PDA

View Full Version : would it be reasonable to say a paladin wouldn't fall due to this?



Stake A Vamp
2013-09-21, 01:01 PM
so, my plans are to have the party be led to believe that a dragons horde would be easy to loot because the dragon is practically in a coma, and leed them to try to get some cool weapons or armour. the result is that they become trapped by the dragon, who initially decides to kill them, then remembers that he has a problem, wererats living in a series of caves behind his lair have looted valuable but non-magical crystalline weapons (three of them, from a set representing the sacred weapons of each deity). he offers them a trade, the entrance from the caves to his lair is to small for him to follow, but he does deeply desire those weapons recovered, that set is the prize of his horde. he says that if they do this, he will spare thier lives and give them "perhaps a minor trinket or blade, that is what you planned to steal from me, is it not?"

so the facts
-the dragon is green, and therefore lawful-evil
-the wererats are chaotic-evil
-the three weapons are non-magical, and the set has no powers, they are just pretty.
-one of the PC's is a paladin

would it be reasonable to allow the paladin to work for the evil dragon if it benefits him and his allies in the fight against evil, saves their lives, and does not require him to commit evil acts. i don't want to put the paladin in a position where the choices are die or fall.

lunar2
2013-09-21, 01:07 PM
great thing about being a DM. you decide when he falls or not. technically, he should fall if he completes the job, because he's knowingly working for an evil creature. but that won't happen until he actually completes the job, so just make sure the "trinket" is valuable enough to justify an atonement.

Amaril
2013-09-21, 01:12 PM
I don't see any problem with this. If I'm remembering right, paladins are allowed to work with evil creatures and characters under certain circumstances, one of which is in the pursuit of a greater evil (not that the wererats are more dangerous than the dragon, but they're still dangerous and should be dealt with). Also, the paladin isn't really helping the dragon out very much by doing this--the weapons aren't magical, they're just pretty trinkets, what's the dragon going to do with them? It's not like the paladin is helping the dragon raze a village by retrieving a powerful magical artifact with destructive powers. I almost certainly wouldn't penalize a paladin for this (although I might have their deity, if any, issue them a stern warning at the first opportunity).

Winds
2013-09-21, 01:14 PM
Completing the job for pay is, I would argue, less evil than stealing the stuff. If he wasn't risking a fall by one, he shouldn't risk a fall by the other. Unless he specifically swore not to knowingly collude with an 'Evil' being. (In which case, I would have a higher-up of his order reprimand him for getting into that situation, and not worry about falling unless it becomes a pattern for this character.)

originalginger
2013-09-21, 01:18 PM
I personally don't see dragons as 'always evil' even if the source books say so. They are complex and intelligent beings, and likely have their own morals and values they have developed over their long lives. So, I see no reason why your dragon must be lawful evil.

Even if the dragon is evil, if the Paladin is doing a non-evil quest, even an the behest of an evil creature, I personally see no issue. If there is good reason for him to to believe the quest is for the greater good, and he can reasonably assume that the quest won't directly aid in later evil deeds, I think that the Paladin can proceed with a clear conscience.

Alex12
2013-09-21, 01:56 PM
Perfectly reasonable, IMHO, especially if the dragon isn't actively doing evil stuff. If he's going out on a regular basis and ravaging the countryside or something, then it's more wibbly.

Now, if he were asking you to retrieve some component for a powerful evil ritual or something, that would be different.

TriForce
2013-09-21, 02:11 PM
seeing as that the other alternative is the dragon killing him and his team, one can very plausibly argue that the paladin ISNT working for a dragon, hes activly protecting his team. so no, i wouldnt let him fall for it ( unless he chooses to ask the dragon for more quests or something like that)

Stake A Vamp
2013-09-21, 02:25 PM
great thing about being a DM. you decide when he falls or not. technically, he should fall if he completes the job, because he's knowingly working for an evil creature. but that won't happen until he actually completes the job, so just make sure the "trinket" is valuable enough to justify an atonement.
true, i take it that it saves 4 other peoples lives would not be considered an extenuating circumstance in your opinion

Perfectly reasonable, IMHO, especially if the dragon isn't actively doing evil stuff. If he's going out on a regular basis and ravaging the countryside or something, then it's more wibbly.

Now, if he were asking you to retrieve some component for a powerful evil ritual or something, that would be different.

yeah, that's why i specified that they were non-magical, i have to run a small adventure because half my party cannot be here, so i needed a cool but plot-irrelevant adventure

also, the dragon hasn't left irt's lair in 200 years, hence the elves thinking it was in a coma.

navar100
2013-09-21, 02:39 PM
What was the paladin doing trying to steal something anyway? Just because it's a dragon doesn't mean the paladin has a right to steal. The paladin doesn't fall. He was just being stupid. Having to work for a dragon, and not liking it, is his "punishment". The blade or armor he gets as payment will always remind him of his weakness of hubris and hopefully he shall never try to steal something again. Use a dream or a representative messenger from his deity to teach the lesson. Do this as a private one-on-one with the player or over email. It's a roleplay thing but don't embarrass the player in front of the others.

Out of character, when you say you plan on having the players think they can just waltz in a dragon's lair, how literal do you mean your plan? If you're forcing the adventure then you are putting the paladin into a bad spot. It becomes partly your fault as DM, with "fault" not meant as derogatory. It's an entrapment, and it would be unfair to punish the player's character because of it. It's still also the player's/party's fault for doing it, so the paladin getting his lesson above in character still works. That there are no game mechanics repercussions is your acknowledgement of the entrapment.

Edit: Perhaps the green dragon is actually a gold/silver/bronze dragon in disguise and it is the one who teaches the paladin the lesson when the adventure is done.

JusticeZero
2013-09-21, 02:41 PM
No, I wouldn't have him fall for doing a quest to defeat evil. Gawd. It's not like he's going out and torching orphanages here.

nedz
2013-09-21, 03:17 PM
Dragons Colour Coded for your Convenience — but does the Paladin know this ?
Just how good is his Knowledge Arcana ?

In any event the party, having been caught attempting some larceny, are now doing some vermin control and recovery of stolen property. Sounds like restorative justice to me.

The Dragon hasn't shown his true colours, so to speak, in fact he has acted in a manner consistent with LG — even if that is not his motivation. This Dragon is setting an example the Paladin should perhaps have given :smallsigh:

I don't see anything approaching a fall here, other than the original larceny perhaps ?

Mando Knight
2013-09-21, 05:07 PM
In any event the party, having been caught attempting some larceny, are now doing some vermin control and recovery of stolen property. Sounds like restorative justice to me.

The Dragon hasn't shown his true colours, so to speak, in fact he has acted in a manner consistent with LG — even if that is not his motivation. This Dragon is setting an example the Paladin should perhaps have given :smallsigh:

I don't see anything approaching a fall here, other than the original larceny perhaps ?

I mean, seriously. The dragon is actually giving them a chance to live and even give them a reward in exchange for a task, even though they tried to steal from the dragon.

The non-association thing in the default Paladin's Code isn't "No, you can't complete any mutually-beneficial tasks given to you by an Evil character holding you at its mercy," it's "Don't be an idiot and be the serial killer's drinking buddy." Hinjo managed to stay a Paladin for months despite allowing Kubota to stay alive and in a position of authority in the flotilla, as an example.

Mr Beer
2013-09-21, 05:14 PM
I don't see this as evil. Now if he was knowingly retrieving an Evil artefact for the dragon's nefarious purposes, that would be different.

Deffers
2013-09-21, 05:24 PM
I'm going to echo the sentiment of "For a Lawful Evil dragon, he's pretty nice."

I think it'd probably be worse if the paladin immediately assumed this dude was evil after such kind treatment. "Oh, you're trying to rob me? Heh, no. Go down to the warrens, kill those Evil monsters and I'll let you live AND take some stuff, though." I mean, he gets part of the dragon's hoard! There are metallic dragons that wouldn't part so easily with some of their treasure. Maybe ol' Greenie's turning over a new leaf, assuming he was even the village ravaging type to begin with. TBH he sounds like he's more concerned with artistry. You could even spin him into a long-term contact. Sort of a draconic art collector.

Emmerask
2013-09-21, 05:30 PM
He was actively helping in trying to steal something for personal gain...
here are no gray areas and no ifs or buts, he should have fallen right there and then.

Now helping the green dragon, there is enough wiggle room (the deed itself is not evil, not all green dragons must be evil, he is protecting his friends etc) so that its an acceptable adventure that while not giving good karma points also should not give negative ones.

However I would strongly suggest to talk about what a paladin actually is and should stand for, there are alternatives that might be better suited for the particular player (paladin of freedom etc :smallwink:)

Mando Knight
2013-09-21, 05:34 PM
Actually, a Green would possibly have planned this all along. Get a few upstart adventurers thinking you're pretty generous after all, help them solve a couple of problems...

...and by the end of it, you have your own little society to play around with until you get bored with it. Like an ant farm, except that you might occasionally get someone worth conversing with.

nedz
2013-09-21, 06:30 PM
Alternatively of course: once they've done the vermin control and returned the stolen goodies, being of no more use to him, Mr. Green Dragon decides that he fancies a little bit of lunch.

Brookshw
2013-09-21, 07:31 PM
Wait, so the question is will a paladin fall for responding to a "help, I've been robbed"?

RochtheCrusher
2013-09-21, 07:32 PM
I personally don't see dragons as 'always evil' even if the source books say so. They are complex and intelligent beings, and likely have their own morals and values they have developed over their long lives. So, I see no reason why your dragon must be lawful evil.

Seconded. Saying that a species of dragon has a certain alignment makes about as much sense as sayingthat Elves are Lawful Good, or that dogs are friendly and never bite, or that skies are cloudy rather than clear. Any race with free will is going to have the usual assortment of allignments, just like humans, and saying otherwise is pretty silly.

I also find it amusing to think that, just because someone is mean, you must refuse to mow their lawn for pay and must also stab them immediately. There are as many different degrees of Evil out there, and each requires its own approach. Any system of morality where you can kill someone for the sin of being greedy, take their stuff, and not immediately Fall for it is just plain laughable.

NichG
2013-09-21, 07:38 PM
Keep in mind that whatever you decide on the matter, the person playing the paladin has no real way of knowing. If you decide its fall-worthy or not, its still the same blank slate to the player.

So be prepared for the player insisting 'I can't do this, I would fall' and refusing to cooperate, even if you decide it isn't fall-worthy.

TuggyNE
2013-09-21, 07:43 PM
I'm going to echo the sentiment of "For a Lawful Evil dragon, he's pretty nice."

This seems a bit like CoffeeIncluded's green dragon in Murphy's Law, yeah; a lot closer to LN than LE.


Maybe ol' Greenie's turning over a new leaf

Ohoho, I see what you did there.

Emmerask
2013-09-21, 07:47 PM
So be prepared for the player insisting 'I can't do this, I would fall' and refusing to cooperate, even if you decide it isn't fall-worthy.

Seeing that the player as it seems was a-okay with robbery for his own gain, I dont think he will suddenly have any moral doubts :smallwink:

Deffers
2013-09-21, 08:50 PM
This seems a bit like CoffeeIncluded's green dragon in Murphy's Law, yeah; a lot closer to LN than LE.

Gonna be honest, this may be influencing my perception of the dragon, yeah. :smallwink:

Although I am wondering at the dragon's reason for not going down there. Not knowing much about dragons, aren't all of them supposed to have either polymorph or shapechange or something to take on a different form? Or is that just some of them?

Oh well. If I could have a bunch of gnomes herd mice out of my house instead of using my Fantastic Voyage ray gun to take them out, I... wow, that analogy is entirely nonsenical and unhelpful.

DontEatRawHagis
2013-09-21, 09:16 PM
Not evil.

Paladin is Lawful Good, Dragon is Lawful Evil.

Paladin was about to get killed by said Dragon, but then given a chance to live. Any action the Paladin takes after this is under duress and cannot be construed as Evil, unless he takes pleasure in said act or would do evil act without involvement from said Dragon.

Paladin might like to recluse himself from partaking in the monetary reward as to further distance himself from the dragon's alignment.

Also alignment should only be effected if player knowingly commits an evil act, not if he just happens to do a Neutral job for an Evil entity.

Ms. Baker might need someone to deliver a package to the Blacksmith, but just because she is a follower of Loth doesn't mean her package of rolls are evil. :P

I rest my case.

oudeis
2013-09-21, 11:12 PM
He was actively helping in trying to steal something for personal gain...
here are no gray areas and no ifs or buts, he should have fallen right there and then.

.....

However I would strongly suggest to talk about what a paladin actually is and should stand for, there are alternatives that might be better suited for the particular player (paladin of freedom etc :smallwink:)This makes no sense. Attempting to reclaim a long-lost treasure is grounds for excommunication? You have just removed the Paladin as a viable adventuring class and thus effectively from the game. Also, and this is something that seems to be omitted from every discussion of Paladins I've seen, is the need for the GM to provide the player with a code of acceptable conduct for his character.

It is the GM's responsibility to proactively, cooperatively, and specifically define the conditions under which a Paladin can Fall from Grace, as well as what would be required to expiate his transgression.

If the OP hasn't done so already, he needs to sit down (actually or virtually) with the Paladin player and write out a mutually acceptable guideline. It should be in keeping with the spirit of the class, the accepted character of the deity he follows, and the particulars of the campaign. For example, if you feel that a Paladin should never dishonor the dead then don't give him a quest where he must bring the head of a notorious brigand chief back to the Mayor of Adventuretown, but if his Deity is an unrelenting enemy of the undead, then burning the bodies of a family drained by a Vampire/Wight/whatever is not just accepted but actually required.

In this case, no, there is no problem. Destroying evil should never be a sin, even if it is done at the behest of another- greater- evil.

Slipperychicken
2013-09-21, 11:20 PM
This sounds like a violation of "knowingly associate with evil characters", but not a gross one, since the Paladin is under duress and defeating another evil in the process. So I wouldn't fall him for it unless he made a habit of taking jobs from Evil characters.


If the dragon was instead a fiend, however, then it would be an obvious case for the Paladin to fall. Thankfully s/he isn't a fiend, so that gives the Paladin (and GM) a little more leeway.

Stake A Vamp
2013-09-21, 11:42 PM
This makes no sense. Attempting to reclaim a long-lost treasure is grounds for excommunication? You have just removed the Paladin as a viable adventuring class and thus effectively from the game. Also, and this is something that seems to be omitted from every discussion of Paladins I've seen, is the need for the GM to provide the player with a code of acceptable conduct for his character.

It is the GM's responsibility to proactively, cooperatively, and specifically define the conditions under which a Paladin can Fall from Grace, as well as what would be required to expiate his transgression.

If the OP hasn't done so already, he needs to sit down (actually or virtually) with the Paladin player and write out a mutually acceptable guideline. It should be in keeping with the spirit of the class, the accepted character of the deity he follows, and the particulars of the campaign. For example, if you feel that a Paladin should never dishonor the dead then don't give him a quest where he must bring the head of a notorious brigand chief back to the Mayor of Adventuretown, but if his Deity is an unrelenting enemy of the undead, then burning the bodies of a family drained by a Vampire/Wight/whatever is not just accepted but actually required.

In this case, no, there is no problem. Destroying evil should never be a sin, even if it is done at the behest of another- greater- evil.

thank you, i think i shall do so next gaming session.

also, curse you because you got this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpEwKz6YCEs) stuck in my head

oudeis
2013-09-21, 11:42 PM
This sounds like a violation of "knowingly associate with evil characters", but not a gross one, since the Paladin is under duress and defeating another evil in the process. So I wouldn't fall him for it unless he made a habit of taking jobs from Evil characters.


If the dragon was instead a fiend, however, then it would be an obvious case for the Paladin to fall. Thankfully s/he isn't a fiend, so that gives the Paladin (and GM) a little more leeway.The Paladin isn't palling around with the Dragon, he's performing a task under compulsion. If he knowingly abetted the beast in furtherance of a plan to eat a farming village in exchange for the +4 Sword of Asskicking, then yes, he's going to fall. As for the Fiend example you cited, the GM should NOT put the player in that position: forcing him to choose between getting killed and losing his paladinhood is a completely bull**** move. If this happens because of questionable actions on the part of the player then he brought it on himself and it's his own fault; otherwise, there should be some sort of out or third option that the player would have to find through cleverness, guile, or diligence.

Stake A Vamp
2013-09-21, 11:50 PM
i just have to mention the paladin code on this forum to begin a debate, don't I?

some people never learn (http://youtu.be/tXVgMlQu6Ow?t=1m42s)

Eric Tolle
2013-09-22, 05:04 AM
He was actively helping in trying to steal something for personal gain...
here are no gray areas and no ifs or buts, he should have fallen right there and then.

Remember kids, there's an easy way to tell if a paladin had fallen:

Q: Is the paladin breathing?
A: Then he has fallen.

There ya go!

Emmerask
2013-09-22, 05:21 AM
This makes no sense. Attempting to reclaim a long-lost treasure is grounds for excommunication?

There is nothing in the original post about reclaiming long lost treasure.

They wanted to steal stuff and get some "cool weapons and armor" ie personal gain from a helpless creature in a coma. For all we know the dragon might have given various services to attain his horde or might have crafted most of it himself.

No standard Paladin would ever do that (Paladin of freedom etc would however)

hamishspence
2013-09-22, 07:44 AM
BoVD takes the approach that killing a chromatic dragon purely in order to rob it's hoard is not an evil act (but not a good act either) due to chromatic dragons being creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil" and thus, the act preventing the dragon from further wrongdoing.

Since then, other books, online sources, etc have made it clear that even fiends are not "irredeemable" so this really doesn't apply.

Lord Torath
2013-09-22, 08:10 AM
This makes no sense. Attempting to reclaim a long-lost treasure is grounds for excommunication?There is nothing in the original post about reclaiming long lost treasure.I think the point oudeis was making here is that 99%* of adventures involve "stealing" long-lost treasures from those that currently possess them. The evil <insert your favorite monster here> is rumored to have the <insert your favorite McGuffin/Treasure here>, and your group must track it down, kill the evil, and reclaim the treasure.

If doing this is going to cause a paladin to Fall, there is not much a paladin can actually do. (Queue a long line of people with examples of other things paladins can do without falling. - Not the Point! The point is you're eliminating the main type of adventure from things a paladin can participate in.)

*From The Journal of Self-Serving Statistics, and verifiably correct to within plus or minus 75%

Emmerask
2013-09-22, 08:43 AM
I think the point oudeis was making here is that 99%* of adventures involve "stealing" long-lost treasures from those that currently possess them. The evil <insert your favorite monster here> is rumored to have the <insert your favorite McGuffin/Treasure here>, and your group must track it down, kill the evil, and reclaim the treasure.

If doing this is going to cause a paladin to Fall, there is not much a paladin can actually do. (Queue a long line of people with examples of other things paladins can do without falling. - Not the Point! The point is you're eliminating the main type of adventure from things a paladin can participate in.)

*From The Journal of Self-Serving Statistics, and verifiably correct to within plus or minus 75%


And I actually agree with your statistic... however I see vast differences between scenarios^^
Stealing something to safe the world/village/whatever: A okay its not done for personal gain
Killing the evil "things" and afterwards taking their stuff: perfectly fine
Stealing the stuff from a helpless being that might or might not be evil: you cant sink much further on the bastard scale.

Paladins should be avatars of honor, this is pretty much the universal trait for a Paladin in every system that has them, killing the evil guys and taking their stuff is perfectly fine in that code of conduct which should apply to about 90% of the adventures ^^

I know its kind of twisted that killing the guy and taking its stuff is considered more honorable then taking his stuff behind the back, but it is how it is :smallwink:

Stake A Vamp
2013-09-22, 08:58 AM
And I actually agree with your statistic... however I see vast differences between scenarios^^
Stealing something to safe the world/village/whatever: A okay its not done for personal gain
Killing the evil "things" and afterwards taking their stuff: perfectly fine
Stealing the stuff from a helpless being that might or might not be evil: you cant sink much further on the bastard scale.

Paladins should be avatars of honor, this is pretty much the universal trait for a Paladin in every system that has them, killing the evil guys and taking their stuff is perfectly fine in that code of conduct which should apply to about 90% of the adventures ^^

I know its kind of twisted that killing the guy and taking its stuff is considered more honorable then taking his stuff behind the back, but it is how it is :smallwink:

i would like to point out that the elves say that he spent "400 years raiding our villages and keeps, and who knows how long attacking others" it is clearly evil, and they do need the weapons to storm a keep in which demon cultists are about to summon a demon-prince.

Emmerask
2013-09-22, 09:04 AM
i would like to point out that the elves say that he spent "400 years raiding our villages and keeps, and who knows how long attacking others" it is clearly evil, and they do need the weapons to storm a keep in which demon cultists are about to summon a demon-prince.

Saying something to justify something and the truth are two different things.
400 years of raiding to equip an army? 400 years of preparation to summon a demon-prince?

Surely the elves could have just crafted the weapons needed during a 400 year period, looked for allies during that time etc etc sorry not buying the scenario at all :smallbiggrin:

NichG
2013-09-22, 11:29 AM
'Pragmatic', 'justified', 'okay', 'good', 'Good', 'Paladin Good', and 'Exalted' are all different standards. Just because something 'seems sensible' or 'under the circumstances seems like the only option' does not necessarily mean that it satisfies the most stringent of these.

There is nothing inherently impossible about a situation where the only route consistent with a person's beliefs is to let themselves die. It may be that under certain stringent definitions of Good, once you're in a situation where either you die or you aid Evil, the only way to remain Good is to die. If someone goes up to a paladin and says 'I have a foolproof way of eradicating you from existence irrevocably. Go kill that innocent or I will use it on you', then the duress does not mean the paladin won't fall for killing the innocent - their code basically requires them to surrender their life to protect the innocent's. Its unfair, but the set of all possible hypothetical moral and ethical problems contains unfair elements.

In general though, since the DM has so much control over what situations the PCs find themselves in, this kind of thing happening in actual play may be a sign that the DM is being a ****.

Scow2
2013-09-22, 11:44 AM
Just because the dragon is choosing to spare the party doesn't mean it's not Evil - it has a problem it cannot handle, but needs to get done.

I echo the sentiment that "The Paladin isn't knowingly working for an evil dragon - he's protecting his party." It's not like Sir Shines-a-lot decided to seek out this dragon to swear his allegiance to.

And @ Emmerask - the elves have been looking for a way to take out the dragon for the past X00 years (With a few of those years needed to confirm that the dragon is actually malicious). It just took 400 years for a party of adventurers to show up and answer the call. Your opinion is the type that takes a lot of adventure and fun out of fantasy worlds. Furthermore - the Paladin wasn't stealing anything - the dragon's possessions are not lawfully acquired, despite what it may think. Of course, neither is the stuff adventurers own. There's no morality involved in Right of Conquest/Plunder.

Gavinfoxx
2013-09-22, 02:50 PM
Here's an alternative paladin code I came up with some time ago for Lawful Good Paladins of Honor:


*Show kindness to children and others that are weak.

*Never stand idly by while the weak become the victim of the strong.

*Defend hearth and home, family and friends, stranger and ally, and especially defend innocents.

*Once given, a paladin's word is a solemn contract.

*Refrain from abusing or overusing intoxicants.

*Whenever possible, work for and give to noble charities.

*It is an unspeakable act to deny any soul its rightful afterlife.

*Never use lethal poison.

*Respect life, even that of the foe, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.

*Respect the terms of an honorable and fair duel.

*Never willfully commit an evil act, and combat evil whenever possible. This does not mean that it is appropriate to be violent against evil all the time; seek justice tempered with mercy more than a violent solution.

*Use power to aid and help others, except towards evil ends. Do not seek out power simply to have power.

*Be courteous in all you do, and seek to never be crude.

*Be humble before the forces of light and good.

*Uphold virtuous laws whenever possible.

*Lead by example.

*Respect and hold dear the trust that others place in you.

*Be heroically brave in pursuit of goodness.

*Show kindness towards guests.

*Care for and be kind towards those you employ, and especially your mount.


Notice something? A paladin who follows this code wouldn't necessarily fall if they witness their party members doing an evil act. They can travel with evil party members, though they might be obligated to bring them to Justice at a later date. They can try and redeem people. They could sneak. They can ambush. They could use poison (not con damaging or hit point damaging ones though). They could (within certain limits) lie.

I strongly suggest entirely throwing out the existing code of conduct for Paladins and writing a custom one!

Nero24200
2013-09-22, 03:08 PM
Well my first thought is of the party.

They attempted to loot the dragon because they believed it to be comatose. The fact that it's alive is a huge problem for them because it could probably kill them easily, otherwise they wouldn't snap up what they thought was such as good oppertunity.

By accepting the dragon's quest I would class it as a good act, since he's putting aside his own personal duties to ensure the possible survival of his allies. Self sacrifice for the good of others is regarded very highly, not just in our culture but in most (if not all) other cultures and universally considered a good thing. If he wants to help the dragon purely for reward it's one thing, but it's very likely he's doing it to get both himself and his party out of this situation they're in.

Traab
2013-09-22, 04:27 PM
I say no fall. They are trapped and their only other choice is death by green dragon. They arent being asked to do anything evil, doing this task wont make the dragon suddenly be capable of destroying the nearest towns orphanage, and by doing this, you are helping to save your parties life. I dont see any real evil involved with this.

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 05:03 PM
My opinion:

The paladin shouldn't fall. But he should have to atone. And I don't meant the spell, although that might be part of it.

This apparently started when the party - paladin included, presumably - decided to rob an intelligent creature of its belongings. Unless this dragon stole the stuff in the first place and the party is seeking to recover it for its rightful owner(s), or the dragon is actively a threat and the party is seeking a means to weaken or more effectively fight it, then there's no way this can be spun as a non-evil act. As others have noted, stealing isn't okay just because the victim is Evil, capital E or no capital E. The rest of the party may have their excuses, but paladins don't have the luxury of excuses.

By trying to steal from the dragon, and benefiting from its mercy, he has essentially placed himself in the dragon's debt (morally, even if not legally). Recovering the dragon's stolen property is a very reasonable way to repay that debt, doubly so if he's being offered a material reward.

But it doesn't end there. The paladin should concern himself first and foremost with seeking a way to recover the dragon's trinkets from the wererats peacefully. Not a token effort, either; he needs to do everything in his power to avoid a violent outcome. Because if he doesn't, his thoughtless greed will have led directly to bloodshed that otherwise would not have happened. That might mean the exchange happens at the party's expense ("We'll give you the stupid crystal swords, but we want that shiny suit of armor in exchange"). The paladin should be fine with this. From a "proper" Lawful Good point of view, this is an acceptable consequence of the party's choices.

And when all is said and done, the paladin should be genuinely contrite about the whole affair, willing to make any appropriate amends to any injured parties, and resolved to be more responsible and think things through before letting his greed get the best of him in the future.

The fact that the dragon and the wererats are evil are of no consequence here. Good and Evil aren't just opposing teams in a war where all's fair. Good treats Evil better than Evil treats Good. A regular schmoe can forget that now and then, but a paladin can't.

That's what I would rule if it were my game, anyway.

Scow2
2013-09-22, 05:51 PM
My opinion:

The paladin shouldn't fall. But he should have to atone. And I don't meant the spell, although that might be part of it.

This apparently started when the party - paladin included, presumably - decided to rob an intelligent creature of its belongings. Unless this dragon stole the stuff in the first place and the party is seeking to recover it for its rightful owner(s), or the dragon is actively a threat and the party is seeking a means to weaken or more effectively fight it, then there's no way this can be spun as a non-evil act. As others have noted, stealing isn't okay just because the victim is Evil, capital E or no capital E. The rest of the party may have their excuses, but paladins don't have the luxury of excuses.The odds the dragon stole the stuff in the first place (Or inherited it from someone who did) is ~100%. The paladin, the dragon, and John Doe down the road all have equal claim on the treasure.

By trying to steal from the dragon, and benefiting from its mercy, he has essentially placed himself in the dragon's debt (morally, even if not legally). Recovering the dragon's stolen property is a very reasonable way to repay that debt, doubly so if he's being offered a material reward.


But it doesn't end there. The paladin should concern himself first and foremost with seeking a way to recover the dragon's trinkets from the wererats peacefully. Not a token effort, either; he needs to do everything in his power to avoid a violent outcome. Because if he doesn't, his thoughtless greed will have led directly to bloodshed that otherwise would not have happened. That might mean the exchange happens at the party's expense ("We'll give you the stupid crystal swords, but we want that shiny suit of armor in exchange"). The paladin should be fine with this. From a "proper" Lawful Good point of view, this is an acceptable consequence of the party's choices.You say "that otherwise would not have happened" like it's a good thing. Of course, the party does have to confirm that the Wererats are evil and a threat (Being Therianthropes and hence magically-affected, that's all-but-guaranteed.) Not all intelligences are evil - some are Malice given Intelligence, and not all Malicious intelligences hail from the outer planes.


And when all is said and done, the paladin should be genuinely contrite about the whole affair, willing to make any appropriate amends to any injured parties, and resolved to be more responsible and think things through before letting his greed get the best of him in the future.The Paladins' greed didn't cause the problem. The existence of evil Wererats and dragons did.


The fact that the dragon and the wererats are evil are of no consequence here. Good and Evil aren't just opposing teams in a war where all's fair. Good treats Evil better than Evil treats Good. A regular schmoe can forget that now and then, but a paladin can't.Actually, you sort of have the understanding of who treats which as better backward. The Paladin has a lot more leeway in delivering swift justice and retribution to the forces of Evil than a commoner does, because a Commoner doesn't have the insight to know who is guilty, who is not, and who's suffering. Paladins tend to see the bigger picture. Evil is not to be tolerated.

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 06:50 PM
The odds the dragon stole the stuff in the first place (Or inherited it from someone who did) is ~100%.
Why? Because the dragon is Evil? That's essentially saying that if you're evil, then everything you have must have been stolen. Surely you can see the problem with such a line of reasoning.


The paladin, the dragon, and John Doe down the road all have equal claim on the treasure.
Hang on, that doesn't even square with what you said in the previous sentence. If the treasure was stolen, then the only one with a legitimate claim to it is the rightful owner (or their heirs).


You say "that otherwise would not have happened" like it's a good thing.
Because it is. Why wouldn't it be? Bear in mind that that "because they're evil" is not a Good-compatible response.


Of course, the party does have to confirm that the Wererats are evil and a threat
Again, that contradicts what you just said. Obviously if the wererats attack the party without provocation, or if they present some threat to others that they can't be dissuaded from carrying out, then it's okay to kill them. But in the absence of such a proven threat, it's not.



The Paladins' greed didn't cause the problem. The existence of evil Wererats and dragons did.
The existence of evil creatures isn't an excuse for anything. If the paladin's greed led him to attempt theft (which it did would have if the game goes as the OP is planning), and he then picked a fight with some wererats to get himself out of the trouble he brought upon himself, then yes, the paladin's greed did cause the problem.

Edit: Going back and reading the OP again, I see that the game hasn't taken place yet. I had somehow gotten the impression that things had already progressed as far as the party getting caught by the dragon.



Actually, you sort of have the understanding of who treats which as better backward.
You're suggesting that Evil treats Good better than Good treats Evil?


The Paladin has a lot more leeway in delivering swift justice and retribution to the forces of Evil than a commoner does, because a Commoner doesn't have the insight to know who is guilty, who is not, and who's suffering.
Neither does the paladin. All he knows is when someone is of Evil alignment. And that alignment is a moral outlook, not evidence of having committed capital crimes. Detect Evil does not provide a license to kill.


Evil is not to be tolerated.
Evil behavior isn't to be tolerated. But evil creatures are not to be killed on sight, either - not if you're dedicated to Good as a principle as a paladin is supposed to be. Particularly when you're just doing it to get yourself out of hot water that you got yourself into.

TuggyNE
2013-09-22, 07:10 PM
Good treats Evil better than Evil treats Good.

This is one of the best things I've seen in any paladin code thread. Strongly seconded.

Traab
2013-09-22, 07:43 PM
Why? Because the dragon is Evil? That's essentially saying that if you're evil, then everything you have must have been stolen. Surely you can see the problem with such a line of reasoning.


Hang on, that doesn't even square with what you said in the previous sentence. If the treasure was stolen, then the only one with a legitimate claim to it is the rightful owner (or their heirs).





More 2 cents from me. I think the difference here is its an evil dragon. They dont work a 9 to 5 job earning piles of gold and gems, they tend to take them. And evil necromancer can have a legitimate reason for owning things beyond theft, I dont think its unreasonable to say an evil dragon wouldnt. Closest it might come is a form of tribute (bribery) "Pay me "x" per year and I wont burn your entire kingdom to the ground" type of things.

As for who has a rightful claim, aside from perhaps the heirloom type items, its a pile of gold, jewels, and other miscellaneous gear. What, is the paladin going to walk into town square and say, "I have a lot of gold here, does it belong to anyone?" Nah, its salvage rights imo. If they can claim it, they can keep it.

Mando Knight
2013-09-22, 07:45 PM
Actually, you sort of have the understanding of who treats which as better backward. The Paladin has a lot more leeway in delivering swift justice and retribution to the forces of Evil than a commoner does, because a Commoner doesn't have the insight to know who is guilty, who is not, and who's suffering. Paladins tend to see the bigger picture. Evil is not to be tolerated.


You're suggesting that Evil treats Good better than Good treats Evil?
Yeah, see, Good treating Evil better than Evil treating Good is part of how you tell which side really is Good. Evil can play at being nice when it is to their advantage, but Good acts that way because it's who they are. Good will battle Evil when they must, Evil will battle Good when they can.

Otherwise, you just end up with "Guys in Red and Black" vs "Guys in Blue and White" and that's not really a real moral system at all.

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 08:07 PM
More 2 cents from me. I think the difference here is its an evil dragon. They dont work a 9 to 5 job earning piles of gold and gems, they tend to take them. And evil necromancer can have a legitimate reason for owning things beyond theft, I dont think its unreasonable to say an evil dragon wouldnt. Closest it might come is a form of tribute (bribery) "Pay me "x" per year and I wont burn your entire kingdom to the ground" type of things.

Good dragons tend to have treasure hoards, too. Presumably they acquire them through non-evil means. That shows that there are non-evil means by which a dragon can acquire treasure. There's no reason to assume that an evil dragon could not acquire treasure through those same means (assuming it's not something ridiculously contrived like "gold just magically appears in my cave because I'm Good").

Certainly it's possible that the OP's dragon got its treasure through theft or extortion or whatever. Likely, even. But it's far from a certainty, and unless the OP comes into the thread and confirm for us that this is the case (and that the paladin in question knew it to be the case), then said paladin can't honestly claim his actions to be anything other than attempted theft.


As for who has a rightful claim, aside from perhaps the heirloom type items, its a pile of gold, jewels, and other miscellaneous gear. What, is the paladin going to walk into town square and say, "I have a lot of gold here, does it belong to anyone?" Nah, its salvage rights imo. If they can claim it, they can keep it.

He could do some legwork and find out where the treasure originated from, and make an effort to distribute it back to its place(s) of origin as fairly as possible. For example, if it was protection money paid by a local baron, then he could notify the baron and guard the hoard until it can be claimed. If it was extorted from a bunch of dirt-farmers and figuring out exactly who paid how much isn't possible, then he could use it in some other way that directly benefits them - perhaps by establishing a keep where they can take shelter from future attacks and train soldiers to repel attackers.

Is that easy, or convenient? No. But paladins are always supposed to Do The Right Thing, even when it's neither of those. Especially then.

Traab
2013-09-22, 08:18 PM
Good dragons tend to have treasure hoards, too. Presumably they acquire them through non-evil means. That shows that there are non-evil means by which a dragon can acquire treasure. There's no reason to assume that an evil dragon could not acquire treasure through those same means (assuming it's not something ridiculously contrived like "gold just magically appears in my cave because I'm Good").

Certainly it's possible that the OP's dragon got its treasure through theft or extortion or whatever. Likely, even. But it's far from a certainty, and unless the OP comes into the thread and confirm for us that this is the case (and that the paladin in question knew it to be the case), then said paladin can't honestly claim his actions to be anything other than attempted theft.



He could do some legwork and find out where the treasure originated from, and make an effort to distribute it back to its place(s) of origin as fairly as possible. For example, if it was protection money paid by a local baron, then he could notify the baron and guard the hoard until it can be claimed. If it was extorted from a bunch of dirt-farmers and figuring out exactly who paid how much isn't possible, then he could use it in some other way that directly benefits them - perhaps by establishing a keep where they can take shelter from future attacks and train soldiers to repel attackers.

Is that easy, or convenient? No. But paladins are always supposed to Do The Right Thing, even when it's neither of those. Especially then.

There is Right, then there is Silly. Trying to track down the "proper" owners of a dragons hoard or otherwise giving it away after fighting/tricking/whatever, the evil dragon out of it leans heavily towards silly, outside of specific missions like, "Oh brave heroes! Syrnalaximistentiousness the Unpronounceable has destroyed my fathers keep and stolen the city's treasury! Please go defeat him and bring back the treasure or else I fear our nation will descend into anarchy and chaos!"

Outside of circumstances like that, you dont know how many hundreds of years that ancient wyrm has been sitting on his golden bed, and the great great great great (squared) grandson of the long forgotten king whose treasure was stolen 500 years ago has no real claim on it at all. To say otherwise drags the paladin from Lawful Good, to Lawful Stupid. If your mission is all about recovering the stolen hoard thats fine and dandy, but a paladin is not under any expectation otherwise of giving away any bit of profit that comes his way because at some point someone somewhere might have owned that before it was stolen, though we cant be sure.

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 08:27 PM
Whoops, I seem to have missed the OP's earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16073490#post16073490) noting that the dragon did indeed raid the local elves for treasure a couple hundred years back. That does change things somewhat, assuming the elves were telling the truth.

However, it presents a new problem for our paladin. If he agrees to return to the dragon property that never belonged to it, then he's aiding the forces of evil. Furthermore, the problem of picking an unprovoked fight with the wererats remains.

Which means that the OP should make sure the paladin has an opportunity to resolve the problem in some other way, so that he's not stuck in one of those stupid fall-if-you-do-fall-if-you-don't scenarios that poor DM's like to inflict on paladins.

One possible suggestion: While investigating the wererats' lair, the party finds some McGuffin or bit of information that the party can use as leverage against the dragon. Then, they can come back to the dragon and say, "Give the elves their treasure back, or we'll use this thing against you". Nobody (necessarily) has to die, the elves get their treasure returned and gratefully bestow the choice magical gear on the PC's as a reward, much rejoicing, yay.

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 08:37 PM
There is Right, then there is Silly. Trying to track down the "proper" owners of a dragons hoard or otherwise giving it away after fighting/tricking/whatever, the evil dragon out of it leans heavily towards silly, outside of specific missions like, "Oh brave heroes! Syrnalaximistentiousness the Unpronounceable has destroyed my fathers keep and stolen the city's treasury! Please go defeat him and bring back the treasure or else I fear our nation will descend into anarchy and chaos!"

Outside of circumstances like that, you dont know how many hundreds of years that ancient wyrm has been sitting on his golden bed, and the great great great great (squared) grandson of the long forgotten king whose treasure was stolen 500 years ago has no real claim on it at all. To say otherwise drags the paladin from Lawful Good, to Lawful Stupid. If your mission is all about recovering the stolen hoard thats fine and dandy, but a paladin is not under any expectation otherwise of giving away any bit of profit that comes his way because at some point someone somewhere might have owned that before it was stolen, though we cant be sure.

The king's descendent may not personally have a claim to that treasure, but the kingdom does. If that kingdom no longer exists then there's probably a pretty good case for the paladin keeping it.

But if you want to claim that if the passage of time means that nobody else has a legitimate claim to the treasure, then that means the dragon is the rightful owner, since a) property that doesn't belong to anyone can be claimed by anyone and b) the dragon has already claimed it. So that would bring us back to the paladin committing theft.

Obviously we're getting academic in light of confirmation that the OP's dragon did in fact steal treasure from people who probably have living memory of the event. Well, more academic, considering we're talking about dragons and elves in the first place...

But do note that the OP's paladin does have knowledge of whom specifically the treasure was stolen from. So he can't just shrug his shoulders and say "welp, dunno whose it was, guess we can keep it!". At least not unless the elves say so.

Scow2
2013-09-22, 08:42 PM
Why? Because the dragon is Evil? That's essentially saying that if you're evil, then everything you have must have been stolen. Surely you can see the problem with such a line of reasoning.Dragons, especially Evil ones, tend to acquire wealth through Right of Plunder. However, part of the Right of Plunder is that it belongs to anyone with the strength or guile to acquire it (It's really the worst way to claim property, because it leaves you with anti-rights instead of property rights).

Good dragons tend to acquire their hordes through plunder (They still don't have 'rights' to those sections of their horde, but they usually have the strength and guile to keep it), gifts, and coercion (Despite their alignment, they're still dragons. If they demand tribute, you give them tribute! Humanoids are as animals to them, and have earned the same rights.)


Hang on, that doesn't even square with what you said in the previous sentence. If the treasure was stolen, then the only one with a legitimate claim to it is the rightful owner (or their heirs).If the original owners can be found, they can invoke their lawful claim to it. Most of it is Right of Salvage, though.


Because it is. Why wouldn't it be? Bear in mind that that "because they're evil" is not a Good-compatible response.Actually, "Because they're evil" IS a Good-compatible response. Evil isn't something like skin color, religion, or other characteristics of a person. It's a judgement and conscious choice. In order for a person to be evil, they must be evil in thought and action.


Again, that contradicts what you just said. Obviously if the wererats attack the party without provocation, or if they present some threat to others that they can't be dissuaded from carrying out, then it's okay to kill them. But in the absence of such a proven threat, it's not.Fortunately, a Paladin is quite capable of discerning who's a dangerous threat to others. Therianthropes like Wererats, unless it's clear they've discarded the personality shift of the curse, are an even greater menace to the world than the vermin they resemble. (Remember, unlike orcs or hobgoblins, Wererats are a supernatural evil, just as demons and undead are)


The existence of evil creatures isn't an excuse for anything. If the paladin's greed led him to attempt theft (which it did would have if the game goes as the OP is planning), and he then picked a fight with some wererats to get himself out of the trouble he brought upon himself, then yes, the paladin's greed did cause the problem.Purging the world of a lycanthropic threat isn't a problem, even if ridding it of an evil Green Dragon would have been better.


Edit: Going back and reading the OP again, I see that the game hasn't taken place yet. I had somehow gotten the impression that things had already progressed as far as the party getting caught by the dragon.


[quote]You're suggesting that Evil treats Good better than Good treats Evil?I'm saying ignorant Commoners are more tolerant of Evil than Paladins are, because they aren't as aware of just how insidious evil is.


Neither does the paladin. All he knows is when someone is of Evil alignment. And that alignment is a moral outlook, not evidence of having committed capital crimes. Detect Evil does not provide a license to kill.Crimes are irrelevant. If you're evil, your very existence is by definition making the world a worse place.


Evil behavior isn't to be tolerated. But evil creatures are not to be killed on sight, either - not if you're dedicated to Good as a principle as a paladin is supposed to be. Particularly when you're just doing it to get yourself out of hot water that you got yourself into.Evil outlooks lead to Evil Behavior, and corrupts Good and Neutral people into tolerating it. Killing them on sight isn't the best way when redemption's available, but that's not always an option.

NichG
2013-09-22, 09:42 PM
Crimes are irrelevant. If you're evil, your very existence is by definition making the world a worse place.

Evil outlooks lead to Evil Behavior, and corrupts Good and Neutral people into tolerating it. Killing them on sight isn't the best way when redemption's available, but that's not always an option.

If we're talking D&D red team vs blue team style alignment, then there's nothing that says a-priori that either evil or good will make the world a 'better' or 'worse' place. Just that people from the red team are cosmically opposed to people from the blue team.

If we're talking something more like a moral/ethical system, its also not guaranteed that the existence of an evil person makes the world a worse place compared to the world with them removed from it, because a person's circumstances can be different than their outlook or tendencies.

A 'petty' evil king who has killed one or two innocents may cause more bloodshed and terror by suddenly being assassinated and removed from the world than if they just continued to sit in their throne.

This is also all very 'ends justifies the means', which is a bad place to be if you're trying to take the moral high ground.

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 09:48 PM
Actually, "Because they're evil" IS a Good-compatible response. Evil isn't something like skin color, religion, or other characteristics of a person. It's a judgement and conscious choice. In order for a person to be evil, they must be evil in thought and action.

Thought and action? Says who? Certainly not the game rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm): "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose."

Just because someone pings the Evil Radar doesn't mean it's okay to execute them. Not even if he's furry and has sharp teeth.


Fortunately, a Paladin is quite capable of discerning who's a dangerous threat to others. Therianthropes like Wererats, unless it's clear they've discarded the personality shift of the curse, are an even greater menace to the world than the vermin they resemble. (Remember, unlike orcs or hobgoblins, Wererats are a supernatural evil, just as demons and undead are)

D&D has seen its share of good-aligned undead, so you're not really helping your case by mentioning them.

And no, tacking "supernaturally" on as a prefix to Evil doesn't change things either. If the wererats aren't hurting anyone, the paladin has no right to attack them.


Purging the world of a lycanthropic threat isn't a problem, even if ridding it of an evil Green Dragon would have been better.
Purging the world of creatures just because of what they are is absolutely a problem, if you want to call yourself an avatar of Good.


I'm saying ignorant Commoners are more tolerant of Evil than Paladins are, because they aren't as aware of just how insidious evil is.

I'm pretty sure they are since that knowledge doesn't require the ability to magically discern someone's moral disposition at a glance. But even if they weren't, that still doesn't make it okay to attack someone for being on the wrong side of the alignment chart.


Crimes are irrelevant. If you're evil, your very existence is by definition making the world a worse place.
Wow, you're literally saying that killing sentient beings for thoughtcrime - regardless of whether they've actually done anything wrong - is an act of good.

You do know we're talking about D&D and not Warhammer 40K here, right?


Evil outlooks lead to Evil Behavior, and corrupts Good and Neutral people into tolerating it. Killing them on sight isn't the best way when redemption's available, but that's not always an option.
Killing them isn't necessarily the best option when redemption isn't available, either. Paladins are not supposed to be Torquemada; they don't have to convert-or-kill everyone who makes their Pally Sense tingle. In fact, if they want to claim to be Lawful Good, they can't.

137beth
2013-09-22, 09:54 PM
There's a simple test I use for paladins:

What are the possible outcomes:
If the only options are either
a)everyone dies, or
b)the paladin falls,

then your standards for 'falling' are wrong (and if there is only option (a), well, that's a completely different issue).

In this case, he is pursuing the only option that doesn't result in the entire party immediately being killed. If you make him fall for that, you are taking away a player's class features without any way for them to avoid or counter it.

So no, he absolutely should not fall for this.

Scow2
2013-09-22, 10:09 PM
If we're talking D&D red team vs blue team style alignment, then there's nothing that says a-priori that either evil or good will make the world a 'better' or 'worse' place. Just that people from the red team are cosmically opposed to people from the blue team.

If we're talking something more like a moral/ethical system, its also not guaranteed that the existence of an evil person makes the world a worse place compared to the world with them removed from it, because a person's circumstances can be different than their outlook or tendencies.

A 'petty' evil king who has killed one or two innocents may cause more bloodshed and terror by suddenly being assassinated and removed from the world than if they just continued to sit in their throne.

This is also all very 'ends justifies the means', which is a bad place to be if you're trying to take the moral high ground.You have to work up to the petty evil king, purging evil from the bottom to the top - hopefully, he'll get the message long before then, and put himself and his nation on the right track. But, the Vetinari paradox is one of the few defenses evil can hide behind. Redemption should be the first option to Evils, though Supernatural ones should be dealt with without hesitation.


Thought and action? Says who? Certainly not the game rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm): "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose."And a failure to choose is from either weak


Just because someone pings the Evil Radar doesn't mean it's okay to execute them. Not even if he's furry and has sharp teeth.



D&D has seen its share of good-aligned undead, so you're not really helping your case by mentioning them. Therianthropes like Wererats and Werewolves are an incarnation of human fears against every negative stereotype of wolves and rats, respectively. They are not natural creatures. It's a curse that must be purged.

And no, tacking "supernaturally" on as a prefix to Evil doesn't change things either. If the wererats aren't hurting anyone, the paladin has no right to attack them.



Purging the world of creatures just because of what they are is absolutely a problem, if you want to call yourself an avatar of Good.The dragon can't help being Green, but it is responsible for being Evil.




I'm pretty sure they are since that knowledge doesn't require the ability to magically discern someone's moral disposition at a glance. But even if they weren't, that still doesn't make it okay to attack someone for being on the wrong side of the alignment chart.We're talking alignment here, not personality. Someone who is evil is actively making the world a worse place - Good is objectively better than Evil.



Wow, you're literally saying that killing sentient beings for thoughtcrime - regardless of whether they've actually done anything wrong - is an act of good.

You do know we're talking about D&D and not Warhammer 40K here, right?Killing them for a thought crime is too far, but the attitude is not tolerable.


Killing them isn't necessarily the best option when redemption isn't available, either. Paladins are not supposed to be Torquemada; they don't have to convert-or-kill everyone who makes their Pally Sense tingle. In fact, if they want to claim to be Lawful Good, they can't.Fortunately, we're talking Dragons (Arcane power incarnate) and Evil Therianthropes (A curse of vermin born of hatred and fear of nature, to an unnatural degree).

TheIronGolem
2013-09-22, 11:47 PM
And a failure to choose is from either weak
I am not certain what you're trying to say with this sentence. The only way I can get it to make sense is by rearranging it as "And a failure to choose from either is weak", which is neither true nor relevant to the point.


Therianthropes like Wererats and Werewolves are an incarnation of human fears against every negative stereotype of wolves and rats, respectively.
No, the stories about them are.

They are not natural creatures.
Irrelevant. Whether a sentient being is "natural" has no bearing on whether it's okay to kill it. What matters is whether it presents a threat. And a were-whatever doesn't automatically present a threat just by existing. Killing a critter because the Monster Manual says it's a bad guy may be pragmatic, but it isn't Good. A paladin must always choose the latter over the former.


It's a curse that must be purged.
The only thing that must be "purged" is a threat. If the monsters are trying to hurt people, they're a threat that should be dealt with. If not, they aren't, and the Good thing to do is leave them alone. Whether they're "cursed" or "natural" is orthogonal to that point.


The dragon can't help being Green, but it is responsible for being Evil.

It's responsible for its actions, yes. But the notion that it (or any other creature) must be held accountable and punished for its beliefs? That's not good, much less Good.


We're talking alignment here, not personality. Someone who is evil is actively making the world a worse place - Good is objectively better than Evil.
Yes, we are. Alignment is a component of personality. It's not a cosmic scoreboard that compares the number of kittens you've pulled out of trees to the number of puppies you've eaten. A character's alignment is no evidence for what they've done in the past or what they will do in the future. It's not a valid basis for punitive action by any character who honestly claims to be on the side of good.


Killing them for a thought crime is too far, but the attitude is not tolerable.
If you're good, anything for a thought crime is too far. Forcibly stamping out wrongthink is a hallmark of Evil. Even in a fantasy setting where one is afforded the luxury of knowing some things are "objectively" good or evil.

Good does not get to carry out pogroms. It is amazing that this actually needs to be said.

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 01:20 AM
A character's alignment is no evidence for what they've done in the past or what they will do in the future. It's not a valid basis for punitive action by any character who honestly claims to be on the side of good.

Especially in a world where creatures can be "born Evil" (thus, having no past to have done anything in) or have their alignment forcibly changed to Evil (Helm of Opposite Alignment used on a Good creature).

Lorsa
2013-09-23, 05:25 AM
To answer the OP:

Whenever I think about whether or not a certain set of Paladin actions would cause him to fall I consider the following:

How would his deity think?

Gods are not stupid, nor are they petty. A paladin is a large investment and while they do have greater expectations put on them compared to clerics, it's not something that is thrown aside on a whim. The deity most certainly would look at the situation you describe and realize that the paladin's actions do not come from a wish to serve some Evil creature, but rather trying to make the best of a really bad situation.

Mastikator
2013-09-23, 05:58 AM
It's fine until the dragon does something evil and the paladin must choose whether to try to stop the dragon or not. The dragon would probably try to make the paladin betray his principles.

Traab
2013-09-23, 07:12 AM
I think the argument over "its evil kill it!" Or, "Just because its evil doesnt mean you can flat out execute it." Is getting a bit too heavily involved with real life justice. This is dungeons and dragons. A universe in which I can get together with three of my friends and go murder the ever loving hell out of a band of local thieves and noone will turn a hair at it. Why would they? These are thieves that have robbed and killed and who knows what else. There is no assumed need to arrest them and bring them in to face justice. If some happen to survive, so be it, they can get turned over to the local militia. If not? Meh. On top of that, I can strip them naked and take all their stuff, and once again, thats considered ok. Yes there are exceptions. If some little old lady hires me to go get her great great grandmothers bracelet back from them, as a good person i would of course return that item. Anything else they have is generally mine though.

In the real world, holy hell in a handbasket would that ever go badly for me and my friends! It doesnt matter if that band of thugs are neo nazi monsters responsible for the death of a dozen jewish people and their entire stronghold is decorated with still living puppies nailed to the walls. Its not my right to go after them, its REALLY not my right to execute them on the spot, and its just as much not my right to take all their valuables for myself. Thats why you cant use real world right and wrong to determine how good and evil aligned characters should interact.

nedz
2013-09-23, 09:25 AM
I think the argument over "its evil kill it!" Or, "Just because its evil doesnt mean you can flat out execute it." Is getting a bit too heavily involved with real life justice. This is dungeons and dragons. A universe in which I can get together with three of my friends and go murder the ever loving hell out of a band of local thieves and noone will turn a hair at it. Why would they? These are thieves that have robbed and killed and who knows what else. There is no assumed need to arrest them and bring them in to face justice. If some happen to survive, so be it, they can get turned over to the local militia. If not? Meh. On top of that, I can strip them naked and take all their stuff, and once again, thats considered ok. Yes there are exceptions. If some little old lady hires me to go get her great great grandmothers bracelet back from them, as a good person i would of course return that item. Anything else they have is generally mine though.

In the real world, holy hell in a handbasket would that ever go badly for me and my friends! It doesnt matter if that band of thugs are neo nazi monsters responsible for the death of a dozen jewish people and their entire stronghold is decorated with still living puppies nailed to the walls. Its not my right to go after them, its REALLY not my right to execute them on the spot, and its just as much not my right to take all their valuables for myself. Thats why you cant use real world right and wrong to determine how good and evil aligned characters should interact.

Well in early medieval northern Europe if someone was declared an outlaw then you could kill them out of hand and take their stuff. These rules also applied in the American Wild West, and no doubt similar laws existed in other parts of the world at different times. So this is all "setting" dependant, and it is a bit rich that cultural values are written in RAW — they should be in the settings rules, and as such are DM dependant.

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 09:48 AM
This is dungeons and dragons. A universe in which I can get together with three of my friends and go murder the ever loving hell out of a band of local thieves and noone will turn a hair at it. Why would they? These are thieves that have robbed and killed and who knows what else. There is no assumed need to arrest them and bring them in to face justice. If some happen to survive, so be it, they can get turned over to the local militia. If not? Meh.

Faerun books- and to some extent BoED- tend to say otherwise. Even DMG2 points out that if the outlaws surrender- you're obliged to hand them over to local justice rather than kill them yourselves.

"Rule of law" may be in a primitive state in D&D worlds- but it still exists.

Emmerask
2013-09-23, 10:18 AM
I think the argument over "its evil kill it!" Or, "Just because its evil doesnt mean you can flat out execute it." Is getting a bit too heavily involved with real life justice. This is dungeons and dragons. A universe in which I can get together with three of my friends and go murder the ever loving hell out of a band of local thieves and noone will turn a hair at it. Why would they? These are thieves that have robbed and killed and who knows what else.

Why would you assume that thieves have killed anyone in their entire life?
A thieve of course might have killed someone at some point but its not really the intent of the profession.
Now robbers/bandits they are far more likely to have killed someone in their "career"... or assassins, their job is to kill people.

More the likely a thieve would not be killed (if its the first time he is caught) he would lose a hand or arm or maybe be made a slave, going in there and slaughtering the thieves would not be a lawful act and a paladin would not agree to do it.

What the paladin would do is go in try to arrest them and if they resist with force then he would answer in kind, though as soon as they surrender he would again arrest them.
You are likely correct that no one would care about the killing them, however a Paladin should be above such considerations :smalltongue:

zlefin
2013-09-23, 10:26 AM
I see no issue here; the paladin is simply accepting reasonable terms of surrender from one lawful being to another. The task isn't associating, it falls under terms of surrender; and the task itself isn't evil, so there's no problem.

Slipperychicken
2013-09-23, 10:29 AM
Faerun books- and to some extent BoED- tend to say otherwise. Even DMG2 points out that if the outlaws surrender- you're obliged to hand them over to local justice rather than kill them yourselves.

"Rule of law" may be in a primitive state in D&D worlds- but it still exists.

In the D&D I've played, states tend to lack the strength or motivation to really take criminals down, which explains why murderhobos get to do so much killing without real consequences.

Scow2
2013-09-23, 11:18 AM
Why would you assume that thieves have killed anyone in their entire life?Maybe not murdered, but they have hastened the deaths of others through theft and robbery, and made the world a worse place.

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 11:28 AM
Some specialize in robbing "the wealthy and universally despised":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0159.html

Others are youngsters that favour pickpocketing rather than mugging:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html

Scow2
2013-09-23, 11:42 AM
Some specialize in robbing "the wealthy and universally despised":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0159.html

Others are youngsters that favour pickpocketing rather than mugging:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.htmlOotS is a comic, not a D&D Campaign. it also deliberately diverges from the values and 'acceptable behaviors' of a typical D&D campaign, because Rich Burlew doesn't like the typical Murderhobo style of the game (Even though there many other games and systems out there that are much better at not being at least somewhat psychopathic regardless of alignment.)

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 11:46 AM
Point is that "thief" doesn't necessarily mean "evil murderer" in D&D. Especially not when playing pre-3rd ed, with it as a player class.

Emmerask
2013-09-23, 11:56 AM
Maybe not murdered, but they have hastened the deaths of others through theft and robbery, and made the world a worse place.

Hastened the death is a bit much, since those who have pretty much nothing are more then likely not the target of a thieve.
You would try to pick the pockets of a atleast somewhat wealthy merchant or break into a rich guys mansion and not in the farm house next door to retrieve a few copper coins.

however yes they made the world a worse place, as much as the lord who forbids hunting in """his""" forest, the karawan owner who underpays his employees, the landlord who removes an old sickly widow from the house because she is 1 week behind in payments etc etc.

if "made the world a worse place" is grounds enough for a paladin to kill someone, then more then likely he will cut the population of every single city he comes to by 1/3 :smallbiggrin:

Scow2
2013-09-23, 12:00 PM
if "made the world a worse place" is grounds enough for a paladin to kill someone, then more then likely he will cut the population of every single city he comes to by 1/3 :smallbiggrin:
Well, he has to balance that with the problems created by reducing the population by 1/3rd. It takes a lot of work to successfully pull off a purge of evil (And it usually doesn't require as much violence as scaring the bad guys straight)

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 12:04 PM
Hastened the death is a bit much, since those who have pretty much nothing are more then likely not the target of a thieve.
You would try to pick the pockets of a atleast somewhat wealthy merchant or break into a rich guys mansion and not in the farm house next door to retrieve a few copper coins.

however yes they made the world a worse place, as much as the lord who forbids hunting in """his""" forest, the karawan owner who underpays his employees, the landlord who removes an old sickly widow from the house because she is 1 week behind in payments etc etc.

A thief who actually destroys a rich person's business completely- might ruin everyone relying on that business as well- but that tends to be the exception.

However, the extra taxes imposed to counter thievery, will result in extra pressure on the bottom level of society.

"Hastening the deaths of many in a myriad of small ways" tends to be the domain of the large-scale fraudster rather than the small scale pickpocket- Moist Lipwig, in the Discworld Going Postal, being a typical example:


"I Worked It Out. You Have Killled 2.338 People," said the golem calmly.

"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr. Pump. I may be ... all those things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded, And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr. Lipvig. You Have Ruined Business And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Did Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Food From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr. Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game."

Perseus
2013-09-23, 12:37 PM
I personally don't see dragons as 'always evil' even if the source books say so. They are complex and intelligent beings, and likely have their own morals and values they have developed over their long lives. So, I see no reason why your dragon must be lawful evil.

Even if the dragon is evil, if the Paladin is doing a non-evil quest, even an the behest of an evil creature, I personally see no issue. If there is good reason for him to to believe the quest is for the greater good, and he can reasonably assume that the quest won't directly aid in later evil deeds, I think that the Paladin can proceed with a clear conscience.

In D&D always evil doesn't mean always evil. It means like 95% always evil.

I forget the book but yeah you can have good anything in the game.

Also the dragon may be chaotic evil but mask its alignment and thus the paladin doesn't know its evil.

Also for the OP, there are paladins of every alignment, perhaps also allow the player to play one with a less strict code of conduct?

Scow2
2013-09-23, 02:09 PM
In D&D always evil doesn't mean always evil. It means like 95% always evil.
Actually, it means 99.9999% evil. One-in-a-million nonevil. Not one-in-twenty nonevil.

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 02:14 PM
Depends on the splatbook. Savage Species has that figure, but MM simply says "unique or rare exceptions" - leaving it up to the DM how rare is rare.

Lorsa
2013-09-23, 02:15 PM
Actually, it means 99.9999% evil. One-in-a-million nonevil. Not one-in-twenty nonevil.

Actually, I'm fairly certain it doesn't mention percentages at all.

Traab
2013-09-23, 02:18 PM
Actually, it means 99.9999% evil. One-in-a-million nonevil. Not one-in-twenty nonevil.

Exactly. I want to take an example from one of the earliest drizzt novels. The first one in fact. He takes part in a raid against the surface elves. Now, had some group of paladins come tromping up and slaughtered every drow there, do you really think they would have fallen because drizzt didnt want to be there or to take part in the slaughter? He is a drow, drow are (always) evil, so they kill the surface elf murdering evil bastards. Only the biggest #$@$% move in the universe would attempt to invoke a fall because one of the drow turned out to be a young drizzt. The paladins are under no compulsion to try and capture them all alive and question them in an attempt to make sure that all the always evil drow are actually evil.

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 02:24 PM
3.0 and 3.5 MM drow are "usually NE" - it's left unclear what percentage are LE and CE, and what percentage are not Evil at all.

Segev
2013-09-23, 02:34 PM
3.0 and 3.5 MM drow are "usually NE" - it's left unclear what percentage are LE and CE, and what percentage are not Evil at all.

It's well-known that every drow is a CG rebel who is struggling to live down the reputation earned by the rest of his race being CE.

Scow2
2013-09-23, 02:34 PM
"Usually" means a majority.
"Often" means a plurality.

Something to keep in mind, though, is that alignment distribution isn't even across all populations. When 25% of Gnolls are not chaotic evil, it doesn't mean each pack has a 25% nonevil population - it means that 25% of the packs are nonevil. D&D is more permissive of large-scale slaughter than the real world is.

Traab
2013-09-23, 02:35 PM
3.0 and 3.5 MM drow are "usually NE" - it's left unclear what percentage are LE and CE, and what percentage are not Evil at all.

Thats nothing but nitpicking and avoiding the point. Pick any race of always evil beings and it still stands. It is not the paladins job to spare everything no matter how evil until they can somehow empirically confirm he she or it is absolutely, positively evil, and has no interest in changing sides. Although that being said, a part of me wants to hear about a game with a paladin played this way. Imagine it, there they are in the pits of whatever hell is in that game world, and the paladin spends 3 rounds at the start of every fight trying to confirm the demons actually are evil, dont want to become good, and cant be convinced to surrender, then repeats the process with the next demon in the group.

"Hey, are you evil?"

/monster snarls and full attacks

"No really, I wanted to know, because I would hate to accidentally kill a demon if it was thinking about changing sides.

/continues to attack

"Are you sure you wouldnt rather just surrender or something?"

/rest of the party "FOR GODS SAKE JUST ATTACK IT!!!"

"Hmm, I suppose I have no other choice. DETECT EVIL! Huh, well, whaddaya know? It IS evil! I wonder about the other three though."

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 02:39 PM
Something to keep in mind, though, is that alignment distribution isn't even across all populations. When 25% of Gnolls are not chaotic evil, it doesn't mean each pack has a 25% nonevil population - it means that 25% of the packs are nonevil.

Where's that stated? A case could be made that it's a mix of both- most packs have a small CN minority, a few packs have an even mix of CN and CE, and a very few have a CN majority- with only a miniscule percentage having majorities that are not CN or CE.

It may vary depending on the "usually CE" group.

Some books do, however, give percentages of "power centers"- so in Races of the Dragon something like 65% of Kobold power centers are LE, the rest of the power centers are other alignments- but nowhere does it give the percentages of alignments for "ordinary kobolds".


Thats nothing but nitpicking and avoiding the point. Pick any race of always evil beings and it still stands.

There are very few of those- most of which are Outsiders, Undead, or lycanthropes.

What matters isn't whether it's Evil or not (there are Neutral groups with a tendency to raid civilizations, like Lizardfolk) - what matters is what they are doing.

Traab
2013-09-23, 02:47 PM
Where's that stated? A case could be made that it's a mix of both- most packs have a small CN minority, a few packs have an even mix of CN and CE, and a very few have a CN majority- with only a miniscule percentage having majorities that are not CN or CE.

It may vary depending on the "usually CE" group.

Some books do, however, give percentages of "power centers"- so in Races of the Dragon something like 65% of Kobold power centers are LE, the rest of the power centers are other alignments- but nowhere does it give the percentages of alignments for "ordinary kobolds".



There are very few of those- most of which are Outsiders, Undead, or lycanthropes.

What matters isn't whether it's Evil or not (there are Neutral groups with a tendency to raid civilizations, like Lizardfolk) - what matters is what they are doing.

Yes, I suppose if I run into a lich taking care of an orphanage without sacrificing any of the babies it might be ok to let him go since he isnt currently murdering everything.

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 02:55 PM
In Faerun at least, that lich might actually be an "Archlich"

Or a "Good Lich" from Libris Mortis.

Researching what he's done in the past is certainly warranted- but if a member of a traditionally Evil group has managed to find a nonevil job- a Paladin should at least think twice about attacking them.

Traab
2013-09-23, 03:13 PM
In Faerun at least, that lich might actually be an "Archlich"

Or a "Good Lich" from Libris Mortis.

Researching what he's done in the past is certainly warranted- but if a member of a traditionally Evil group has managed to find a nonevil job- a Paladin should at least think twice about attacking them.

My point is mainly that, while yes there are exceptions, they are usually going to be fairly obvious, as in my lich orphanage example, but normally, when you get a mission to, for example, wipe out a vast force of lycanthropes that have been on a massive slaughter across the globe, it isnt reasonable to expect the paladin to capture all 300 of them alive in order to make certain they are all really evil and want to be a part of this affair. They are part of an army doing these bad things, they have to be put down. If one should make some clear signs that he is the were version of drizzt, by all means take him prisoner instead of killing him, but unless you have a realistic reason to think that might be the case, there is no reason to not kill them all.

GungHo
2013-09-23, 03:28 PM
I don't understand why people want to make it so hard to play a paladin.

Scow2
2013-09-23, 03:34 PM
My point is mainly that, while yes there are exceptions, they are usually going to be fairly obvious, as in my lich orphanage example, but normally, when you get a mission to, for example, wipe out a vast force of lycanthropes that have been on a massive slaughter across the globe, it isnt reasonable to expect the paladin to capture all 300 of them alive in order to make certain they are all really evil and want to be a part of this affair. They are part of an army doing these bad things, they have to be put down.And yet, the Church of the Silver Flame is still getting a lot of flack for the "Lycanthropic Purge".

hamishspence
2013-09-23, 03:45 PM
And yet, the Church of the Silver Flame is still getting a lot of flack for the "Lycanthropic Purge".

Because they went on from "kill all lycanthropes" (understandable since a lot of Good and Neutral lycanthropes had turned Evil at the time) to "kill all shifters" - is probably the reason they get a certain amount of in-universe flak.

Eventually they dropped this- but by then the damage had already been done.

NichG
2013-09-23, 06:02 PM
I don't understand why people want to make it so hard to play a paladin.

I think more often its that people want to make it hard to play a murderhobo, but its hard to tell the rogue or barbarian 'no, killing things is wrong', whereas the Paladin comes equipped with a means for the DM to call for value judgements.

For the record, I think its generally a good thing to discourage the murderhobo mindset. I don't think its a good thing to pick one player to make into a whipping boy in order to do it.

Slipperychicken
2013-09-23, 07:58 PM
I don't understand why people want to make it so hard to play a paladin.

We don't, really, we're just figuring out what the rules have to say about it. The rules are much more harsh than actual real-life DMs.


Besides, it seems to be the designers' intent that Paladins would be hard to roleplay ("unwavering paragon of good" does not exactly lend itself to easy roleplay), which is why the code of conduct is so rigid in the first place.

RochtheCrusher
2013-09-23, 09:06 PM
I don't understand why people want to make it so hard to play a paladin.

The question is, really, whether Pelor would be willing to endorse the Paladin's actions... which, by continuing to grant him power, he does.

Even here in the real world, where the gods are silent, being a pastor and sticking to your convictions well enough is HARD. If you want that sort of relationship with an uncompromising god, then it needs to cost you something.

Of course, staying out of jail as a habitual thief, or sleeping within a few miles of a town after you've killed its shopkeeper should ALSO be hard... harder than it is, perhaps. The powers that be should mess with all characters who make life difficult for society, not as a punishment, but to provide something for the players to do.

At some point, your serial murderers should be fighting the King and the Church more than the lich on the mountain, because the forces of Good are powerful and are not going to stand for them. Likewise, if a Paladin is not going to follow the commands of his god with a sincere heart, well... he should find another sponsor of a less strict alignment, simple as that.

Scow2
2013-09-23, 09:16 PM
The question is, really, whether Pelor would be willing to endorse the Paladin's actions... which, by continuing to grant him power, he does.But why wouldn't Pelor endorse the actions of someone who removes the curse of Lycanthropy and the threat of a Confirmed-evil Dragon from the world?

NichG
2013-09-23, 09:58 PM
Once you go down the route of deities-as-individuals, making individual judgements about the actions of the paladin, then the conversation gets a lot more complicated since you have to ask not about one (somewhat self-conflicted) definition of Good, but just 'what does Pelor think about X'?.

Its really the better way to run though since it avoids some paradoxes when you have a living, breathing sponsor that wants the paladin to succeed, rather than just assess failures and punish them.

In the case of Pelor, I'd say that a Pelorite paladin can probably go and kill undead just for being undead - Pelor is pretty well-established as being an anti-undead hardliner. Even if the undead were not evil, its likely to be forgiven as long as the undead in question wasn't actively surrendering or something that makes it a bit too obvious. Maybe even then if you go by the Burning Hate theory.

But at the same time, Pelor isn't going to care as much about other kinds of evils. Would Pelor support you killing a thief just because he stole from people and generally increased suffering? That seems more like a Cuthbert thing to do.

When it comes to lycanthropes and a dragon, who knows? Maybe Bahamut would be all 'yes, go and kill the evil chromatic dragons without mercy' or maybe it'd be the opposite and Bahamut wants to give them a chance. It comes down to personality and individualized goals (or in other words, how the DM wants to run the various deities).

Scow2
2013-09-23, 10:10 PM
However, a Paladin's power comes from Cosmic Good, not any Deity. And to Cosmic Good, destroying Evil is a win for it.

NichG
2013-09-24, 12:22 AM
However, a Paladin's power comes from Cosmic Good, not any Deity. And to Cosmic Good, destroying Evil is a win for it.

This is basically the 'Red vs Blue' form of alignment, which is certainly one model for you can use for alignment. In such a model, it really doesn't matter what you call the sides, because they are defined more by their opposition and not their inherent characteristics.

However, in such a system, you have to let go of 'Good is always objectively better', because there are times where 'I must be uncompromising against Evil' causes harm; basically, reducing things to 'with us or against us' will mean that the one or other alignment cannot both satisfy its need to be absolute and always further a secondary objective (like helping people). So it means there will be times when these things come into conflict, and 'Good' can be locally in the wrong or 'Evil' locally in the right when it comes to, e.g., making the world a better place. That doesn't have to mean that the two sides are precisely equivalent, it just means that there are times where their conflict will take priority over those secondary objectives.

It can make for pretty good dystopian settings when you play up those internal conflicts (helping people versus 'do not tolerate Evil'). You can use the cases where they mismatch to create things like 'Good has gone to far, and to make the world a better place we have to help Evil' and so on. Incidentally this can also be used to explain why secular governments in D&D land might not just hand over jurisdiction to Detect Evil-wielding Paladins, because sometimes the interests of Cosmic Good do not align with the interests of the inhabitants of the city.

At the same time though, it can be somewhat jarring and unsatisfying and lead to the 'Good is made of jerks' thing.

Traab
2013-09-24, 06:12 AM
The confusion though is, unlike in real life, a paladin can "look" at a being and instantly determine whether they are good or evil. It removes a lot of the ambiguity that we have irl. Because in D&D its far less often justified by comments like, "I only did it because..." The answer is, "Im evil, all my people are evil, we have always BEEN evil, and if some deviant is born that isnt evil, we tend to murder them as fast as we can."

The problem then is, how do you justify letting real objective evil exist right in front of you as a paladin. You dont have to SEE the guy stab someone in the face, you can detect that he is evil, thus bad, and smite him till he dies from it. Quite bluntly, I dont see why the standard reaction for paladins isnt "See Evil, Smite Evil." Oh sure you cant just straight up stab the lawful evil ruler of a dictatorship, thats a fast way to get killed. But you should be working to bring him down and THEN smite his ass. And also there are always going to be scenarios where you literally cant win against the evil, such as this green dragon scenario where a heroic sacrifice would be less than pointless as well. Good doesnt mean stupid. Now you can bring up the exceptions and moral traps all you want, thats just adding on complexity to cloud the issue. Paladins by their nature should be driven to destroy evil wherever they can. That last part is important.

NichG
2013-09-24, 06:21 AM
The confusion though is, unlike in real life, a paladin can "look" at a being and instantly determine whether they are good or evil. It removes a lot of the ambiguity that we have irl. Because in D&D its far less often justified by comments like, "I only did it because..." The answer is, "Im evil, all my people are evil, we have always BEEN evil, and if some deviant is born that isnt evil, we tend to murder them as fast as we can."

The problem then is, how do you justify letting real objective evil exist right in front of you as a paladin. You dont have to SEE the guy stab someone in the face, you can detect that he is evil, thus bad, and smite him till he dies from it. Quite bluntly, I dont see why the standard reaction for paladins isnt "See Evil, Smite Evil." Oh sure you cant just straight up stab the lawful evil ruler of a dictatorship, thats a fast way to get killed. But you should be working to bring him down and THEN smite his ass. And also there are always going to be scenarios where you literally cant win against the evil, such as this green dragon scenario where a heroic sacrifice would be less than pointless as well. Good doesnt mean stupid. Now you can bring up the exceptions and moral traps all you want, thats just adding on complexity to cloud the issue. Paladins by their nature should be driven to destroy evil wherever they can. That last part is important.

It comes down to the fundamental question 'what is the nature of Good and Evil in your campaign'. There isn't just one answer to it. In the Red vs Blue model, this is completely correct - the paladin has signed up for one team, and everyone on the other team is on the cosmic hit-list. Anything done in pursuit of that is cosmically 'sanctioned', so go bust some heads!

If Good and Evil are meant to be moral philosophies about how people should treat one-another, then thats where it becomes murkier. Even if the paladin can look at someone and say 'your balance is towards the negative', they still have to follow the dictates of the moral philosophy of good. Basically, if they have to go too far outside of the ideals of 'what a good person should be' in pursuit of smiting evil, they become less good themselves.

Is it worth a paladin descending from good to neutral in order to stop one evil dragon? How about a pickpocket? At some point, the paladin's self-worth as a follower of the moral philosophy of good (whatever that may be) becomes balanced against the cost of letting evil exist (whatever that may be).

Think about it in the context of e.g. a modern legal system. A thief is a criminal. A cop who shoots the thief in the head just for being a thief is also a criminal - both because thats not his place to do, but more importantly because there is more subtlety to the law than 'remove all criminal elements' - certain crimes correspond to certain punishments; its not 'criminal' and 'non-criminal'. Similarly, if good is to be a moral philosophy and not just a team, there will be more subtlety to 'what good demands' than 'get rid of all the evil bits of the world'.

hamishspence
2013-09-24, 06:23 AM
The problem then is, how do you justify letting real objective evil exist right in front of you as a paladin. You dont have to SEE the guy stab someone in the face, you can detect that he is evil, thus bad, and smite him till he dies from it. Quite bluntly, I dont see why the standard reaction for paladins isnt "See Evil, Smite Evil."

Personally I think Eberron answers this best:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a

"Why do you hurt your fellow citizens?"

The innkeeper froze. "What?"

"I can see the greed swirling in your soul," Handor said. "Do you water down your ale? Charge three crowns when the price is two? Or worse?"

"I don't know what you're talking about," the man stammered. His eyes flickered down to Handor's blade.

"I am a paladin of the Silver Flame. I am sworn to fight evil in all its forms. My sword is for the fiends and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy. But you are no monster, and you can still find redemption." Handor put his hand on the hosteller's shoulder. "Consider your actions. Think about those you have harmed. Seek out a minister and cleanse your soul. The true darkness is rising, and if we are to survive we must all find a path to the light. If you cannot . . . then perhaps you are a monster, after all."

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

Unfortunately, dealing with corruption is a tricky business. The Church does not define evil as "that which can be detected with detect evil"; as noted earlier, someone with an evil alignment may serve the greater good. Furthermore, a cleric of a good deity always possesses a good aura, regardless of her personal alignment. Rank within the church hierarchy is another complication: a pilgrim can't kill a cardinal and expect to get away with it because "he was evil." She will need proof of actions that went against church doctrine and harmed the innocent. Thus, a paladin's ability to detect evil allows her to judge the character of those around her -- but it's in no way a license to kill.

Lorsa
2013-09-24, 08:18 AM
Charge three crowns when the price is two?

Eberron is based on some form of communist society where the price of items are fixed by the state?

Scow2
2013-09-24, 08:25 AM
Eberron is based on some form of communist society where the price of items are fixed by the state?No, not the state. It's fixed by the PHB, A&EG, DMG, and ECS. DO NOT QUESTION THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE!


It comes down to the fundamental question 'what is the nature of Good and Evil in your campaign'. There isn't just one answer to it. In the Red vs Blue model, this is completely correct - the paladin has signed up for one team, and everyone on the other team is on the cosmic hit-list. Anything done in pursuit of that is cosmically 'sanctioned', so go bust some heads!

If Good and Evil are meant to be moral philosophies about how people should treat one-another, then thats where it becomes murkier. Even if the paladin can look at someone and say 'your balance is towards the negative', they still have to follow the dictates of the moral philosophy of good. Basically, if they have to go too far outside of the ideals of 'what a good person should be' in pursuit of smiting evil, they become less good themselves.

Is it worth a paladin descending from good to neutral in order to stop one evil dragon? How about a pickpocket? At some point, the paladin's self-worth as a follower of the moral philosophy of good (whatever that may be) becomes balanced against the cost of letting evil exist (whatever that may be).

Think about it in the context of e.g. a modern legal system. A thief is a criminal. A cop who shoots the thief in the head just for being a thief is also a criminal - both because thats not his place to do, but more importantly because there is more subtlety to the law than 'remove all criminal elements' - certain crimes correspond to certain punishments; its not 'criminal' and 'non-criminal'. Similarly, if good is to be a moral philosophy and not just a team, there will be more subtlety to 'what good demands' than 'get rid of all the evil bits of the world'.The big difference between Good and Evil is how they treat those within their alignment, and the Neutral ones. Good are only 'allowed' to kill Evil willy-nilly because Evil commits acts that forfeit its right to life (By denying others that right). Of course, I always hold that Evil people, in order to detect as such, must have deliberately taken actions that have killed or lead to the death of 1.01 people, with no mitigating factors. The big thing about killing Usually-Good or Usually-Neutral humanoids is that they tend to have a network of good- and neutral-aligned friends and dependents, and they're also a lot more open to redemption/righting their course (See the Eberron Paladin example). Killing/removing that kind of Evil person tends to do more harm than the evil the person was doing.

Lorsa
2013-09-24, 08:28 AM
No, not the state. It's fixed by the PHB, A&EG, DMG, and ECS. DO NOT QUESTION THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE!

Of course, how silly of me!

Kish
2013-09-24, 08:56 AM
Quite bluntly, I dont see why the standard reaction for paladins isnt "See Evil, Smite Evil."
Because paladins are good. And people who believe in punishment for thoughtcrime? Are evil. So the "paladin" in your question, assuming s/he somehow actually became a paladin, would go to smite someone for Being Evil and would suddenly no longer be able to detect that the person was evil, or use any of the other paladin powers s/he used to have.

Scow2
2013-09-24, 09:08 AM
Because paladins are good. And people who believe in punishment for thoughtcrime? Are evil. So the "paladin" in your question, assuming s/he somehow actually became a paladin, would go to smite someone for Being Evil and would suddenly no longer be able to detect that the person was evil, or use any of the other paladin powers s/he used to have.Evil, like Good, requires more than merely thought. It requires action as well. It's not the killing of the Evil person that's the Evil act - it's the tearing out part of a community, increasing the workload of those that tend to the dead, and inflicting suffering on those who did care about the evil person, who are not necessarily evil themselves, among other ways killing someone harms those around them.

hamishspence
2013-09-24, 10:02 AM
Good are only 'allowed' to kill Evil willy-nilly because Evil commits acts that forfeit its right to life (By denying others that right).

Where does it actually say that?

BoED at least (like Eberron) takes the view that not every Evil-aligned person has done something deserving of "making war on them"- and that Goodness requires showing respect for life even to your enemies.

In a world where Helm of Opposite Alignment is a thing- it is possible to be Evil because of "thought" without personally having committed an Evil act.

Segev
2013-09-24, 10:59 AM
Do not forget, as well, that Paladins are Lawful as well as Good. Just because a being is evil does not mean that it is Lawful to kill it. This extends to both "local law" and the generally higher forms of law and personal code to which Paladins typically subscribe.

The reason why the Founding Fathers of the United States of America held forth that we need strong laws to constrain law enforcement practices, and to have such stringent requirements of proof-of-guilt before what we do our best to ensure is an impartial jury of citizen-peers, is precisely because it is all too tempting to set oneself up as judge, jury, and executioner for selfish and short-sighted reasons.

Even when you know that Joe Mobster is running an extortion racket, you don't go kill him if you're Lawful; you find proof of it and make sure everybody knows you have proven it. It is important that it never come down to, "well, Timmy the Trustworthy, Paladin Extraordinare said he was guilty, so that's good enough for me." Not in a Lawful society.

Obviously, if you catch them red-handed, particularly if it is essential that you act now to prevent imminent evil, the Paladin is going to act. But just saying, "I sense the evil in his soul, and I'm pretty darned sure he is a mass murderer," is not enough to justify an attack with intent to kill in the middle of town. Or even in the middle of the wilderness. If he's just minding his own business, traveling along, the Paladin may feel compelled to confront him, or even to trail him and see what this obviously dastardly individual is up to, but it is not Lawful - not under any system of Law that is also truly Good - to simply decide he's too evil to live.

Honestly, despite what's in the "Paladin's Code," this could be a reasonable justification to "associate" with the individual, if you believe that in so doing you can be on hand to witness and prevent his evil later.

But it is not lawful, because you do NOT know what he has done to earn it, nor what he is doing. It may or may not turn out to be Good to kill him. But it would not be Lawful. Not until you know, and even then likely only if it's essential to prevent his continued evil (as opposed to taking him in to face the law).

Batman really is CG, not LG. CG is the alignment of vigilantes who act on "gut feeling" and faith that their targets are evil. It is not evil to be a smug jerk who likes to have a tough-guy reputation and take credit for evil acts. (Well, in the real world, it is; the whole "appearance of evil" thing. But it's definitely not a kill-worthy kind of evil.) So until you've got proof he really did do the horrible things you think he's taking tacit credit for...only a CG person would act first and trust he's getting the right guy. And even that's shakey unless you're REALLY sure.

hamishspence
2013-09-24, 11:03 AM
Obviously, if you catch them red-handed, particularly if it is essential that you act now to prevent imminent evil, the Paladin is going to act. But just saying, "I sense the evil in his soul, and I'm pretty darned sure he is a mass murderer," is not enough to justify an attack with intent to kill in the middle of town. Or even in the middle of the wilderness. If he's just minding his own business, traveling along, the Paladin may feel compelled to confront him, or even to trail him and see what this obviously dastardly individual is up to, but it is not Lawful - not under any system of Law that is also truly Good - to simply decide he's too evil to live.

I tend to the view that it's not Good either, since "Good demands respect for life".

Scow2
2013-09-24, 11:04 AM
I tend to the view that it's not Good either, since "Good demands respect for life".Which requires standing against those who lack such respect.

hamishspence
2013-09-24, 11:08 AM
Up to a point- yes: "The cause of Good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies".

But just pinging as Evil, is not proof, or even much in the way of circumstantial evidence, that the person is such an enemy demanding the use of violence against them.

Segev
2013-09-24, 11:24 AM
Up to a point- yes: "The cause of Good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies".

But just pinging as Evil, is not proof, or even much in the way of circumstantial evidence, that the person is such an enemy demanding the use of violence against them.

You're again arguing Law more than Good, here.

A Neutral Good person may or may not kill the person sensed as Evil, but certainly would not hesitate to set a near-Enticement trap to see if the Evil person falls for it.

A Chaotic Good person would probably determine that this Evil entity must be stopped. There is no law that binds him, so he sees few to no higher authorities to whom he should defer, and will act on the level of Evil he perceives. All Good people likely would at least strive to make sure they're not deceived by some obfuscating magic, but barring gross negligence, it would not be Evil - and could in fact be Good - to assault somebody just on the basis that you know they are Evil and have (all but certainly) done some evil-nasty stuff, and (equally certainly) will do so again if not stopped.

Chaotic Good justifies acting on one's own judgment immediately. Neutral Good recognizes that their judgment is not all-encompassing, but still lends towards immediate and somewhat expedient tests. It is Law which requires a higher standard of judgment, that criteria beyond your immediate witness (or at least that you witness something matching a higher criterion) be met before actual hostile action is taken.

Respect for life means no Good person will just jump-and-kill the target under "normal" circumstances, but a CG person could easily make the judgment that something of suitably evil aura is not "normal," and has obviously abrogated that right to respect for its life because such evil things have and will show no respect for life, either.


Law and Good constrain in different ways. It is the confluence of both taht make Paladins such paragons of restraint and makes their judgments so well-respected: they do not act rashly, so when they act decisively, it is worthy of trust.

hamishspence
2013-09-24, 11:29 AM
Chaotic Good justifies acting on one's own judgment immediately. Neutral Good recognizes that their judgment is not all-encompassing, but still lends towards immediate and somewhat expedient tests. It is Law which requires a higher standard of judgment, that criteria beyond your immediate witness (or at least that you witness something matching a higher criterion) be met before actual hostile action is taken.

Respect for life means no Good person will just jump-and-kill the target under "normal" circumstances, but a CG person could easily make the judgment that something of suitably evil aura is not "normal," and has obviously abrogated that right to respect for its life because such evil things have and will show no respect for life, either.
CG paladin-type PRCs like the Avenger from Dragon Magazine, still subscribe to the view that life is extremely important- and thus that death as a punishment should be reserved for the vilest of villains.

The Easydamus site appears to synthesise most of the previous edition takes on alignment into one- plus Dragon content:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

Traits that stood out- they tend to be merciful, believe that murder is wrong, and believe in rehabiliative justice.