophistry and self-justification for the act.


Despite my opinion that people oughtn't be forced to move because someone steals their mine, it actually was impossible for them to. The city is a rogue city-state in the caldera of a dead volcano atop a very dangerous mountain. There is no safe escape.

Well that's kind of weird and makes the complicit murder angle worse for the entire hive.


The Worker was in the way, but to cut him down is the slowest way past. If the ramp was too thin (not sure right now), a bull rush would likely have worked and been much faster. Not being in battle, the Worker would likely just let the Paladin through. Even if it hadn't, the Paladin could see he could push by easily.

So you're at fault for not properly presenting the scenario to him. Unless you properly presented the scenario to him, which it still doesn't sound like you did.


They were clearly different in and out of game. Workers and Warriors by my ruling are obviously different, even to the human eye.

Did they still look like ants who could conceivably be related? Otherwise this is kind of irrelevant without further exposition. Soldier ants look different from worker ants but you can still tell that they're ants.


:smalleek:

Formian "Camp Followers"... that might be the skeeviest mental image I've ever gotten reading Giant.

Formian "Blackguards" even. :smallamused:

[Snails]

Having a Paladin fall as the result of an ambiguous scenario would be Very Bad DMing.

The Paladin was not cutting down the Worker for fun or out of malice -- he thought it was necessary to save a life. The Worker could have stepped aside. Bull's Rush could have easily failed, especially against a quadruped.

If I were playing the Paladin, I would have attempted to Move into the Worker's square. Not as Bull's Rush, just part of a regular Move action. The Worker could choose to let the Paladin through. If it does not let the Move through succeed, the Paladin is stopped and it is a combatant. Whack!

The fact that the player may not know the details of the rules to describe this correctly should not be used against the PC or the player. The DM can offer rules advice. If the DM says "it is in the way" without clarification, then it is a combatant. No real ambiguity here.

[Kaeso]

So if I got it right the paladin restrains himself all the adventure, but when his buddy is in mortal danger cuts down a Formian so he can heal his companion in time, and you're considering making him fall for that? Even if we assume that cutting the Formian down was evil (and even that is highly debatable), making the paladin fall for that is shafting him too hard. You should treat letting a paladin fall like a bazooka: you don't use it to take down a fly. In such a case, a flyswatter (a fair warning that he has angered his deity or a description of how much the innocent worker is suffering under the paladins lethal blow) should be enough. Just showing him that he's sliding down the deep end and should adjust himself to it. Letting the paladin fall is for when he starts eating babies, kicking dogs or *gasp* kicking baby dogs into his own mouth, then eating them. :smalleek:

[hamishspence]

I do agree that it makes things easier if there are graduations of Falling- with a minor act of wrongdoing causing only a small penalty (maybe bad dreams that night) with escalating penalties all the way up to the full Fall.

While standard D&D doesn't follow this (any Evil act, no matter how "minor" causes the full Fall) there are splatbooks (admittedly 3rd party) that do take this approach to paladins.

[Squark]

I could've sworn I've read suggestions that Clerics and Paladins should receive warnings if they're treading the line, even to the point of, in severe cases, restricted spell selection.

[Snails]

So if I got it right the paladin restrains himself all the adventure, but when his buddy is in mortal danger...

That is another point worth emphasizing.

The fact the Party was not cutting down Workers all the time means they are not bloody-minded -- something the DM should be grateful for, and a very much Good action. When the situation is more ambiguous, the DM turns that around and considers Good acts (giving the Workers the benefit of the doubt whenever reasonable, even when they are probably fair game) as a Party endorsement of the idea that doing differently is Evil. That is a completely bogus line of thought.

Not killing the Workers is Good.

Killing the Workers is either Neutral or Evil. By jumping to the conclusion that it is Evil, the DM is implicitly using Good actions against the PCs.

Obviously if I am a playing a Goodish PC in this DM's campaign, and there is a Paladin in my party, I need to be hacking away at the morally ambiguous targets to prevent my friend from falling. Is that what the DM wants?

The bottom line is this: A party that usually avoids bloodshed should give the Paladin more benefit of the doubt, not less.

The DM here is getting confused and just assuming the players on the same page, because they are acting the way he hoped they would. That is a clearcut DM error. Just because the players are behaving, do not assume they understand what you hope they understand.

[Starbuck_II]

1. even in real life it is recognized as a big nono to attack a medic. in the simplified morality of D&D, it is even moreso an evil act to kill the guy that is doing nothing but healing. he's not the one swinging the sword, and he is not responsible for the one swinging the sword.

In real life, medics don't heal a wounded soldier back to life to fight you again later.

I want a citation that in D&D killing a healer is evil in any situation. Because that seems false.

[Scow2]

I still fail to realize how killing alien invaders, especially unintelligent ones, is a bad thing. They did not fight - so? They are occupying the mine and if we relocate them, they will simply bother another village.
The workers alone do not have the means to bother another village. Also - Alien invaders have the right to life too (See - District 9's 'prawns').

However, I'd argue here that although they have an INT score, Outsiders are not "People" in the sense that humanoids, dragons, or magical beasts are. Especially not Alignment-oriented outsiders.

Also, you seem to be using a separate, far more human interpretation of Formians (Which, in my campaigns, is a fatal mistake to make.) They're not "Psychic Commie Ant-shaped People". They're more like "Borg". The only Formians with true free will are the Myrmarchs, and maybe Taskmasters. Anything under them, albeit capable of real-time decision making and thinking on a higher level than instinct- and Fixed-Action-Pattern-driven animals, lack free will as we know it - all they possess is adaptability. They can communicate, interpret, and act on information on-the-fly, and "Think for themselves" on small-scale issues. But freedom is antithesis to them.

They're like intelligent non-hollywood robots.

[dascarletm]

The workers alone do not have the means to bother another village. Also - Alien invaders have the right to life too (See - District 9's 'prawns').

However, I'd argue here that although they have an INT score, Outsiders are not "People" in the sense that humanoids, dragons, or magical beasts are. Especially not Alignment-oriented outsiders.

Also, you seem to be using a separate, far more human interpretation of Formians (Which, in my campaigns, is a fatal mistake to make.) They're not "Psychic Commie Ant-shaped People". They're more like "Borg". The only Formians with true free will are the Myrmarchs, and maybe Taskmasters. Anything under them, albeit capable of real-time decision making and thinking on a higher level than instinct- and Fixed-Action-Pattern-driven animals, lack free will as we know it - all they possess is adaptability. They can communicate, interpret, and act on information on-the-fly, and "Think for themselves" on small-scale issues. But freedom is antithesis to them.

They're like intelligent non-hollywood robots.

Has anyone also mentioned that workers will attack (whether they will it or not) when commanded by a warrior to do so? That alone makes them less out of battle.

Could the workers leave, and stop mining? No, they can't stop because that was their order and they will keep mining until otherwise directed
Could they say no to the Warriors if told to attack the paladin? No.

They are all pretty much combatants.

[Kyberwulf]

I am reminded of Sir Lancelot from The Holy Grail here.

First of, no he shouldn't have fell for this action. He should have gotten like... a foul or something.

The thing is, per the rules, if this bug thing was truly a non combatant. The paladin should have been able to move through the Bugs space. Since it isn't threatening him.

Another point. It would have been quicker to go around him and then proceed to his friend. Stopping to engage in combat eats up another turn. So he actually wasted time to cut this thing down.

[HurinTheCursed]

It seems you had no problem with the group attacking the formians. As a hive, all individuals are contributing to the effort, not only the warriors so killing the workers is just like attacking a food convoy for the opposing army. At the end, to destroy the hive, PCs have to attack the queen which may be non-combattant but who spawns combattants (the factories in which are made tanks, warplanes and missiles, filled with innocent workers ?). Killing the queen WILL kill the worker indiscriminatly, if it's not a methodic genocide it has the same effects.

If you have no problem having the PC attack the hive, then there's no problem they attack the queen and thus kill the workers ? If you look at the consequences, attacking the hive rather than reasonning it necessairily means the death of soldiers and workers alike.

For me, either the pallie should have falled before (but it looks hard) or not at all. Would you make him fall for killing the queen ? For not caring after the workers once the queen is dead ? For abandoning the surface community alone against a weakened but regenerating formian hive having spared the queen ?

[Snails]

One can reasonably argue that the Worker Int score indicates their capacity to learn new skills and adapt to a changing environment on the fly, in a manner similar to a typical humanoid.

By their description, it is not clear that Workers actually have volition:


Combat

Formians are generally aggressive, seeking to subdue all they encounter. If they perceive even the slightest threat to their hive-city or to their queen, they attack immediately and fight to the death. Any formian also attacks immediately if ordered to do so by a superior.


Generally aggressive? Fight to the death without hesitation or question, against the slightest threat? Obeys suicidal order from a superior always?

[Slipperychicken]

Generally aggressive? Fight to the death without hesitation or question, against the slightest threat? Obeys suicidal order from a superior always?

That description does present some support for treating Formian workers as combatants.

[Arcanist]

In real life, medics don't heal a wounded soldier back to life to fight you again later.

It is also a false analogy considering that in times of conflict, a medic is considered a neutral noncombatant in that they are responsible for ensuring that nobody on either side of the conflict die.

There is no rule that states killing a healer/medic is an evil act, it is just a jerk move, but since this is D&D and not actual warfare it isn't even a jerk move, it is just a sound tactic.

[Reogan]

Very interesting points. I am considering strongly based on what you have told me. Thankfully, our Heironeous (his God) is a deity whose been in a state of more or less constant annoyance with this Paladin, and it would not be beyond him to abandon the Paladin. Of course, if he oughtn't have fallen, there will be payment of some kind to him. He'll have his reward for goodness. If he is.

A point which has come up since my last reply: the formian Worker actually attempted to move past the Paladin the previous round. So its willingness to let him through and the rules allowing it would have been made clear.

Also, where does one begin to consider the workers part of a supply convoy rather than a civilian populace in a captured city?

[inuyasha]

In my opinion, if killing pretty much everything that gets in your way is wrong and causes a paladin to fall, the paladin class shouldnt have been made. Players always want ExP in any form they can get it, and they should get it. is it evil to kill babies: yes. Is it evil to kill uber lawful ant things that are invading a town: no

P.S. My argument may be invalid because my players never play lawful...one of them summoned a god to destroy a town...no im not kidding. Hes CN btw

[Water_Bear]

Also, where does one begin to consider the workers part of a supply convoy rather than a civilian populace in a captured city?

Because the "city" isn't captured yet.

The miner town is still sitting there outside the mine, which has been taken from them recently enough they haven't had time to leave. Not only is the idea that they will try to retake the mine, either themselves or with mercenaries adventurers, likely, it's pretty much assured. The place is a war zone, and will continue to be so until either the Formians or the humanoid miners are killed or driven off (or they sign an armistice).

When workers (capital-W or not) follow an army into a warzone and then do work which supports the war effort with their labor, what else do you call them but part of the enemy army? Even if they're not there of their free will, there's a word for that; conscripts.

Plus, there's no reason to believe that just because they haven't attacked them yet, or healed the Soldiers yet, or collapsed a tunnel on them yet, or sounded the alarm yet, or used their hive-mind to transmit tactical intelligence about them yet, or... wait, why did they leave any of the Workers alive?

[Scow2]

Also, where does one begin to consider the workers part of a supply convoy rather than a civilian populace in a captured city?Because they're a Formian Hive, not a human nation/city. Outsiders are not people, like humans, dwarves, or even goblins and orcs might be considered such. Formians are parts of a single entity with almost everything coming from the queen down, not many individual entities forming a collective social contract. Although individual formians are capable enough to make decisions in carrying out their orders, each one is created by the queen for a specific place. There is no military/civilian divide for them.

[Hyena]

Thankfully, our Heironeous (his God) is a deity whose been in a state of more or less constant annoyance with this Paladin, and it would not be beyond him to abandon the Paladin.

Thankfully, our Heironeous (his God) is a deity

Thankfully
Oh.
I think I can see the problem. You don't want to see if it was an evil act or not. You are not interested in any justifications for paladin's act either. You just want to screw him over, no matter what.
I can't respect that.

[Fyermind]

I would have as a DM said "Wait a minute, you are planning on killing an innocent here. Are you sure you don't want to take the minus 4 to hit and deal nonlethal damage here? I mean, it's a noncombatant. This can't be good for your code."

At that point, I would take his powers away until he atoned if he went through with lethal damage.

I agree that attacking is a reasonable act here, but it doesn't seem like lethal force was necessary here. Knocking out the ally of your enemy is acceptable in a way that killing them is not.

[HurinTheCursed]

Non-lethal seems more conveniant at first but in the end either they also kill non-combattants by killing the queen or they did nothing and their quest was evil / chaotic aligned (unless they used diplomacy).

[TuggyNE]

Oh.
I think I can see the problem. You don't want to see if it was an evil act or not. You are not interested in any justifications for paladin's act either. You just want to screw him over, no matter what.
I can't respect that.

I gotta admit, this seems unpleasantly accurate. '"Thankfully", there's a reason the paladin should fall'* — that does, indeed, indicate that you're looking for any excuse, but you'd prefer it if you could say it with a straight face. I don't think that's usually the right attitude to take toward a paladin. Or any character, for that matter (assuming it was acceptable enough that you allowed it in the game to begin with).

*Paraphrased.

[Reogan]

"Thankfully" meaning the last few months of story wouldn't be invalidated because of a new perspective on the event. The story would still make sense. The game would still be real. That is, it's far, far too late to change anything. As I said, there would be recompensation of some kind.

"Thankfully" meaning his last few months of character development aren't thrown away because the impetus never occurred.

"Thankfully" meaning we don't have to reverse a few levels or have re-ascension to Paladinhood without in-game reason.

As I said, the point is moot. The player himself admits to since earning his fall. He has wonderful plans for the character based on him misjudging Heironeous' will. I am not looking to put him or keep him down. Atonement was avoided by the player (I assure you he understands how that works) and when he had the opportunity to acquire a phylactery of faithfulness, he turned it down. He has plans for his misguided zealot. Plans that actually do involve killing orc babies if necessary.

TL;DR: I used the word thankfully to express that I am glad the past would not need to be changed, since it is both distant and vital to a player's intention with his character's development.

[TuggyNE]

TL;DR: I used the word thankfully to express that I am glad the past would not need to be changed, since it is both distant and vital to a player's intention with his character's development.

Ah. Well, I had forgotten that from the OP, for whatever reason, hence the misconstruing. :smallredface:

[Abaddona]

Hi everyone, I've been reading these forums for some time and finally decided to register.

As for main topic: Are paladins action judged on actual consequences of their deeds or only based on his knowledge? Hypothetically: If paladin slaughters the kings advisor (because he smelled funny and everybody sometimes has a bad day) and coincidentally said advisor was evil mastermind scheming to slave a princess and marry a dragon - will said paladin fall or be forgiven by his deity? On the other hand - if paladin gets tricked into killing an innocent (for example someone who registers as evil because all day long schemes how he will kill his neighbours but actually is too afraid to commit such act) - will he fall or be forgiven?

In cause of formian workers - does said paladin know about hivemind?
If no - well, treating formian workers as part of hive mind or some extraplanar non-human monstrosity is simply out-of-character knowledge. In characters perspective there were only some strange but clearly inteligent creatures with clear division between warriors and non-combatants and he just indiscrimately slayed one of the latter. Of course emotional trauma due to his friend (cohort) dying/needing help weighted on his moral evaluation of situation and caused him to act not rationally.

I'm sorry for my english (i know my grammar is horrible).

[Scow2]

Hi everyone, I've been reading these forums for some time and finally decided to register.

In cause of formian workers - does said paladin know about hivemind?

They're ant-people, who's warriors fight with uncanny foresight and coordination. Of course they have a hivemind.

[Reogan]

The Paladin is a stereotypical idiot Paladin. He would not realize. Even his Wisdom isn't great. His player, I believe, also had no idea about the hivemind.

[Theoboldi]

Didn't you say that the workers pretty much ignored the battle that was raging around them? To me, they seem to have mostly been acting like automatons, so I don't see any reason for the paladin nor the player to assume that the workers were sentient, thinking creatures. Especially as an idiot paladin who very likely has no ranks in knowledge (planes), thus not knowing anything about the formians beyond the fact that they are invasive ant-creatures from the planes.
I don't think that whether the paladin knew about the hivemind matters. The more important question is: Did he have an IC reason to assume that the workers were intelligent creatures and not just fleshy puppets with no regard to their personal safety?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Abaddona]

Wait a moment - you see someone pretty much ignoring fight around them and on this basis you assume that they are some kind of flesh construct and not - i don'r know - drugged (or mind controled) slave for example? As i understand situation paladin only knew about some strange creatures invading a city. Formians are lawfull neutral so no "beep" on evil detector - which pretty much invalidates whole "he needed killing" reasoning. So we have pretty much some sort of self-defense on both sides (ant-people defending their new home, PC defending the city). Formians pretty much ignored the natives rights when conquering the mine, so PCs had the right to get some answers (and to self-defense when warriors attacked them and tried to deny them audience with theirs leaders).
So - back to the PC knowledge - they see some strange civilization (and in dnd we have so much strange inteligent creatures creating some sort of communities like tribes etc. that assuming these ant-people are un-inteligent animals is kind of stretch here - especially for paladins), clearly divided on hostile warriors and non-hostile workers. Those workers in PCs perspective may be anything - some kind of flesh construct, normal citizens, dominated slaves etc. Now we have paladin and his code of honor - is he obliged by it to try to gather knowledge and act as a mediator trying to find the peacefull solution (negotiations with the queen - you know, paladins have that class skill "diplomacy" and i think they are expected to use it from time to time) to the best of his abilities? Probably, and at the same time Paladins shouldn't jump to conclusions about nature of situations they're in - after all misjudging situations may cost them their powers.
So pretty much we are back to paladin vs worker - paladin was at that moment emotionally unstable and could not rationally evaluate the situation. He acted without thinking and killed a being - which to his knowledge was non-hostile non-combatant - in my opinion he violated his code but in a way which would not result in an immediate fall (some good roleplaying in a style "what have i done" would clear the matter for me).

Scow2 - as to good execute of combat tactics = hivemind. There is a whole lot of items granting telepathy or - for mundanes: simple gestures like those used by army/police (SWAT) which would create similiar effect. Hell - i'm constantly amazed when in my current game i see army or city watch not using these and simly running like a mob on the scene.

[Theoboldi]

You seem to have gotten quite angry about my reply. I just wanted to point out that the paladin, who is stated to be an idiot, might have come to the conclusion that the formian workers are mindless creatures, and not consider the possibility of mind-control or drugs at all. Perhaps my wording of 'fleshy puppets' was misleading, since I did not want to imply he thought of them as constructs. I am just thinking that the paladin in question , after witnessing the formians completly ignore anything not related to their work, might have thought that they were no more intelligent than real ants.
I agree that it is not a justification for his actions, and if the formian had actually been an innocent mind-controlled individual and all that his death would clearly have been the paladins fault. (Even then, I still would not think that he should fall for it. But that's beside the point and might easily lead into a discussion about morality, so I'm not going to eloberate on this.)
Also, I think it is rather unfair of you to imply that the paladin did not seek the most peaceful solution possible, even though the party had not attacked the workers at all until that point and he only did so in an attempt to rescue his ally's life.
Still, I agree with you. This event is no reason for a fall, but there should be some regret. I just don't see it as a violation of the paladin-code, since I personally don't see it as a clearly evil act. What he should get, I think, is a warning to perhaps change his idiot-paladin ways, since not thinking clearly causes incidents like this.

[hamishspence]

As for main topic: Are paladins action judged on actual consequences of their deeds or only based on his knowledge? Hypothetically: If paladin slaughters the kings advisor (because he smelled funny and everybody sometimes has a bad day) and coincidentally said advisor was evil mastermind scheming to slave a princess and marry a dragon - will said paladin fall or be forgiven by his deity? On the other hand - if paladin gets tricked into killing an innocent (for example someone who registers as evil because all day long schemes how he will kill his neighbours but actually is too afraid to commit such act) - will he fall or be forgiven?

That's an interesting question.

BoED (and Eberron Campaign Setting) take the approach that an evil alignment is not, on its own, justification to attack.

Concerning "being tricked" the WoTC site had this to say:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

[Snails]

In cause of formian workers - does said paladin know about hivemind?
If no - well, treating formian workers as part of hive mind or some extraplanar non-human monstrosity is simply out-of-character knowledge. In characters perspective there were only some strange but clearly inteligent creatures with clear division between warriors and non-combatants and he just indiscrimately slayed one of the latter. Of course emotional trauma due to his friend (cohort) dying/needing help weighted on his moral evaluation of situation and caused him to act not rationally.

I'm sorry for my english (i know my grammar is horrible).

Given their peculiarly unflappable behavior in the face of nearby bloodshed, is it actually reasonable for the character to guess that the Workers are not just big bugs, Int 1 or Int 2?

(Your English is better than many native speakers... :) )

There is another way to look at it: If the human city so happened to have the martial competence to prosecute a war against the formians, would they be Evil for slaughtering all the invaders? Of course not. Invaders are invaders, and it is not even apparent that the Workers are sentient in any important sense. Prosecuting such a war would presumably be Neutral -- that sets the bar.

When the PCs spare some of the invaders, that is a minor Good act. Not sparing some apparent combatants is merely Neutral. Paladins do not Fall for acting in a Neutral manner.

A well played Paladin should regret certain Neutral acts, and might deserve a little nudging from their god. But that applies to any Cleric or Paladin who makes an ugly habit of not championing the ideals of their god or cause.

[Abaddona]

Theoboldi - hmmm, you may be right here (and i wasn't really angry, it's probably effect of poor wording on my part). Anyway it is highly depended on paladin backtory - for example things like "did he saw someone dominated/drugged before" - pretty much interpreting situation in this way is depended on how player was roleplaying.
As for seeking non-violent solutions - actually i assumed, that they tried this. After all formians don't "beep" on evil detector, so paladin could be inclined to try diplomatic solutions first. At the same time formians are aggresive and territorial, so they probably attacked first when the party neared they territory. At this point party just didn't had mny options left outside "defend themself when trying to figure what's actually happening and finding someone to talk things out with (some sort of leader)".

[Snails]

It is not Evil to simply make a mistake, even if the action results in great evil. Being tricked, on purpose or by accident of circumstances, means that the Paladin did not willfully commit an evil act. "Willfully" is used here to indicate intent.

If a player forms a bad habit of invoking the White Hat Empty Head defense ("I am too stupid to know that what I am doing is wrong, and I am trying to be a hero"), there is a point where a DM must draw a line and say "obviously your character knew or should have known" -- but that is only clear if the DM telegraphs there is an ongoing problem.

I do not see the particular example of the player or PC being stupid here in a sense that matters. The scenario is genuinely ambiguous from the PC's point of view. The DM understanding based on insider knowledge is not relevant to whether the PC "willfully" did anything evil.

[Theoboldi]

It is not Evil to simply make a mistake, even if the action results in great evil. Being tricked, on purpose or by accident of circumstances, means that the Paladin did not willfully commit an evil act. "Willfully" is used here to indicate intent.

If a player forms a bad habit of invoking the White Hat Empty Head defense ("I am too stupid to know that what I am doing is wrong, and I am trying to be a hero"), there is a point where a DM must draw a line and say "obviously your character knew or should have known" -- but that is only clear if the DM telegraphs there is an ongoing problem.

I do not see the particular example of the player or PC being stupid here in a sense that matters. The scenario is genuinely ambiguous from the PC's point of view. The DM understanding based on insider knowledge is not relevant to whether the PC "willfully" did anything evil.

Indeed. Still, I think that the paladin's (and perhaps the player's :smalltongue:) relatively low-to-average intelligence and lack of knowledge on interplanar creatures might have caused him to jump to the conclusion of formian workers being mindless ants, without really considering the ambigiousness of the situation first. I wouldn't call his actions evil because of this, but I am going to suggest giving him a warning to be more thoughtful in the future.

As for you Abaddonna, I think that we can both agree that the paladin shouldn't fall, but still should regret his actions, even though I personally don't think that he did something objectively evil. Objectively wrong, perhaps, but not evil. Of course, whether Hanlon's razor is an excuse for a paladin's wrongdoings is another question in of itself, but as long as something like this doesn't happen again I think this one incident should be forgiven.

[Deepbluediver]

Short answer- no, I don't think the paladin should have fallen. He might be in line to get a warning from his diety though, depending on the circumstances.

I'm not intimately familar with Formians, except I think they are based on ants, right? My question is, do they have some sort of hive-mind setup, or is each Formian it's own individual? This is important, at least to me.


If the formians are a hive-mind type of race (with only a single identity), then it would seem like killing an individual formian doesn't really mean much. At worst it would be considered assualt since you've injured, but not killed the actual sentient entity.
If formians are individuals, then the worker, however small his role in the grand scheme of things, was part of an invading force that was causing harm to the villagers whose mine they occupied. Unless the worker was also a slave, and litteraly working under the threat of death, they where one of the "bad guys" in the scenario.

So basically, either they are individuals choosing to do evil, or they are not individuals and therefor not eligible for the same protections. Thats my take on it.


Technically, I am of the opinion that even the threat of death or other penalty is not an entirely mitigating factor, but that's really a version of the "I was just following orders" argument that I don't think we should start here.


Edit: Ok, I've read some more of the thread, and I'm still not clear on the whole hive-mind thing (yes or no) for the workers. Also, the paladin might not have known, but his diety probably does. Is the paladin supposed to fall just for his intentions, even if his action might not have been that bad? That seems like a very high standard to hold some one too. One thing I've always had an issue with is GMs who act as the de fact god in there setting, and then have the supposedly "good" dieties act like complete aresholes, who are just looking for any excuse to pull the rug out under the paladins feet.

Whatever happened to the goodly values of Mercy, Justice, Forgiveness, and Understanding? I would think that an all-knowing, nigh-unstopable god might take a few seconds and consider the circumstances of the situation.

[hamishspence]

I'm not intimately familar with Formians, except I think they are based on ants, right? My question is, do they have some sort of hive-mind setup, or is each Formian it's own individual? This is important, at least to me.


If the formians are a hive-mind type of race (with only a single identity), then it would seem like killing an individual formian doesn't really mean much. At worst it would be considered assualt since you've injured, but not killed the actual sentient entity.
If formians are individuals, then the worker, however small his role in the grand scheme of things, was part of an invading force that was causing harm to the villagers whose mine they occupied. Unless the worker was also a slave, and litteraly working under the threat of death, they where one of the "bad guys" in the scenario.


A bit of both- they're individuals, but always in contact with the hive mind. They can make their own decisions- but they can't disobey orders.

At least, that's the way it seems, from the MM. Not all formian workers are part of hives- it's possible for a wizard to gain a formian worker as an Improved Familiar.

[Zero grim]

Paladins fall if they commit an evil act.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient

He killed a creature because it was convenient, that's an evil act.

Creature is anything with a wis and cha score, Formian's have a wis and cha score, they are creatures.

don't know what all the condusion is about, the paladin doesn't sound he was put into a **** move or an un-winnable situation, he could have just moved through the workers square and eaten an AOO if the worker was hostile, or he could have bull rushed, or he could have used none lethal, or he could have jumped, or he could have scared the worker out of the way, or he could have just said "everybody dies, that's why true res is a thing".

Personally i would have made the paladin fall the moment they decided killing was the way to solve the problem, diplomacy should be the first cause for the paladin, find a compromise that suits both groups, don't just go in and kill one settlement because another settlement that apparently lives on a volcano says their life is going to be harder.

If the Formian's are taking slaves then bring them to justice via a judge and courthouse, killing is almost always an evil act, if they simply defended themselves from the Formian's then they are justified to be neutral at best.

There is no section of the paladin code that says you cant be angry, but there is no section that says your allowed to be stupid, paladins are meant to be wise enough to not resort to emotional outbursts regardless of how many people play paladins of honor as paladins of slaughter.

[lunar2]

Non-lethal seems more conveniant at first but in the end either they also kill non-combattants by killing the queen or they did nothing and their quest was evil / chaotic aligned (unless they used diplomacy).

the queen is not a noncombatant. she's the general running the whole show, and a 17th level sorcerer besides. also, this wasn't the whole hive, it was just some warriors and workers running a mine. the queen was probably still on mechanus. simply killing the warriors and displacing the workers would have solved the problem, since the workers don't have the means to take another mine on their own.

and killing the queen does not kill even a single other formian. most likely, the myrmarches would take over the day to day operations, and the hive would run normally until everyone dies of old age, assuming the formians age.

[georgie_leech]

Paladins fall if they commit an evil act.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient

He killed a creature because it was convenient, that's an evil act.

Creature is anything with a wis and cha score, Formian's have a wis and cha score, they are creatures.

don't know what all the condusion is about, the paladin doesn't sound he was put into a **** move or an un-winnable situation, he could have just moved through the workers square and eaten an AOO if the worker was hostile, or he could have bull rushed, or he could have used none lethal, or he could have jumped, or he could have scared the worker out of the way, or he could have just said "everybody dies, that's why true res is a thing".

Personally i would have made the paladin fall the moment they decided killing was the way to solve the problem, diplomacy should be the first cause for the paladin, find a compromise that suits both groups, don't just go in and kill one settlement because another settlement that apparently lives on a volcano says their life is going to be harder.


By that logic a Paladin can never kill anything ever if it's more convenient than talking them down. Killed a bandit holding an orphan hostage? Fall, could have intimidated instead. Orc charging at you, weapon drawn, screaming a battle cry? Fall, could have stepped to the side or used non-lethal. Evil Necromancer threatening to use artifact of unspeakable power to summon the dead gods and rend the world assunder? Fall, you could have talked and asked nicely instead.

Basically, I disagree with the way you're using "convenient" to mean "easy" or "efficient." A Paladin should not have to take a -4 penalty to every attack roll just to contribute in combat without losing class features.

[Slipperychicken]

mplies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient

He killed a creature because it was convenient, that's an evil act.


No it's not. It's a description of what some Evil creatures do. Much like BoVDs entries for sadism and masochism, it's a thing which evil creatures do more often in D&D, but isn't itself evil.

[dascarletm]

Personally i would have made the paladin fall the moment they decided killing was the way to solve the problem, diplomacy should be the first cause for the paladin, find a compromise that suits both groups, don't just go in and kill one settlement because another settlement that apparently lives on a volcano says their life is going to be harder.


Formians attack, and are very aggressive to those entering what they deem their territory. I'd bet they would just attack on sight.

[Abaddona]

Generally i agree that this situation shouldn't cause Paladin to fall simply because there was too many attenuating circumstances (i hope i got that term right from google translate :-) ) - starting from little information on the side of PCs which made making morally correct decisions rather hard and ending on emotional trauma (well, true ressurection is also a factor, but mentioning this is rather cynical). At the same time in my opinion he got very close and warning from deity would be in order.
On side note - killing something only because "it is animal" is still evil for me. For example hunter who treates animals as some sort of convenient natural resource will be somewhere south of neutral (exactly how far will depend on his relations with humans or by methods he uses to kill his prey).

As for example provided by Snails with martial city waging war against formians - it's pretty much an example of genocide (killing workers or civilian labourers). The thing is - during war things happen and pretty much no one cares. The problem is: chaotic neutral may force captives to eat remains of their fallen comrades because he don't care about their survival and is still angry about one of them killing his brother or something like that, but at the same time Lawfull Good (especially Paladin) is obliged to abide higher moral standards and put a stop if the battle transforms into slaughter.

[dascarletm]

Also, to the point that the Paladin has been less than virtuous. Don't make him fall for something ambiguous. Basically if it can be argued (within reason) don't get him for it. Present some clear cut choices. Perhaps the Gods are noticing his perchance at buggery. The evil forces tempt him, while the good forces try to warn him. Perhaps the next cleric of Heroinious said that he saw the paladin fall in a dream the night before he meets him; Simultaneously some tempting options begin to arise. If the paladin does fall for the temptations (make them reasonably obvious without being like, "You can either eat this baby or rescue him, but if you eat the baby you get +3 con! Lolz") then have him fall. Paladin falls deserve epicness, whether for the right or wrong reasons.

[Coidzor]

Generally i agree that this situation shouldn't cause Paladin to fall simply because there was too many attenuating circumstances (i hope i got that term right from google translate :-) ) - starting from little information on the side of PCs which made making morally correct decisions rather hard and ending on emotional trauma (well, true ressurection is also a factor, but mentioning this is rather cynical). At the same time in my opinion he got very close and warning from deity would be in order.

This basically sums up my ultimate position, I feel the only real question is how close he got, and what I've read so far is that it's mostly because of going by what was convenient (even if it wasn't actually what was convenient in terms of action economy) rather than having the Paladin hat on full time. Granted, this is even more difficult for low intelligence, low wisdom characters...


On side note - killing something only because "it is animal" is still evil for me. For example hunter who treates animals as some sort of convenient natural resource will be somewhere south of neutral (exactly how far will depend on his relations with humans or by methods he uses to kill his prey).

So a hunter who hunts animals for food because that's his primary food source is at least mildly evil as a result? :smallconfused:


As for example provided by Snails with martial city waging war against formians - it's pretty much an example of genocide (killing workers or civilian labourers). The thing is - during war things happen and pretty much no one cares. The problem is: chaotic neutral may force captives to eat remains of their fallen comrades because he don't care about their survival and is still angry about one of them killing his brother or something like that, but at the same time Lawfull Good (especially Paladin) is obliged to abide higher moral standards and put a stop if the battle transforms into slaughter.

Forcing someone to perform cannibalism is evil as cannibalism itself is evil and cannibalism is extended to mean eating any sapient creature. So eating a Formian is evil even when it would not be evil to kill said Formian. Or Goblin. Or Dragon.

Again, things like Formians are more problematic than living creatures like goblins or orcs because they are outsiders and because of their hivemind on top of that. If you got an infestation of Modrons there'd be similar issues though I believe the lowest ranks are mindless like Lemures (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#lemure).

You can redeem a goblin, show an orc the error of its ways, or even convert a dragon to the opposite alignment. Changing an outsider is a very special kind of thing, to the point where something like a Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)is laughably rare due to their alignment being part of their fundamental nature.

I can't really grok how the DM in this case has altered Formians in this case, but the bog standard Formian basically the "best case" scenario is that the workers would have to be driven out with violence that would likely kill at least some of them and injure and/or kill the people who drove them out if it were not the Party doing so and they'd merely go to be nuisances or worse somewhere else. Sort of like defeating some bandits without really doing more than injuring some of them and not even disarming them, they'll not pick a fight with you again unless they can bolster their numbers or think up some way to get around your advantage against them, but they're going to go on to be someone else's problem, and it really isn't Good to allow a threat to go without any real attempt at neutralization.

But what can you do with Formians? Imprisoning them is meaningless, it's impossible to predict what they'll do with the DM's houserules if just turned loose, and we can't even know what scattering them to the four winds would accomplish if anything.

[dascarletm]

So a hunter who hunts animals for food because that's his primary food source is at least mildly evil as a result? :smallconfused:


Luckilly the rules weren't written by vegetarians, or animal rights activists.

Harming any creature with the Animal type is EVIL

[Scow2]

You can redeem a goblin, show an orc the error of its ways, or even convert a dragon to the opposite alignment. Changing an outsider is a very special kind of thing, to the point where something like a Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)is laughably rare due to their alignment being part of their fundamental nature.And, the Succubus Paladin is a boon to fiends everywhere, because they provide enough exception to the rule that Fiends cannot be treated as other evil creatures (ie. Redeemable on some level), weakening the resolve of Good against them. Fiends are VERY nasty when it comes to weakening the absolutist resolve of Good.

[Coidzor]

And, the Succubus Paladin is a boon to fiends everywhere, because they provide enough exception to the rule that Fiends cannot be treated as other evil creatures (ie. Redeemable on some level), weakening the resolve of Good against them. Fiends are VERY nasty when it comes to weakening the absolutist resolve of Good.

Not really. The Succubus Paladin is viewed in universe as a complete and utter fluke that should not have been possible to happen and cannot be replicated from what I've gleaned from the discussion by the Devs and the articles themselves.

[Abaddona]

Dascarletm:

well, as you said: falling Paladin should be such spectacular event that it will leave cracks on the floor below (my DM told me once that one of his players made once a Paladin who kinda "cracked" when his belowed got turned into vampire and refused to be resurected. Long story short: he kinda walked back to his temple and nailed highpriest to the statue of his deity. Then killed all inhabitants of the temple, then walked outside and destroyed city in which said temple was located. Then he began crusade to literally wipe his deity and everything related to it from the existence.) simply falling cause you wrongly evaluated your situation is wasted story potential (but sometimes DM just have no choice).

Coidzor:

1. Hunter hunting animals for food/income is not evil. It's hard to describe properly my point but i will try: killing animals indiscrimately (for example mothers with their youngs or hunting to the point of making some species extinct or killing animals for fun and leaving them to rot) is evil. Hunting animals because this is your job and showing some kind of respect to your prey (i think good example is in "The Old Man and the Sea"; also some primal cultures had rituals to appease the ghosts of hunted animals; or just take care to use all parts of hunted animals not only the most valuable ones) is neutral.

2. As for forcing someone to perform cannibalism - yes it's evil, but as I said before: Chaotic Neutral simply may have bad day and not care (of course prolonged "not caring" will cause alignment shift). Lawfull good should care and paladin not only should care but even take actions to make others care.

Also one thing with Formians is in-character knowledge and out-of-character knowledge: the players may know about those things like hive mind or that leaving them alone is generally bad idea, their characters not neceessarily.

[Reogan]

I've realized my reason for my position now. It isn't just that killing was convenient. Paladins have to kill. The dangerous criminal with an orphan hostage must be stopped before he can hurt the child. Letting evil live is not worth the risk a lot of the time.

The problem was that the Paladin was taking a less convenient route by killing it. Moving by would be faster, and they had been already shown to forgo AOOs.

This precipitated the fall.

However, I fully agree with most of the sentiment of those who say it should have been a possible minor sin on the way to a fall. It was not a huge deal (other than for the dead bug). The problem is (and I may have neglected to mention much of this as I didn't think it mattered in the OP) that he refused to repent. He showed no grief, even when Heironeous came to speak with him (there was precedent for god visitation). Later, he refused a Phylactery of Faithfulness from the nicest Mind Flayer, refusing to believe he did not know Heironeous' will.

I realize many, many of you would not have revoked the Paladin's powers. I did. I would, however, have restored them with an atonement (with no XP cost) or had he accepted his god's will.

As to those who talk about needing to later kill the Workers because they would not leave, the party had no way to be half certain of that. There may have been a way to relocate them or send them home (there wasn't, but the party had no way to know and no experience telling them otherwise). You can say they wouldn't leave based on your knowledge of the issue, but the players and their characters had no knowledge of that sort.

[Deepbluediver]

However, I fully agree with most of the sentiment of those who say it should have been a possible minor sin on the way to a fall. It was not a huge deal (other than for the dead bug). The problem is (and I may have neglected to mention much of this as I didn't think it mattered in the OP) that he refused to repent. He showed no grief, even when Heironeous came to speak with him (there was precedent for god visitation). Later, he refused a Phylactery of Faithfulness from the nicest Mind Flayer, refusing to believe he did not know Heironeous' will.

Well gosh, yeah, it only changes the whole scenario from a singular event into a "straw that broke the camel's back" type of situation.

I still think that falling, right then and there in the middle of battle, would have been a little harsh. At the very least, the rest of the party is relying on him, and indirectly the entire village that formerly controlled the mine. If the party failed because of the paladins sudden lack of ability the repercussions could have been significant.

Its your group, I know, but personally I would have held off on the fall until AFTER the pally had a warning/chance to reconsider/visitation from deity, etc. To me, motivation for an act is almost as important as the act itself when determining morality. Maybe the player thought he was roleplaying well by acting irrationally to express the grief his character felt for the loss of a companion.

[Cirrylius]

At the very least, the rest of the party is relying on him, and indirectly the entire village that formerly controlled the mine. If the party failed because of the paladins sudden lack of ability the repercussions could have been significant.

That's actually an interesting idea; the responsibility play between the party and the god, rather than the paladin and the god. There's a whole new angle of "HEY, your total inflexibility towards your adherents got the whole party killed!!" vs. "Hey, he didn't HAVE to fall, he should have known the longer-term consequences of his actions!". Does the god intervene to the degree of sending a replacement or one-time buff to cover his followers failure, or does he let free will play itself out?

I smell an origin story for a whole party of Blackguards:smallbiggrin:

[zlefin]

on review of the thread; what the did paladin was not wrong.
The ant ignored the battle around it completely to all signs; thus it showed no signs of intelligence.
Humanoid workers EVERYWHERE know to get out of the way of a battle; even animals know to get out of the way of a battle; even regular ANTS themselves have enough sense to either get out of the way of battle or join the fight (mostly through pheromone signaling, but the point stands).
Since the Formian workers just ingnored the battle; the logical IC conclusion is that they're full automota, and therefore killing them is the same as destroying a golem.

[Deepbluediver]

That's actually an interesting idea; the responsibility play between the party and the god, rather than the paladin and the god. There's a whole new angle of "HEY, your total inflexibility towards your adherents got the whole party killed!!" vs. "Hey, he didn't HAVE to fall, he should have known the longer-term consequences of his actions!". Does the god intervene to the degree of sending a replacement or one-time buff to cover his followers failure, or does he let free will play itself out?

Hmm...that wasn't exactly my train of thought, but it's an interesting scenario: if the party suffers some loss because the deity smacked down his follower at an inconvenient time or pivotal moment, does the rest of the party have a legitimate grievance against the god? And how you would go about resolving it?

Also, people like to claim that LG means a strict adherence to the laws of the land, including dragging back prisoners so some judge can sentence them to death rather than doing the deed themselves. So it seems reasonable to me that a Paladin should have the opportunity to either offer a defense or at least explain their actions in some sort of celestial court or tribunal, before punishment is meted out.


on review of the thread; what the did paladin was not wrong.
The ant ignored the battle around it completely to all signs; thus it showed no signs of intelligence.
Humanoid workers EVERYWHERE know to get out of the way of a battle; even animals know to get out of the way of a battle; even regular ANTS themselves have enough sense to either get out of the way of battle or join the fight (mostly through pheromone signaling, but the point stands).
Since the Formian workers just ingnored the battle; the logical IC conclusion is that they're full automota, and therefore killing them is the same as destroying a golem.

Ooh, that's a good point. The OP likes to keep mentioning the difference between player and character knowledge, and from the characters point of view all the workers where acting totally illogical for a sentient species, just like mindless drones.

[Coidzor]

Hmm...that wasn't exactly my train of thought, but it's an interesting scenario: if the party suffers some loss because the deity smacked down his follower at an inconvenient time or pivotal moment, does the rest of the party have a legitimate grievance against the god? And how you would go about resolving it?

Hope that it's one of the deities that doesn't have auto-win Salient Divine Abilities?

[hamishspence]

Not really. The Succubus Paladin is viewed in universe as a complete and utter fluke that should not have been possible to happen and cannot be replicated from what I've gleaned from the discussion by the Devs and the articles themselves.

Link, Or quotes?

It's not the first "nonevil demon" either. And there's been more than one Evil Celestial. If evil celestials, why not nonevil demons?

[Snails]

This precipitated the fall.

However, I fully agree with most of the sentiment of those who say it should have been a possible minor sin on the way to a fall. It was not a huge deal (other than for the dead bug). The problem is (and I may have neglected to mention much of this as I didn't think it mattered in the OP) that he refused to repent. He showed no grief, even when Heironeous came to speak with him (there was precedent for god visitation). Later, he refused a Phylactery of Faithfulness from the nicest Mind Flayer, refusing to believe he did not know Heironeous' will.

I realize many, many of you would not have revoked the Paladin's powers. I did. I would, however, have restored them with an atonement (with no XP cost) or had he accepted his god's will.


That sounds reasonable enough to me.

While I would argue strenuously against the paladin Falling simply because of this one dead bug, I think it is more than fair for paladin's god to ask him to feel sorry about it -- that is a warning that the player needs to start a useful conversation about where the border of the Code lies, or risk a Fall.

Even if this unhappy act is merely Neutral, it is a point where his god might be hoping for a Good act instead. IMO, part of the point of being a paladin is that one is choosing a path where one will make an extra effort to do Good acts when a generally Good sense of morality does not require as much.

[Coidzor]

Link, Or quotes?

It's not the first "nonevil demon" either. And there's been more than one Evil Celestial. If evil celestials, why not nonevil demons?

In order to refute a preposterous point that a joke character means that all Good characters have to let themselves get stabbed in the back by Team Evil?

No, I don't really feel like going to that much effort for him. I linked one of the articles already which establishes the fluke nature fairly well in the discussion of how not only was it basically unpredictable, even those involved have no understanding of it.

Maybe I've misread the argument, but all I got of it was that it was ridiculously asinine.

[Slipperychicken]

And, the Succubus Paladin is a boon to fiends everywhere, because they provide enough exception to the rule that Fiends cannot be treated as other evil creatures (ie. Redeemable on some level), weakening the resolve of Good against them. Fiends are VERY nasty when it comes to weakening the absolutist resolve of Good.

It's still an Evil Act to allow her to exist.

Silly fiends, thinking they can abuse our mercy to bend rules and stuff. :smallbiggrin: What will those wacky demons come up with next? :smalltongue:


[Smites the Succubus Paladin] Nice try, monster. I won't be fooled by your tricks.

[hamishspence]

I linked one of the articles already which establishes the fluke nature fairly well in the discussion of how not only was it basically unpredictable, even those involved have no understanding of it.

I couldn't see anything in the article about "no understanding of it".

The MM itself says, under each Alignment Subtype- that it is possible for a creature to have an alignment differing from the subtype.

[Deepbluediver]

It's still an Evil Act to allow her to exist.

Silly fiends, thinking they can abuse our mercy to bend rules and stuff. :smallbiggrin: What will those wacky demons come up with next? :smalltongue:


[Smites the Succubus Paladin] Nice try, monster. I won't be fooled by your tricks.

Ok, now see, this is and example of WotC wanting to have things both ways and getting in trouble for it.
I remember reading recently how the 2nd edition stuff went on and on about the roleplaying opportunities for low-rolled scores, and then every designer-written NPC had multiple stats in the 16-18 range. In other words, do as we say, not as we do.

So we have the "always evil" (or "always good") groups of creatures, and WotC publishes examples of evil celestials and good fiends, just to muck up the alignment debate even more. In other words, they want to write their story they way the want, rules be damned.


So in the absence of any other evidence, being suspicious, unfriendly, or even hostile to a creature that comes from a race who is KNOWN for being treacherous, deceitful, and evil would not be cause enough for the paladin to fall. If he continually acts in an overzealous manner despite evidence to the contrary, then that might be worth a message or something from his patron, but it has to be done within a reasonable standard.
You can't makes things that are unusual or outside the characters expereience, and then blame them for not knowing better (well you can, but it means your acting like a [Richard])

[Coidzor]

I couldn't see anything in the article about "no understanding of it".

I suppose we're just reading that bit about love and her recollections and perspective on it differently then.


The MM itself says, under each Alignment Subtype- that it is possible for a creature to have an alignment differing from the subtype.

Not really what I was arguing anyway.

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more of the angel, and his superiors.

Another notable nonevil demon (though LN in this case)- Fall-From-Grace, who is in the Planescape: Torment game, and later mentioned in the Demonomicon: Malcanthet article in Dragon Magazine, written by James Jacobs, the writer of Fiendish Codex 1.

[Man on Fire]

My players and I were recently discussing an event from far back in our campaign when the party Paladin lost his powers.

There was a city whose economy was based mostly on mining. However, their mines had been occupied by Formians and the town was dying. The party, being Good, went to drive out the invaders and save the town.

Now, in the mine were primarily Warriors and Workers (types of Formians). The Warriors fought the party on sight. The Workers ignored them. This was well established after a few rooms. The party never harmed the Workers and the Workers ignored them.

In a later room, the Paladin was fighting in a pit while his cohort was being the party meatshield on its rim. Suddenly, his cohort was dealt a mortal wound, and the Paladin rushed to him. However, a Worker was walking down the ramp (seemingly oblivious to the battle), and rather than try to get around him, the Paladin cut him down.

Now, I maintain this would cost him his powers until such a time he might atone. He attacked a noncombatant, of a sort well established in and out of game to be a noncombatant. My players disagree. Thoughts?

(Note: He then went on a murderous rampage over the death of his cohort and easily violated the Paladin Oath, so the point is moot; we're just curious)

They went to murder loads of guys from another dimension, who tried to colonize the place and probably needed the resources they were stealing to survive, their actions would deeply upset that society and may have lead to many deaths in the future. that is okay, but killing one guy is not?

[Snails]

An intrinsic aspect of being a succubus paladin is that random paladins who do not know you may attempt to kill you on sight, and they suffer no negative consequences for doing so.

Repentance can be very hard. It is not for everyone.