yet another paladin alignment question

[tim01300]

So question about paladins and intimidate. To make a long story short, core rule books only, 3.5, I am playing a level 8 paladin of Heironeous in a group who encountered some evil bandits at the site of a treasure map.

After a fight we managed to take one bandit alive who was completely hostile and unhelpful. After a successful diplomacy role I was told the bandit was now indifferent but still refused to help or provide any information, saying he would rather die yada yada. So the bandit was knocked unconscious by the party thief i trussed him up over a pile of wood and planned to bluff lighting it up if he didn't help.

My dm told me even bluffing would result in alignment shift and me falling as a paladin. That paladins are not allowed to lie, and even threatening to light someone on fire is evil.

I get lighting someone on fire is evil, but is just the threat or bluff, if I specifically told the party about the plan while he was unconscious evil? Are paladins punished for bluffing? DM, myself and group are slightly past noob experience in regard to playing...barely.

[joca4christ]

I wouldn't necessarily say alignment shift. But it does border on breaking the code. A paladin isn't supposed to lie, but he might let his buddy bluff. A paladin definitely wouldn't torture a helpless person.

Perhaps a paladin would do something like this:

"You won't help us? Fine. Gents, cut him loose and give him a sword. If he won't help, he can die in a fair fight."

[Deophaun]

My dm told me even bluffing would result in alignment shift and me falling as a paladin. That paladins are not allowed to lie, and even threatening to light someone on fire is evil.
The question with Bluff is always what constitutes a "gross" violation of the Paladin's code. If you're doing it knowingly and deliberately, that's one possible definition of "gross." The other definition is an extreme violation. RAI, it's probably more to the deliberate side than the extreme (otherwise, why bother with the Code, and why do you fall for any tiny evil thing?). But, the whole Paladin's code anyway is terrible, so... where was I going with this?

Anyway, yes, threatening to light someone on fire probably is a tiny itty-bitty evil act, but you fall for tiny itty-bitty evil acts. If you really want to intimidate the bandit, tell him you're going to hand him over to the king's men (Lawful). Describe, in gruesome detail what happens to people like him (Honest). Then suggest that if he's cooperative, you'll use your position ensure he gets lenient treatment (which you were going to do anyway, because Good). Basically, "I intimidate him with justice."

[hamishspence]

Anyway, yes, threatening to light someone on fire probably is a tiny itty-bitty evil act, but you fall for tiny itty-bitty evil acts.

It's characterized as "questionable" in BoED- but that allows for some wiggle room.


If you really want to intimidate the bandit, tell him you're going to hand him over to the king's men (Lawful). Describe, in gruesome detail what happens to people like him (Honest). Then suggest that if he's cooperative, you'll use your position ensure he gets lenient treatment (which you were going to do anyway, because Good). Basically, "I intimidate him with justice."
Strictly, "handing someone over to an authority that you know will torture them" may qualify as Evil if you go by BoED.

So- you're pretty much required to ensure that "lenient treatment" means no torture before handing them over.

[Deophaun]

Strictly, "handing someone over to an authority that you know will torture them" may qualify as Evil if you go by BoED.
Corporal punishment is distinct from torture in D&D. Under the "rules for torture" in BoVD, we get:

A torturer seeks to learn something from the victim through the application of pain, though sometimes torturers inflict pain for pain’s own sake.
BoED talks more generally about methods that inflict "undue" suffering. What is "undue" is open to wide interpretation, especially when dealing with the question of whether the justice system exists to reform, deter, or punish offenders. The punishment described at the start of Foucault's Discipline and Punish would clearly rank as torture today, but it doesn't fit the BoVD's definition, as the purpose wasn't to inflict pain for pain's sake or extract information. Rather, its public nature was to communicate how serious regicide was, and to deter future instances. Did Damiens really need to have molten lead poured in his wounds to make the point? That's a judgement call for the DM, based on the setting he's going for, but it's not something BoED automatically condemns or BoVD calls torture.

Heck, there's a [Good] spell in BoED that condemns a creature to spend eternity suffering in the Lower Planes, which is worse than anything else a mortal with a blade and a mile-wide sadistic streak could hope to achieve.

But even during executions, sometimes it takes a few inhumane whacks to separate the head from the torso. It's why the guillotine was invented. It's perfectly within bounds to describe what happens when the laws of physics intervene to make the local brand of justice difficult to carry out cleanly.

[forsaken1111]

Threatening to burn someone alive is nonphysical torture, which is evil. You are outright lying to achieve your own ends (getting information/cooperation). Its no better than physical torture. It would be no different from threatening to bury alive someone who is afraid of small spaces, or threatening with a swarm of spiders someone who is afraid of said spiders.

You are making a death threat, which is itself evil. You're also lying about your intentions to exploit someone else's fears, which is evil. In no way is this a good thing. If I were your DM, I would make you atone despite the fact you relented after I told you it was evil. The DM is not your conscious. It is not up to the DM to tell you what may or may not cause you to fall. I wouldn't have even told you, I'd just have let you do it and told you the consequences. You are roleplaying a good paladin. Paladins do not burn people alive, or lie to manipulate them. Reread the paladin's code and live it, or play a fallen paladin. Fallen paladins can be just as fun.

(All of the above is just my opinion, feel free to disregard)

[hamishspence]

The punishment described at the start of Foucault's Discipline and Punish would clearly rank as torture today, but it doesn't fit the BoVD's definition, as the purpose wasn't to inflict pain for pain's sake or extract information. Rather, its public nature was to communicate how serious regicide was, and to deter future instances.

BoED included "punishment for crimes committed" in its definition.

[Segev]

Threatening to burn someone alive is nonphysical torture, which is evil. You are outright lying to achieve your own ends (getting information/cooperation). Its no better than physical torture. It would be no different from threatening to bury alive someone who is afraid of small spaces, or threatening with a swarm of spiders someone who is afraid of said spiders.

You are making a death threat, which is itself evil. You're also lying about your intentions to exploit someone else's fears, which is evil. In no way is this a good thing. If I were your DM, I would make you atone despite the fact you relented after I told you it was evil. The DM is not your conscious. It is not up to the DM to tell you what may or may not cause you to fall. I wouldn't have even told you, I'd just have let you do it and told you the consequences. You are roleplaying a good paladin. Paladins do not burn people alive, or lie to manipulate them. Reread the paladin's code and live it, or play a fallen paladin. Fallen paladins can be just as fun.

Uh.

Your ideas of evil and moral equivalencies of actions are disturbing to me.

Seriously: "Threatening to harm somebody is equivalent to actually harming them?" That's a pretty direct paraphrase of your opening, wherein you state that a threat of torture is, itself, "mental torture," and is thus evil.

Death threats are inherently evil?

If that's the case, then either you're saying threatening to kill somebody is worse than killing them, or that paladins shouldn't ever fight because they might kill somebody.

"If you harm that innocent child I will kill you!" is a death threat. Is it evil, such that a Paladin who utters it to the cultist about to sacrifice the child to his dark god is lurching towards a fall?

No. While you might be able to make a case about bluffing being lying being a violation (which is a separate and more nuanced argument), the rest of your equivalencies are disturbing, at best.

[Deophaun]

BoED included "punishment for crimes committed" in its definition.
Then it's got a problem, because mechanically, it gives a [Good] spell that does exactly that.

[forsaken1111]

Uh.

Your ideas of evil and moral equivalencies of actions are disturbing to me.

Seriously: "Threatening to harm somebody is equivalent to actually harming them?" That's a pretty direct paraphrase of your opening, wherein you state that a threat of torture is, itself, "mental torture," and is thus evil.

Death threats are inherently evil?

If that's the case, then either you're saying threatening to kill somebody is worse than killing them, or that paladins shouldn't ever fight because they might kill somebody.

"If you harm that innocent child I will kill you!" is a death threat. Is it evil, such that a Paladin who utters it to the cultist about to sacrifice the child to his dark god is lurching towards a fall?

No. While you might be able to make a case about bluffing being lying being a violation (which is a separate and more nuanced argument), the rest of your equivalencies are disturbing, at best.

I was speaking of the scenario the OP put forth, not in general. Go ahead and twist the words some more though.

[Deophaun]

It would be no different from threatening to bury alive someone who is afraid of small spaces, or threatening with a swarm of spiders someone who is afraid of said spiders.
So using Intimidate at all is evil?

[forsaken1111]

So using Intimidate at all is evil?

Threatening someone with torture or a horrific death would, in my opinion, be evil. I did say in the post that the above was my opinion. If your opinion differs, that's okay. I'm not going to debate or argue with you, its okay to think different things.

I'd also like to add the caveat that these things are highly situational. He wasn't talking to some utterfiend of evil, just a guy. A guy who might, in the fullness of time, repent or atone.

[hamishspence]

Then it's got a problem, because mechanically, it gives a [Good] spell that does exactly that.

Which spell? Describe in detail.

[Segev]

I was speaking of the scenario the OP put forth, not in general. Go ahead and twist the words some more though.

You made absolute statements that, even in the context of this thread, are declarative over all by giving reasons that can be applied elsewhere without stretching or twisting. I've twisted none of your words.

And no, I don't think the OP committed an evil act. An act that might be worrisome if it became a pattern, but depending on the cruciality of it, not evil.

Again, the "lying" case is a separate one, and one where I can see a "code violation" argument being made (though I'd still dispute it, personally). "A death threat" is not evil, however. Not unless the target of said threat is a known innocent and/or the threat is simply for the threat-maker's personal benefit/in pursuit of an evil cause.

None of those conditions applied in this case.

"Tell me how to save those people or I'll kill you" is no different, morally, than "don't you make a move towards that people-murdering switch or I'll kill you."

It is a bit less effective, sadly, because the death of the villain wouldn't prevent the death of the innocent, but it's still valid.

All of this continues to assume, of course, that the target of the threat is purely malign in his participation in the events in question. Mitigating and corner-case circumstances - such as often happen in games and fiction because they make for more interesting stories - can alter this formula.

[Morgarion]

I think Forsaken has a point about using the threat of torture. I don't know that it ought to necessitate a complete fall (perhaps losing their moral balance? pun!), but the paladin ought to know they've made a questionable decision.

Allowing a paladin to circumvent their code by only threatening to carry out an act proscribed by it would defeat the purpose of the code itself. Additionally, I don't see why a threat of torture is any different in nature from any other kind of threat of an act against their code that allowing this threat would not require allowing all other threats of contradictory behavior.

[Deophaun]

Which spell? Describe in detail.
Last Judgement:

Reciting a list of the targets’ evil deeds, you call down the judgment of the heavens upon their heads. Creatures that fail their saving throw are struck dead and bodily transported to the appropriate Lower Plane to suffer their eternal punishment.

[forsaken1111]

You made absolute statements that, even in the context of this thread, are declarative over all by giving reasons that can be applied elsewhere without stretching or twisting. I've twisted none of your words.

And no, I don't think the OP committed an evil act. An act that might be worrisome if it became a pattern, but depending on the cruciality of it, not evil.

Again, the "lying" case is a separate one, and one where I can see a "code violation" argument being made (though I'd still dispute it, personally). "A death threat" is not evil, however. Not unless the target of said threat is a known innocent and/or the threat is simply for the threat-maker's personal benefit/in pursuit of an evil cause.

None of those conditions applied in this case.

"Tell me how to save those people or I'll kill you" is no different, morally, than "don't you make a move towards that people-murdering switch or I'll kill you."

It is a bit less effective, sadly, because the death of the villain wouldn't prevent the death of the innocent, but it's still valid.

All of this continues to assume, of course, that the target of the threat is purely malign in his participation in the events in question. Mitigating and corner-case circumstances - such as often happen in games and fiction because they make for more interesting stories - can alter this formula.

He threatened to burn someone to death. I'm talking about that specific instance. If you want to apply my words to a wider context for which they were not intended, fine. I'm not going to be drawn into a stupid discussion of wider morality when we're dealing with a specific instance. He threatened to burn a person to death. As a paladin. A person who was an unarmed prisoner.

So yeah, you don't think this is evil. I do. Thats okay. Opinions can differ.

[hamishspence]

Last Judgement:

Which (if it only works on Evil creatures) is exactly identical in real effect to any slaying spell.

[forsaken1111]

I think Forsaken has a point about using the threat of torture. I don't know that it ought to necessitate a complete fall (perhaps losing their moral balance? pun!), but the paladin ought to know they've made a questionable decision.

Allowing a paladin to circumvent their code by only threatening to carry out an act proscribed by it would defeat the purpose of the code itself. Additionally, I don't see why a threat of torture is any different in nature from any other kind of threat of an act against their code that allowing this threat would not require allowing all other threats of contradictory behavior.

Exactly. 'wink wink nudge nudge' "Well I totally wasn't serious when I said I'd rape his family and murder his children, that's okay right? All I did was the morally ambiguous equivalent of telling a fib!"

A L/G paladin's code is uncompromising, in my opinion. If your DM has to inform you that your action could possibly be construed as evil, you have already gone to far. You are ****ing paragon of virtue by DEFINITION. Threatening to burn an unarmed prisoner alive does not fit in that image.

Again, still my opinion. I'm fully aware that other people see paladins differently and ascribe to a more flexible code. I just don't agree with that.

[Deophaun]

Which (if it only works on Evil creatures) is exactly identical in real effect to any slaying spell.
Not creatures with the [Evil] subtype. Those, actually, are excluded. It's target is limited to evil humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and giants.

So no, not like any slaying spell.

[hamishspence]

It's a slaying spell with a very tight limitation then.

The point being- the souls of evil mortal beings will "be transported bodily to the Lower Planes to suffer eternal punishment" whatever spell is used to slay them.

[Psyren]

Not creatures with the [Evil] subtype. Those, actually, are excluded. It's target is limited to evil humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and giants.

So no, not like any slaying spell.

Punishment in the afterlife is slightly different than torturing them while alive, don't you think?



The point being- the souls of evil mortal beings will "be transported bodily to the Lower Planes to suffer eternal punishment" whatever spell is used to slay them.

This.

[Deophaun]

The point being- the souls of evil mortal beings will "be transported bodily to the Lower Planes to suffer eternal punishment" whatever spell is used to slay them.
No, they won't. There are various options for what happens to a dead character. They may go to a plane based on their alignment. They may, instead, be reincarnated. If they are judged worthy by their patron deity (say, an evil wizard that follows Boccob and has done much to advance the cause of knowledge), they are admitted to their patron's plane.

But this spell takes every option off the table save for eternal punishment. No reincarnation for a shot at redemption, no deity that gets first crack at your soul. Just "Hi, here are a bunch of demons to take care of you. But don't worry! This is a [Good] spell!"

Punishment in the afterlife is slightly different than torturing them while alive, don't you think?
In D&D terms, where the justice of the outer planes is no more or less just than the justice of the inner planes? Not really, no.

[hamishspence]

No, they won't. There are various options for what happens to a dead character. They may go to a plane based on their alignment.
Which, in the case of an evil character, will normally be a Lower Plane.


They may, instead, be reincarnated.
Unless someone's cast the Reincarnate spell on them, normally they won't- unless they qualify for the Hellbred Transformation in FC2 by way of being repentant before death.


If they are judged worthy by their patron deity (say, an evil wizard that follows Boccob and has done much to advance the cause of knowledge), they are admitted to their patron's plane.
This is true- but they'd have to be an extremely devoted follower of Boccob- just furthering his goals is not normally enough.


But this spell takes every option off the table save for eternal punishment. No reincarnation for a shot at redemption, no deity that gets first crack at your soul. Just "Hi, here are a bunch of demons to take care of you. But don't worry! This is a [Good] spell!"
It's certainly harsh- but in the context of D&D, it's considered normal for evil souls to go to the Lower Planes- other cases are the exception, not the rule.

[Psyren]

This is true- but they'd have to be an extremely devoted follower of Boccob- just furthering his goals is not normally enough.

Yep - and this also requires Boccob to intercede on your behalf. In other words, it's the exception that proves the general rule.

[Deophaun]

It's certainly harsh- but in the context of D&D, it's considered normal for evil souls to go to the Lower Planes- other cases are the exception, not the rule.
Then in the context of D&D, inflicting suffering for punishment is a universal truth. If you kill an evil person, then you have just turned him over to the divine authorities for punishment, where he will live in pain and torment for eternity. Paladin falls. Exalted falls.

[Psyren]

Then in the context of D&D, inflicting suffering for punishment is a universal truth. If you kill an evil person, then you have just turned him over to the divine authorities for punishment, where he will live in pain and torment for eternity. Paladin falls. Exalted falls.

You're turning them over to a legitimate authority - indeed, the only one, one that actually knows the full measure of their evil and has the right to act upon it. It's incomparable to handing them over to some earthly torturer who neither knows nor cares the extent of their crimes or the context behind them.

[forsaken1111]

A paladin isn't responsible for divine judgement after the fact, only for the actions he takes in life. Use of that spell would be imposing your own judgement on someone, even after death, and would make you directly responsible for the suffering. I'd rule that the use of that spell would be against a paladin's code. Less picky good/exalted characters may get away with it I guess, but that isn't the topic of discussion here is it?

[Deophaun]

You're turning them over to a legitimate authority - indeed, the only one, one that actually knows the full measure of their evil and has the right to act upon it. It's incomparable to handing them over to some earthly torturer who neither knows nor cares the extent of their crimes or the context behind them.
So, Psyren, you agree that it's evil then:

This leads good characters (especially lawful good characters) into a dilemma: Is it wrong to turn a prisoner over to legitimate authorities knowing that the prisoner will be tortured and abused in captivity? Fortunately, the answer is straightforward, if sometimes difficult to implement. Yes, delivering a person over to be tortured, even if the person is thoroughly evil and the torturers are a legitimate authority, is evil.
This is the passage at issue.

[Psyren]

So, Psyren, you agree that it's evil then:

This is the passage at issue.

"Delivering a person" - but they are not persons anymore when they reach the afterlife, they are petitioners.

[Deophaun]

"Delivering a person" - but they are not persons anymore when they reach the afterlife, they are petitioners.
What, exactly, is a person, and where does it say petitioners are not? Can we use this reasoning on dragons, mind flayers, orcs, goblins, kobolds, halflings, elves, dwarves, etc? If I find someone's soul lying around in a gem, is it okay if I torment it for fun?

[forsaken1111]

"Delivering a person" - but they are not persons anymore when they reach the afterlife, they are petitioners.

Pedantry aside, you are not delivering their soul to anyone. This is not comparable to binding a prisoner and delivering him to the local magistrate. You are slaying him. The soul is then dealt with by whatever cosmological beurocracy is in place. In some cosmologies, if the slain is an unbeliever he is made into brick and morter for the great wall.

Regardless of his final destination, such things are impossible to know for a Paladin. You may suspect but you will never know beforehand where he will go. In some ways, the soul's final destination is up to the soul itself and the beliefs they held in life.

[Psyren]

What, exactly, is a person, and where does it say petitioners are not?

Petitioners are quite literally stripped of everything they knew in life - race, levels, class abilities, family ties etc. - and reduced to 1 HD outsiders. They might still be persons, but they are certainly not the same person.



Can we use this reasoning on dragons, mind flayers, orcs, goblins, kobolds, halflings, elves, dwarves, etc?

This is precisely what I mean - once any of those becomes a petitioner, it is no longer an orc, kobold etc. That process may take a while, but it always happens before the punishment.



If I find someone's soul lying around in a gem, is it okay if I torment it for fun?

Are you the afterlife? (Also, the fact that you felt you had to add "for fun" to that means you know your own argument isn't working on its own.)

[SethoMarkus]

Back to the topic at hand, intimidating the prisoner by explicitly saying "we will burn you alive if you don't answer our questions" is questionable at best, most likely evil to some degree, and, in my opinion, definitely grounds for a Paladin to fall.

However, I see no issue with merely binding the prisoner to a pyre and sternly questioning him. If the prisoner happens to realize that he is tied to a pyre, and that it is all prepared to be lit on fire, it is not the Paladin's fault if the prisoner comes to the conclusion that he will be burnt to death if he doesn't cooperate. The Paladin did not lie; the Paladin Intimidated with tone/delivery of voice and situational modifiers; and, the Paladin did not actually threaten to or commit an Evil act.

Now, the Paladin should feel guilt over this afterwards (that would prove that he is both Good and Lawful), and should use this only as a last resort. But a Paladin does not need to be nice, he is not barred from being rough, and if the greater good is at stake, and the information the prisoner has is vital in protecting that good, then it would be a dereliction of the Paladin's duty to not get that information.

I am not saying that the ends justify the means. I am saying, however, that a Paladin cannot fall for an action he did not commit. It may be somewhat dishonest to interrogate the prisoner in this way, but the Paladin did not harm him, nor did he lie to him.

[Segev]

"I'm not saying I'm going to burn you alive, but everything I'm doing suggests it," is not any better than just saying it. It is the paladin's fault if the target draws the conclusion he is working hard to imply.

So, if you feel that this is evil just to SAY it, hinting at it in no uncertain terms is no different. Lawful Evil and to some extent Neutral gets to play rules lawyer with the intent of the law. Lawful Good does not, unless it's to specifically undermine an evil-intended law or to counter evil-rules-lawyering.

[hamishspence]

It's worth remembering that it is certainly possible to do an evil act with a Good spell. An 11th+ level caster using Holy Word on a 1st level Neutral commoner will almost certainly kill them.

So, other principles can still come into play.

[SethoMarkus]

"I'm not saying I'm going to burn you alive, but everything I'm doing suggests it," is not any better than just saying it. It is the paladin's fault if the target draws the conclusion he is working hard to imply.

So, if you feel that this is evil just to SAY it, hinting at it in no uncertain terms is no different. Lawful Evil and to some extent Neutral gets to play rules lawyer with the intent of the law. Lawful Good does not, unless it's to specifically undermine an evil-intended law or to counter evil-rules-lawyering.

A Paladin is on his way to defeat an evil force threatening to destroy the world. On the way, he passes through a small village and is stopped by the local guard, asked what business he is on. Does the Paladin need to relay the gravity of the situation, causing panic, or can he simply say that he is on a quest?

A Paladin is sent to recover a fleeing prisoner. The Paladin catches up to said prisoner at an inn in a town. While sitting at the bar, keeping an eye on the prisoner to 1) ensure that it is the right suspect, and b) to wait until the prisoner leaves the inn, so as not to cause a scene and risk injuring innocent bystanders, the barkeep asks the Paladin what he is doing here. Does the Paladin need to tell the truth (risking the prisoner overhear and either run away or injure innocents to escape), or lie (putting innocents at risk through lack of information that the prisoner is dangerous), or not say anything at all (also putting innocents at risk through lack of information, but not violating his code through telling a lie)?

A Paladin is interrogating a prisoner. He is merely asking questions- he is not using threatening language, not armed, and is acting aggressive. In the background, behind the Paladin in the direction the prisoner is facing, are the gallows/guillotine where prisoners are executed (if tried and found guilty of a crime that warrants it). Is the Paladin threatening the prisoner, whether intentionally or not? Is this an evil act? Is this against the Paladin's code elsewhere?



I bring these points up because I am not sure how the Paladin is supposed to accomplish his job when his only two options seem to be "diplomatically convert the enemy" or "kill the enemy in a (fair) fight". In my example with prisoner tied to a pyre, I am not intending the Paladin or his allies to be holding a lit torch, or motioning to light the fire in any way. There is no intent to harm the prisoner, and no actions to indicate that they mean to harm the prisoner- it is merely the environment itself that is (possibly) hostile. I do not see it as an Evil act, but I do see it as a less than honorable act- though not so much so that it grossly violates any code. If this was the alternative to beating the prisoner for information, or letting innocents come to harm through lacking the information the prisoner has, why is it not allowed?

[Feilith]

Out of context threatening someone with death could easily be grounds for an alignment shift, particularly if it is not the first instance. But because of the context given as a DM I would not see this as an evil act but I would see it as mildly chaotic (killing them is obviously not lawful). That being said, this in of itself is not enough cause for you to shift alignments to NG because alignment is the overall theme of how one lives, and should not be flimsy enough to be swayed by anything so mild.

As for the issue of you're paladinhood, Paladins must:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents
So if you can justify to me as a DM that they were going to either going to harm/threaten innocents I would be perfectly acceptable with it. But if they simply got to the map before you and just happened to be evil and you threatened to kill one I would view that as a gross breach of you're paladin code of conduct.

Also I saw another post in this thread, THE DM IS NOT YOUR CONSCIENCE. He should not feel obligated to tell you that you're going to fall for doing something, and you shouldn't argue when you do fall because of something.

Edit: I reread the OP because the details got fuzzy as I was typing, This sounds to me like a typical race to a treasure in which the party lost the race to get the loot and tried to take the treasure map for themselves.

So I'll ask for a little more information about the situation,
1- How sure are we that these guys are evil? Did we detect evil long enough to identify each individual as evil?
2- What is this treasure? Is it something they could use to harm innocents with?

If the answer to 1 is no and they weren't evil I'd probably have you fall mid fight once the first one fell.
If the answer to 2 is yes then I view this entire situation as acceptable for a paladin to be involved in.

[Segev]

Since you quoted my post, SethoMarkus, I will point out that I was saying that the Paladin directly implying through action that he is going to do something but not ever saying it is morally equivalent to saying he'll do it. He doesn't get to say "but I never SAID I would..." and claim that he was being more moral than if he DID say he would.


All of the examples in your post are, on the other hand, questions about how much information he must give. I am not one to say "Paladins can never obfuscate." I even will verge on saying the "can't lie" clause in the Code needs to be less strict than it is. "Can't go back on his given word" is where I would prefer the line be drawn.

The gallows being visible to the prisoner? That's fine, as long as the Paladin would be equally within the right to openly say, "You realize what they do to criminals in this town, right? Help me out, and I'll help you get a lighter sentence." Again, personally, I think this is well within a Paladin's purview of good and law. I believe a Paladin SHOULD offer death threats when, in fact, he'd kill if the target continued in its evil. That's not "evil," that's just honesty combined with offering a chance to save themselves.

Paladins are paragons of virtue. They are honorable. They can be merciful (good aligned), and they can be harsh (lawful aligned), and they can even be resolute in both (fearless). But while they will not lie, I do think deception, where it will do more good and achieve more order than incautious truth, is acceptable.

I would not allow a Paladin to swear an oath to something and then back out of it without violating his code, but a Paladin who goes in disguise and fabricates a tale to infiltrate an evil group in order to undermine them because more direct ways have failed is not violating his code. He does need to be careful what oaths he swears, though; there are other classes who might be better at this. But it's not beyond their ken. It just might not be their comfort zone.

[Psyren]

It's worth remembering that it is certainly possible to do an evil act with a Good spell. An 11th+ level caster using Holy Word on a 1st level Neutral commoner will almost certainly kill them.

So, other principles can still come into play.

Agreed, but I don't think Last Judgement counts unless you're using it on someone who's only mildly Evil. I'm AFB so I need to read the spell for myself to get a better idea of context.

But the idea that afterlife judgement in general is Evil is a bit silly. If the afterlife is not qualified to judge someone, who or what is?



Also I saw another post in this thread, THE DM IS NOT YOUR CONSCIENCE. He should not feel obligated to tell you that you're going to fall for doing something, and you shouldn't argue when you do fall because of something.

Which is why you make the DM your conscience. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

[Raven777]

Gale grabbed the bandit by the hair and smashed his face into the cellar's brick wall for the third time. A wet crack told the paladin he had finally broken the man's nose. "Tell me where the hostages are held", Gale asked while the warmth of positive energy flowed from his hand to repair the damage he had caused. "Because I can keep doing this for a while", he added with a smirk.

That's how you do it.

[hamishspence]

Agreed, but I don't think Last Judgement counts unless you're using it on someone who's only mildly Evil. I'm AFB so I need to read the spell for myself to get a better idea of context.

As written, the spell teleports the victim's body into the Lower Planes as well as killing them- since it specifies that in order to resurrect the victim one needs to retrieve it from the Lower Planes first.