PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Is alignment dependent on ignorant actions?



Kruploy
2014-03-20, 03:38 PM
What I mean to ask here is that if actions that would be labeled evil were to be committed by a character who did not know these actions would be evil would suffer an alignment hit or not?

I ask because I recently tricked my pals, one of whom was playing a paladin, into slaughtering an entire tribe of goblins.

I accomplished this by making a wounded guard testify to the party that the nearby goblin tribe was constantly assaulting the human village when, in fact, the opposite was true and the head of the human village just wanted to eliminate the goblin folk to get some valuable artifacts. Needless to say, the party, brought up in the age of RPGs where stuff like this is dime a dozen and fairly normal, bought this and unceremoniously unleashed a kill em all on the goblins that would shame Anakin Skywalker.

Now I believe that the paladin should suffer an alignment hit but at the same time, the guy got deceived and would not have killed the green dudes if he knew what was going on.

So if you commit an evil act unknowingly do you shift towards the dark side?

Or are you simply played for the fool?

Are you the victim or the criminal or both?

Blast your opinions guys.

Mando Knight
2014-03-20, 04:12 PM
1.) Yes, killing an entire village because you didn't investigate someone else's deception would be evil. Paladins should hold such charges as a most serious matter.

2.) No, that's not act that would change one's alignment all on its own.

3.) The one who deceived another into killing a village committed Evil, and is not Good.

4.) The deception calls into question the terms of the Paladin's Code of Conduct itself, however: does "Willingly commit an evil act" from the standard 3.5 code require foreknowledge that the act would be evil?

5.) "LOL they were innocent, you fall!" is a terrible way to "challenge" a Paladin. You don't "challenge" a Wizard by suddenly having the party's hirelings actually be the Big Bad's minions, stealing the spellbook and then vanishing in the night, do you?

Anxe
2014-03-20, 04:30 PM
This isn't something that would change someone's alignment, but its a great example of how a paladin can fall without knowingly breaking his code. Up to you if this counts as a violation of the code. Atonement is pretty simple in this case though. GET THE LIARS!

Slipperychicken
2014-03-20, 05:10 PM
BoVD says that "tempting others to do wrong" is an evil act.

If you ask me, I'd say the Paladin doesn't fall. That quest was indistinguishable from standard fare.



4.) The deception calls into question the terms of the Paladin's Code of Conduct itself, however: does "Willingly commit an evil act" from the standard 3.5 code require foreknowledge that the act would be evil?


Unless he's making a moral choice (as opposed to being tricked or magically compelled), the act doesn't really reflect a change in the actor's personality or moral outlook. So yeah, evil acts don't count unless you do them willingly.

jedipotter
2014-03-20, 05:31 PM
Unknowing doing an evil act is wrong, but it is not a ''cast out of heaven forever'' type of action. You can just toss someone out for that. And you can't expect someone to do a intensive investigation everytime they want to do anything.

And this is even more important for game play. It just ruins the fun if the good characters are always saying ''ok, guys, before we take action we have to research the whole history of the area and find all the details. You'd quicky go from ''sword and magic'' to ''investigate blandness''.

russdm
2014-03-20, 05:38 PM
In my opinion, the Paladin takes the evil hit because he didn't bother to investigate the claims nor attempted to stop the fighting in some way. He believed what was told to him, then acted upon it. A Paladin should be investigating to make sure what he is being told is true and should have double-checked before committing to killing all of the goblins. A paladin that doesn't do this, gets the full reward of falling, because he could have taken the time to do so if he actually wanted to and is required to do by his code of conduct.

A Paladin should use his "sense motive" skills and make sure he is not being feed a load of crap. Also, the paladin could talked with the townsfolk to find out the truth easily, like in the tavern over drinks!!!, or even done some checking around at the goblin place.

Mnemnosyne
2014-03-20, 05:40 PM
I'd say this depends a lot on the atmosphere and behavior set forth in the game up to this point and considered acceptable so far. Because, in a game where this sort of behavior has been routine up to now, suddenly making the paladin fall because he was deceived seems unfair. On the other hand, if the game has been one where even typical 'monster' races have been treated 'fairly' and considered as people, and you had to be sure you were doing the right thing before slaughtering them, then yes, he definitely acted rashly and should take the consequences.

If it's a new game and this is their first adventure, I'd say it was probably a bad choice first adventure because you didn't give them a chance to gain an understanding of the world, so they came in with preconceptions such as 'goblins = bad' because that's the standard RPG trope. If you want them to realize there are innocent goblins in the world, you should make sure they see that such goblins exist first, because the default to us as players is that goblins are evil and can be slain without problems.

However, even if you failed to set it up correctly, yes, I would say that was an evil act because the paladin didn't take due precautions to make sure the people he was killing were, in fact, evil. I would go ahead and have him fall...but make sure that there is an NPC to provide a basically cost-free atonement handy, so he can easily regain his powers. This will show him he needs to be more careful and diligent in ensuring that he doesn't go off slaughtering those who do not deserve it, and show him that you can make mistakes and atone for them, so committing one evil act isn't the end of the road as a paladin. He may not be able to bring back those he killed, but part of the conditions for atonement may well include bringing to justice the person who tricked him.

DSmaster21
2014-03-20, 05:42 PM
I would say just paladin-wise he does not fall because he had no knowledge of the action's illegitemacy. However should he discover that what he was told was lies he should seek to atone for the act in some way immediately. Should teach him to be more cautious in the future.

As per the over-question of alignment? I would say it is dependent on all actions but I subscribe to alignment as a measure of how your personality is expressed not alignment defining your personality.

I think that this is semi-RAI (The all actions having an effect not the rest of my opinion) since this exists Phylactery-of-Faithfulness (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#phylactery-of-faithfulness)

Mastikator
2014-03-20, 05:48 PM
Even if the goblins were evil and even if they were harassing the humans, genocide is still Very Evil. The paladin should have sought a diplomatic solution, diplomacy is a paladin skill after all.

Ring_of_Gyges
2014-03-20, 08:51 PM
There is a legal concept that may help here called "criminal negligence".

We don't just punish intentional wrongdoing, we also punish some kinds of carelessness when the person should have known better and any reasonable person would have been more careful.

Example. You go to the pharmacist for medication A. The pharmacist hands you a bottle he thinks contains A. Alas, the pills bottles were labeled wrong at the factory and the bottle actually contains B, which kills you.

Whether the pharmacist is criminally liable depends on whether this gets characterized as an accident that could have happened to anyone or as negligence that a proper professional would have avoided. In the real world things look bad for our hypothetical pharmacist because there are rules that say they're supposed to check the actual pills are the correct size/color/markings and not just rely on the bottle. Break a professional rule and someone ends up dead? Almost certainly liable.

Your Paladin's defense is going to center on how reasonable it was to go out and kill a bunch of people based on the evidence the Paladin was given. That's going to depend on the details of what all was said to con the Paladin, but I'm not liking his odds.

My guess is that if the village had been full of humans, he wouldn't have gone in swinging without doing more investigation. My guess is xenophobia and anti-goblin bias are motivating him and I'd take away his powers for that.

Atonement is an option, once he learns not to kill people who are green on less evidence than people who are pink, once he learns to investigate more seriously before he kills anyone, etc...

Show some real remorse and reform and he can have his powers back.

Dimers
2014-03-20, 09:02 PM
Dinging the paladin for not looking into the matter is probably going to make the game less fun, and unless your group is very abnormal, certainly won't make it more fun. It'll turn every session into social paranoia.

Paladins have mechanical consequences for certain acts, but really, this could happen in any group where someone has a code of honor. So if you want to keep the game fun for everyone, don't pull a **** move like that, where you make someone go against their code of honor. Or if you think it'd be great for some reason, ask the player first and make sure they're okay with the IC jerking-around.

Good players agree to work within each others' moral and ethical boundaries, even if the characters don't.

Mando Knight
2014-03-20, 09:24 PM
Even if the goblins were evil and even if they were harassing the humans, genocide is still Very Evil.

Destroying a village is not genocide. Waging war with clear ethnic boundaries is not genocide. Attacking an ethnic group with the purpose of destroying that ethnic group is genocide.

russdm
2014-03-20, 09:29 PM
Destroying a village is not genocide. Waging war with clear ethnic boundaries is not genocide. Attacking an ethnic group with the purpose of destroying that ethnic group is genocide.

Agree with this. I don't see the destruction of the goblin village as genocide, unless it was the only one in existence (unlikely). Otherwise, this is merely an evil act for killing everyone when there was no cause.

Mastikator
2014-03-20, 09:29 PM
Destroying a village is not genocide. Waging war with clear ethnic boundaries is not genocide. Attacking an ethnic group with the purpose of destroying that ethnic group is genocide.

The head of the human village wanted to have all the goblins killed and steal their artifact. The paladin committed the deed on the words that the goblins were attacking the human village (when the opposite was true), without doing any investigation the human paladin killed not only the goblin combat forces but also the non-combatants, the goblin children. He's more like Kore than Big Ears.

russdm
2014-03-20, 09:42 PM
The head of the human village wanted to have all the goblins killed and steal their artifact. The paladin committed the deed on the words that the goblins were attacking the human village (when the opposite was true), without doing any investigation the human paladin killed not only the goblin combat forces but also the non-combatants, the goblin children. He's more like Kore than Big Ears.

Its still not genocide yet. If that was the only goblins in the world, then yeah its genocide. It is something for which the paladin should be completely falling for because it completely defiles the paladin code regarding harm to innocents, because the non-combatants hadn't done anything. Frankly, this is the response expected of for Murderhobo players, rather than an actual paladin being played by someone.

Mastikator
2014-03-20, 09:51 PM
Maybe genocide wasn't the correct word, racially motivated mass murder.

Edit- please don't tell me murdering a whole village without question because they're goblins isn't racially motivated mass murder. This isn't "gray area" morality, this is clearly in the land of ridiculously evil.

Slipperychicken
2014-03-20, 10:01 PM
Maybe genocide wasn't the correct word, racially motivated mass murder.

The exact definition of genocide is kind of fuzzy when you're talking about a small segment of the total population.

I imagine the politically-correct label would probably use "killings" instead of "murder". The latter implies illegality, which isn't necessarily the case. (EDIT: But the term "murder" is generally expected if you're trying to use the word's emotional weight to get people riled up)

ElBeardo
2014-03-20, 10:09 PM
I really hate the concept of this idea. Alignment has always been one of the things about DnD that I have always hated. People should be able to get the feel of a character by how they are acted out. It either becomes a crutch, "I killed all of the NPC's because i'm SO RANDOM LOLZ," or it is used by DM's to make people RP characters that they didn't make and don't want to play. I think that this sort of thing is a great way to test your paladins ability to roleplay, but it shouldn't be so debilitating for his character that he stops having fun.

Mastikator
2014-03-20, 10:09 PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder
"To kill brutally or inhumanly."

I stand by my choice of the word "murder". It's brutal and inhumane to kill an entire village. It's murder.

veti
2014-03-20, 10:24 PM
And this is why there should be no such thing as a "RAW paladin".

As part of character generation, the player should be writing down a list of rules and ideals that they're required to follow - incorporating the base "paladin code", but going into much more detail about how specifically they will apply these rules. Optionally they could divide them into "absolute rules" that must always be followed, and "nice to haves" that can be violated if circumstances justify it, but personally I'd let them wing that bit.

Did the paladin attempt 'Detect Evil' or 'Sense Motive' on whoever was siccing them on to the goblins? If not, why not?

Did they attempt either of these things on the goblins themselves? Why not?

Did they give the goblins a chance to surrender? Why not?

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think the paladin should be falling harder than an ACME anvil, pending atonement. But to focus the player's mind and stop this sort of thing from happening again, get them to write out their own code.

Janus
2014-03-20, 11:50 PM
If it's a new game and this is their first adventure, I'd say it was probably a bad choice first adventure because you didn't give them a chance to gain an understanding of the world, so they came in with preconceptions such as 'goblins = bad' because that's the standard RPG trope. If you want them to realize there are innocent goblins in the world, you should make sure they see that such goblins exist first, because the default to us as players is that goblins are evil and can be slain without problems.
So much this. It seems like people often forget that the characters would understand their world's societies much better than the players, and the DM needs to find a way to bring that up.

Frankly, given the situation at hand, combined with the party's apparent inexperience, I might give the paladin a warning. Maybe a vision from the deity telling him how he screwed up and that he's expected to rectify the situation and bring the true villains to justice. I'd throw in paying money for the deaths (weregild, I think is the term), but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone to pay it to.
Let it be a learning experience for the player. Make it fun.

Aergoth
2014-03-21, 12:13 AM
So much this. It seems like people often forget that the characters would understand their world's societies much better than the players, and the DM needs to find a way to bring that up.

Frankly, given the situation at hand, combined with the party's apparent inexperience, I might give the paladin a warning. Maybe a vision from the deity telling him how he screwed up and that he's expected to rectify the situation and bring the true villains to justice. I'd throw in paying money for the deaths (weregild, I think is the term), but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone to pay it to.
Let it be a learning experience for the player. Make it fun.

Donating anything he earned from killing the goblins to charity prevents him from benefitting it and starts a suitable pennance, attempting to right the wrong by dealing with the authority that abused his sense of justice would be the second step (being very careful to avoid pushing the boundaries of a paladin's code)

Addressing the original question: This isn't a matter of alignment. It's a matter of DM intentions. The DM is the final arbiter of alignment. Did you trick the paladin with the intent of having him fall? Then go ahead and have him fall. If it was a spur of the moment thing, maybe you don't have him fall because you expected a little more of someone who may have been inexperienced and has been trained by other games to take quests from wounded people at face value. It really all boils down to one thing:
Do you want to go full Moustache-Twirling DM and have the paladin fall because you as the DM tricked him as the player?
I recommend against it. That's a good way to lose trust and players. This is captured in a cutscene levels of bad game you're walking into.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-21, 12:26 AM
Do you want to go full Moustache-Twirling DM and have the paladin fall because you as the DM tricked him?
I recommend against it. That's a good way to lose trust and players.

Quoted.
For.
<expletive redacted/>
Truth.
Seriously, this basically breaks the trust and social contract of the game unless agreed upon beforehand.
It's the kind of DM that goes "You fall because . . . those Demons you fought?"
"THEY WERE ACTUALLY ORPHANS CARRYING PUPPIES!"

hamishspence
2014-03-21, 01:04 AM
From WOTC's Save My Game articles:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

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

Something to keep in mind.

SiuiS
2014-03-21, 02:07 AM
5.) "LOL they were innocent, you fall!" is a terrible way to "challenge" a Paladin. You don't "challenge" a Wizard by suddenly having the party's hirelings actually be the Big Bad's minions, stealing the spellbook and then vanishing in the night, do you?

DMs do that to spell books all the time. It's why spell mastery was invented.


This isn't something that would change someone's alignment, but its a great example of how a paladin can fall without knowingly breaking his code. Up to you if this counts as a violation of the code. Atonement is pretty simple in this case though. GET THE LIARS!

I want to disagree, but now I'm not so sure.

If the code requires not willingly performing an action, then he could fall.
If the code instead requires not willingly performing a evil action, then he could not.

The irony here, by the way? That if slaughtering an entire goblin village counts as evil, then it doesn't matter. The paladin went in knowing he was murdering a bunch of people in their beds.

This is why older editions specified that any camp was a war camp; it was clear they were enemies on the march.

HammeredWharf
2014-03-21, 03:17 AM
Unless the goblins in question were ultra-evil, baby-eating villains, I don't see how slaughtering an entire tribe could be anything but evil. Goblins are "usually neutral evil", so an average tribe of them has some non-evil members. If a paladin goes around murdering whatever people tell him to murder without stopping to think about it, he's surely going to fall.

If the players are relatively new, I'd let the paladin fall, but make atonement easy enough for it not to be a big deal.

prufock
2014-03-21, 07:14 AM
So the act was evil, the intent was not. Does "evil by neglect of due diligence" count or is mens rea important to the act?

The answer is not clear in D&D. A better story - and thus better answer - is to have the party discover the deception in hindsight. If your players are good roleplayers, this will probably be enough to create some internal conflict in the paladin (and possibly other members). The cognitive dissonance should be reflected in his play, and he may use this as a learning experience.

If they aren't good roleplayers, then you may want to invoke some penalty, but don't use this as an excuse to have the paladin fall. Have him contacted by a church member who knows of the act or - if they're high level - an emissary of his god, and chastise him. Give him a quest with a mark of justice to atone, and maybe take away ONE of his powers (if he needs further convincing) until he does.

hamishspence
2014-03-21, 07:16 AM
Going by the description in the Atonement Spell details:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

there is such a thing as "evil acts committed unwittingly, that need atoning for".

Amphetryon
2014-03-21, 08:41 AM
In my opinion, the Paladin takes the evil hit because he didn't bother to investigate the claims nor attempted to stop the fighting in some way. He believed what was told to him, then acted upon it. A Paladin should be investigating to make sure what he is being told is true and should have double-checked before committing to killing all of the goblins. A paladin that doesn't do this, gets the full reward of falling, because he could have taken the time to do so if he actually wanted to and is required to do by his code of conduct.

A Paladin should use his "sense motive" skills and make sure he is not being feed a load of crap. Also, the paladin could talked with the townsfolk to find out the truth easily, like in the tavern over drinks!!!, or even done some checking around at the goblin place.

Wrinkle on the above hypothetical: What happens, in the board's opinion, if the Paladin does attempt Sense Motive/Gather Information before charging off to slaughter the Green-Skins, and fails to break 10 on either check? If the party is low-level enough to still be fighting Goblins, Sense Motive and Gather Information are unlikely to be infallible methods of gathering intel.

RedMage125
2014-03-21, 09:11 AM
I've actually got a RAW answer for you. A situation that directly parallels this one:


A maniac puts poison in a town’s water supply, believing
(wrongly) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is
that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the
townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character
pours poison into the town’s water supply. Is that evil?
Probably not—at least, not in the context of the rest of the
character’s actions and the circumstances involved. Still,
good characters shouldn’t commit even remotely questionable
acts on a large scale unless they’re absolutely sure
there’s no other way to succeed. It’s rarely a good idea to
destroy a town of evil people, because there might be at least
a few good people in the town as well.

So your paladin has not "willingly committed an evil act", and thus does not fall. But if he really is Lawful Good, he probably not only feels guilty for his actions, but feels the need to punish those who deceived him (note that "punish" does not equate to "kill").

So don't take his powers, but you have created an excellent opportunity for a paladin to roleplay the fallout of having committed an act he feels was somewhat evil, having been tricked into doing so under the pretense that it was a Good thing to do. Now, if he acts out of anger and kills one of those villagers when they are unarmed and defenseless, THAT would be murder, and he would fall.

Frozen_Feet
2014-03-21, 09:21 AM
You don't "challenge" a Wizard by suddenly having the party's hirelings actually be the Big Bad's minions, stealing the spellbook and then vanishing in the night, do you?

Yes you do. Spellbook-capture-the-flag has been, is, and will always be a noble part of the wizarding profession. It's the reason why all games with spellbooks or similarly valuable objects of power tend to have myriad different protective wards and measures for preventing such a thing, or at least ensuring the book/object returns to its master.

For reference, see a rather famous book about a ring and some halflings. :smalltongue:

Mnemnosyne
2014-03-21, 09:29 AM
Wrinkle on the above hypothetical: What happens, in the board's opinion, if the Paladin does attempt Sense Motive/Gather Information before charging off to slaughter the Green-Skins, and fails to break 10 on either check? If the party is low-level enough to still be fighting Goblins, Sense Motive and Gather Information are unlikely to be infallible methods of gathering intel.
I would say it strongly depends on how thorough he was. Did he roll a couple skill checks and call it a day, then go slaughter them? Then he still falls and still has to seek atonement. If, on the other hand, he investigated thoroughly and was tricked at every step, that's about the only case I wouldn't say he should fall.

I take a pretty strict view on paladins in a lot of cases - against anyone that they are sure is the bad guy, they can be very, very 'righteous sword of justice' and go laying the smackdown, but if there's any reasonable doubt, then they are gonna fall if they screw up. Paladins are held to an impossible standard, and if they don't fall a couple times in their careers and have to seek atonement, I think the standard they're supposed to be held to is being poorly enforced.

It's important to note that I don't want to screw paladins; I want to drive home the point that they're supposed to be bloody perfect, and that people just don't do 'perfect' generally. But that's why atonement exists, so that when they slip up from being perfect, they can make an effort and try again. So while some people advocate a 'warning', to me, making the paladin fall is a warning. Don't forget atonement doesn't cost xp if what you're atoning for was unintentional. And I generally consider clerics of the paladin's same faith willing to cast it without much charge.

Sebastrd
2014-03-21, 09:29 AM
Absolutely not. It is the motivation that matters, not the outcome.

NEO|Phyte
2014-03-21, 09:49 AM
I would say it strongly depends on how thorough he was. Did he roll a couple skill checks and call it a day, then go slaughter them? Then he still falls and still has to seek atonement. If, on the other hand, he investigated thoroughly and was tricked at every step, that's about the only case I wouldn't say he should fall.

Question:

Do you think it is at all fun to require your players to go CSI on every single plot hook ever to ensure that it's not someone trying to trick the team's paladin into falling? Because to me it sounds like the opposite of fun.

RedMage125
2014-03-21, 09:56 AM
I would say it strongly depends on how thorough he was. Did he roll a couple skill checks and call it a day, then go slaughter them? Then he still falls and still has to seek atonement. If, on the other hand, he investigated thoroughly and was tricked at every step, that's about the only case I wouldn't say he should fall.

I take a pretty strict view on paladins in a lot of cases - against anyone that they are sure is the bad guy, they can be very, very 'righteous sword of justice' and go laying the smackdown, but if there's any reasonable doubt, then they are gonna fall if they screw up. Paladins are held to an impossible standard, and if they don't fall a couple times in their careers and have to seek atonement, I think the standard they're supposed to be held to is being poorly enforced.

It's important to note that I don't want to screw paladins; I want to drive home the point that they're supposed to be bloody perfect, and that people just don't do 'perfect' generally. But that's why atonement exists, so that when they slip up from being perfect, they can make an effort and try again. So while some people advocate a 'warning', to me, making the paladin fall is a warning. Don't forget atonement doesn't cost xp if what you're atoning for was unintentional. And I generally consider clerics of the paladin's same faith willing to cast it without much charge.
I disagree. First off, because of the BoVD quote I posted before that explicitly states being tricked into doing something like that isn't an evil act. Not a good one, either. But not evil, so a paladin should not fall.

However, why should the paladin conduct a "thorough investigation"? Does he do that for every quest? This is a world where Evil exists. And goblins are little humanoids who are usualy evil, and are well-known for doing exactly what the injured town guard claimed they did. So a paladin hears a story of goblins behaving in a behavior that is typical for goblins. The kind of thing one normally calls on a bunch of adventurers to help fix. The kind of thing a bunch of heroic adventurers usually do...save towns from marauding goblins. What about that situation should make the paladin suspicious enough to warrant an investigation? The leaders of the town deliberately manipulated his perceptions (going so far as to fake a "goblin attack survivor"), and pointed him at a bunch of creatures that were probably still evil. An Evil act was comitted, yes, but by the town leaders. The paladin was party to that, and should roleplay accordingly (most likely feeling guilty, angry, even more guilty, and filled with a righteous desire to fix his wrong).

To the OP: The goblins themselves were still evil, right? Just not guiilty of what the town's leadership claimed? Not that it matters, the BoVD quote I supplied explictly states as such, I was just wondering. It might help assauge the paladin's conscience after the fact.


Absolutely not. It is the motivation that matters, not the outcome.

Not entirely true. The BoVD quote I posted was on "Action vs Intent". Intent does, in fact, play into it a great deal. But some actions are Evil no matter what. You can't sacrifice an innocent child on an altar to save a whole city and not call the child's murder a Good act. The BoED covers "evil means to achieve good ends" pretty thoroughly. An Evil act done for a Good reason is still an Evil act. The end result might morally be a wash, because you have a Good Deed and an Evil Deed, but the initial act is still Evil.

That's different from the OP's situation, because the paladin was decieved. Intent comes into play when the Evil deed itself is committed unintentionally. For example, a villain captures a paladin and some villagers, and puts 2 levels in the paladin's cage. If the paladin pulls lever 1, the paladin falls to spiky death in the pit below, and the villagers walk free. If he pulls level 2, the villagers fall to theiir deaths and the paladin walks free. If he does nothing, they all die. Paladin tries to save the innocents and pulls lever 1. But the villain lied, and the innocents die, leaving the paladin to walk free. Does the paladin fall? Answer: No. He did everything in his power to do a Good thing, but was decieved (both levers caused the villagers to fall).

Kruploy
2014-03-21, 10:37 AM
Actually, it wasn't my intent to have the paladin fall. I am surprised people are suggesting that I do so. I was merely pondering if I should shift the paladin's alignment to lawful neutral.

I always thought alignment was more of an expression of the individual's state of mind rather than a reflection of their actions and that's why creatures like animals and such don't become evil even if their favorite food is live baby. I guess there is much argument on this subject lol.

Also if anybody wants to know, here is more info of the circumstances of these events. The party was standing in the village's main district near the main gates. Suddenly, a cadre of wounded guard shuffled in through the main gate. The paladin asked a nearby villager why the guards were in such a state and he replied that they were wounded after the latest skirmish with the goblins.

Righteous, the paladin went to investigate and asked the most elite looking of the guards what was going on. The head guard, seeing a heavily armed paladin and his able friends in front of him saw a chance not only to complete his mission of acquiring the artifact but also to get revenge on the goblins for wounding him and his men and he took it. He spun a grandiose tale about how evil goblins were constantly harassing the villagers and had even managed to steal the sacred artifact of the village once under in the village elder's protection before limping away. The paladin didn't even think to go for sense motive or detect evil because the guy in front of him was pretty badly messed up.

Anyway, so the party went to assault the goblin tribe. After dealing with some stragglers, the chieftain came to confront them. The party boldly marched up the guy's face and the paladin told him to surrender peacefully and that their fate would be decided by the authorities at the human village. The chieftain immediately ordered the party's execution so the party countered with extreme prejudice. The wizard of the bunch set the tents on fire and so the entire tribe was scoured by the party.

The paladin never went for detect evil because he had completely bought the story. He even went and "returned" the goblin artifact to the village elder, an elderly cleric, with his own hands before subsequently getting owned by said cleric and arrested for the crime of hateful mass murder against a tribe of goblins lol.

hamishspence
2014-03-21, 10:46 AM
Actually, it wasn't my intent to have the paladin fall. I am surprised people are suggesting that I do so. I was merely pondering if I should shift the paladin's alignment to lawful neutral.


Problem is - a paladin who changes alignment to LN, by the rules, Falls.

Segev
2014-03-21, 10:51 AM
Sense Motive is technically not something the player has to ask to roll. It's reactive to set the DC of the bluff check of somebody who's lying to him. So by the strictest RAW, you should have asked him to roll Sense Motive (or, to preserve the secrecy, rolled it privately) against the Guard's Bluff check. If the Paladin beat the Guard, you should have tipped him off that he sensed something off about the Guard's story.

Launching a surprise attack on a believed enemy base is not evil.

Responding with "Extreme Prejudice" to an enemy ordering your execution when you don't recognize his authority to do so is neither evil nor non-lawful.

In short, the Paladin may have reason to feel badly for being duped into attacking people who may not have deserved it, but the next batch swiftly made themselves deserve it (even if they were "in the right" in their own minds). There's no evil actions here, though. Even the "take the Guard's word for it" isn't really too much negligence on the CHARACTER's part. The RAW require that he get a Sense Motive check. Since none was made, it can be assumed he auto-failed it, and has no reason to doubt the Guard's story.

Mnemnosyne
2014-03-21, 11:07 AM
The paladin didn't even think to go for sense motive or detect evil because the guy in front of him was pretty badly messed up.While he probably should have detected evil (really, to me this is a standard thing that any paladin should do on anyone who is asking them to do anything, just so they know how suspicious they need to be of the person - detect evil certainly isn't reliably detect valid target but it is a tool that is free and should be regularly used to help shape an opinion of a person) sense motive should be done automatically by the DM. Did you roll it yourself to see if he noticed something shifty about what the guard was saying?


Anyway, so the party went to assault the goblin tribe. After dealing with some stragglers, the chieftain came to confront them. The party boldly marched up the guy's face and the paladin told him to surrender peacefully and that their fate would be decided by the authorities at the human village. The chieftain immediately ordered the party's execution so the party countered with extreme prejudice. The wizard of the bunch set the tents on fire and so the entire tribe was scoured by the party.

The paladin never went for detect evil because he had completely bought the story. He even went and "returned" the goblin artifact to the village elder, an elderly cleric, with his own hands before subsequently getting owned by said cleric and arrested for the crime of hateful mass murder against a tribe of goblins lol.
As for this, it's a little different than I pictured it and given the details I rescind my earlier judgement; the chieftain attacked instead of communicating when given the chance, and the paladin specifically gave an opportunity for discussion on the matter. Even by the extremely high standards I would hold a paladin to, the problem there was lack of communication and not on his part.

RedMage125
2014-03-21, 11:16 AM
Actually, it wasn't my intent to have the paladin fall. I am surprised people are suggesting that I do so. I was merely pondering if I should shift the paladin's alignment to lawful neutral.
The I suggest you read your 3.5e DMG, page 134. A single action should NOT cause a change in alignment. Alignment change is gradual and takes time. Time, by the RAW, to be no less than a week of in game time.


I always thought alignment was more of an expression of the individual's state of mind rather than a reflection of their actions and that's why creatures like animals and such don't become evil even if their favorite food is live baby. I guess there is much argument on this subject lol.
You are partially right. And since this paladin's mindset didn't change, why should his alignment have changed?

Actions can start to change one's state of mind. If one starts commiting Evil acts "for the greater good", it starts numbing that person to the kinds of acts they are committing, and believing that "doing evil for the sake of good" is a decidedly Neutral (on the Good/Evil axis) frame of mind. This is why actions can change alignment. But again, alignment change is still gradual.


Also if anybody wants to know, here is more info of the circumstances of these events. The party was standing in the village's main district near the main gates. Suddenly, a cadre of wounded guard shuffled in through the main gate. The paladin asked a nearby villager why the guards were in such a state and he replied that they were wounded after the latest skirmish with the goblins.

Righteous, the paladin went to investigate and asked the most elite looking of the guards what was going on. The head guard, seeing a heavily armed paladin and his able friends in front of him saw a chance not only to complete his mission of acquiring the artifact but also to get revenge on the goblins for wounding him and his men and he took it. He spun a grandiose tale about how evil goblins were constantly harassing the villagers and had even managed to steal the sacred artifact of the village once under in the village elder's protection before limping away. The paladin didn't even think to go for sense motive or detect evil because the guy in front of him was pretty badly messed up.

Anyway, so the party went to assault the goblin tribe. After dealing with some stragglers, the chieftain came to confront them. The party boldly marched up the guy's face and the paladin told him to surrender peacefully and that their fate would be decided by the authorities at the human village. The chieftain immediately ordered the party's execution so the party countered with extreme prejudice. The wizard of the bunch set the tents on fire and so the entire tribe was scoured by the party.

The paladin never went for detect evil because he had completely bought the story. He even went and "returned" the goblin artifact to the village elder, an elderly cleric, with his own hands before subsequently getting owned by said cleric and arrested for the crime of hateful mass murder against a tribe of goblins lol.
Sounds like your paladin committed no evil acts. He was very carefully manipulated into believing he was doing not only a "non-evil" thing, but was, in fact, a "Good" thing.

Especially because it sounds like these goblins were still Evil (judging solely off your description of the chief's behavior), even if they didn't actually steal from the town.

However, some questions: 1) Why would the cleric attack the paladin? Was he not part of the consipiracy to acquire the artifact? Even if he wasn't, expressing shock over the goblins' massacre is one thing, but isn't it still better for the forces of Good for this powerful artifact to be in their hands instead of the hands of evil goblins?
2) Why would the paladin be "arrested" for the "crime" of killing goblins? Do this town's laws actually protect goblins? Even if the cleric is of the same faith as the paladin and has some kind of religious authority over him, he can claim that the goblin killing was a sin, which doesn't make it a crime.

But again, check my earlier post, at the bottom of page 1. By RAW, what the paladin did is NOT an evil act.

Slipperychicken
2014-03-21, 11:21 AM
The paladin didn't even think to go for sense motive

Characters don't need to declare Sense Motive. It should be automatically rolled whenever an appropriate situation comes up.

Kruploy
2014-03-21, 11:51 AM
Sorry guys let me clear a few thing up quick.

First, when I wrote "shift the paladin alignment to lawful neutral" I meant "shift the paladin's alignment towards lawful neutral" that is not make him LN and make him fall per se but make it easier for him to fall in the future.

Secondly, yeah I rolled for the sense motive check but the guy didn't make it. I remember it was a very close roll, someting like a 1 point difference. I remember breathing a sigh of relief that the plot would continue as scheduled lol.

Also, the chieftain reacted a he did because he thought the party were agents of the enemy sent to deprive him of his authority. He had already lost a lot of men in addition to a number of innocent children in the recent attack before repelling the attackers and was understandably outraged as a result at anything human.

@RedMage125

The village elder is a non-evil yet horrifyingly racist cleric. His backstory is that he fought against an alliance of Orcs tribes in a past large scale war between humans and orcs and has become extremely prejudiced as a result against anything monstrous. He retired to become the elder of a backwater village when he was exiled from his country after committing horrific crimes against monstrous sentients.

So yes, he was in on the plot and wanted to mask his involment by getting the paladin. As his racist tendencies are known, powerful people who would want to know why a well established goblin tribe was killed to a man would immediately suspect him. By capturing the paladin, his plan is to suggest that the paladin was put under a spell by the party's wizard to engage in the massacre.

As you may suspect, he is gonna be one of the villains and his job will be to sow dissent in the party and hopefully turn them against each other.

Kish
2014-03-21, 11:54 AM
My primary reaction to this is that the players were mousetrapped by the DM. Distasteful as I find it, it's simply unrealistic not to acknowledge that a large number of players consider members of any race with a listed alignment of evil to be a type of large virii. But the characters, who grew up in a world where that is not the case, should have known that that was not the case in their world; they only fell into the trap because of the equivalent of the DM not mentioning, "There's a huge hole in the middle of the floor; do you stick to your declared action of walking straight across the room?" And to continue the metaphor, telling any of them "Your characters displayed racism to the point of being willing to murder sapients for being the wrong species, so clearly you're less good than you declared yourselves" would be a lot like telling the fell-in-the-hole person, "Since you don't know to not walk straight into a pit, I'm cutting your Wisdom score in half."

Now, if you spell out to your players, "This game is run by the book in that racism is evil, unchanged by any amounts of sophistry," and they kill a member of an "evil race" in a situation where they wouldn't kill a human after that, then I'd throw the book at them.

And by your description of the village elder, I'm choking hard on "non-evil." In fact, your description has me declaring him "definitely very thoroughly evil" three times over.

Ring_of_Gyges
2014-03-21, 01:33 PM
Wait what?

If you killing a bunch of people you mistakenly believe are demons what difference does it make if the delusion is madness or a fast talking glabrezu? I really don't understand what kind of distinction that quote is trying to make.

There's also a dis-analogy there. Mass murder of demons is ok, because demons are physical embodiments of evil, every one of them is guaranteed to be irredeemably evil.

Mass murder of villagers, only some of which are guilty of crimes, and all of whom can potentially be reasoned with is very different.

Think of it this way. Suppose a medieval king gets sick of all these viking raiders, so he puts some troops on a boat, follows the vikings home and kills everyone in the village, women, kids, old people, goats, whoever.

Once you make it humans in the example it seems really clear that whatever legitimate grievance you have against the warriors, chopping up the women and kids back in Norway is over the line. You don't get to split little Billy's skull with an axe, even if his daddy is a murderous viking. If it's the dark ages, people might accept it, but to modern ears it's collective punishment and specifically defined as a war crime.

hamishspence
2014-03-21, 01:36 PM
The I suggest you read your 3.5e DMG, page 134. A single action should NOT cause a change in alignment. Alignment change is gradual and takes time. Time, by the RAW, to be no less than a week of in game time.

The DMG also says that exceptions can exist - that if the DM wants, they can have an Evil character have a total epiphany and become Good.

RedMage125
2014-03-21, 02:40 PM
The DMG also says that exceptions can exist - that if the DM wants, they can have an Evil character have a total epiphany and become Good.
Yes, major epiphanies.

Finding out you were duped into a goblin massacre when you thought you were saving people hardly counts.


Wait what?

If you killing a bunch of people you mistakenly believe are demons what difference does it make if the delusion is madness or a fast talking glabrezu? I really don't understand what kind of distinction that quote is trying to make.
The distinction is in the initiator of the action and intent on the part of the enacting person. If you are mad, it is still YOUR decision to kill those people, you're just wrong. Much like how Miko fell because she mistakenly believed Shojo was part of a conspiracy with the OotS, working with Xykon. If you are duped by a fast-talking demon, it is the demon's intent initiating this action. The evil falls on the demon, the good person was just its tool to enact the deed. The person never would have done it if he were not convinced by an outside agent that the townsfolk were demons.


There's also a dis-analogy there. Mass murder of demons is ok, because demons are physical embodiments of evil, every one of them is guaranteed to be irredeemably evil.

Mass murder of villagers, only some of which are guilty of crimes, and all of whom can potentially be reasoned with is very different. All of this is corect, and I see no dis-analogy.


Think of it this way. Suppose a medieval king gets sick of all these viking raiders, so he puts some troops on a boat, follows the vikings home and kills everyone in the village, women, kids, old people, goats, whoever.

Once you make it humans in the example it seems really clear that whatever legitimate grievance you have against the warriors, chopping up the women and kids back in Norway is over the line. You don't get to split little Billy's skull with an axe, even if his daddy is a murderous viking. If it's the dark ages, people might accept it, but to modern ears it's collective punishment and specifically defined as a war crime.
This is in no way a good analogy with the example in the BoVD. People, even murderous vikings-are not demons. Demons are evil incarnate, Evil is literally a force that composes their physical bodies.

russdm
2014-03-21, 02:50 PM
The Book of Vile Darkness is wrong, because the character choose to believe what the Glabrezu said and then believed that without apparently taking any action to determine the validity of the claims, but instead poisoned the well. That's bona fide evil to me because you are deliberately killing everyone without taking steps to be sure. Its just so out there as a response.

It sounds like you are bringing up the defense of "Its listed as evil in its monster entry, so its a freebie to kill" Mentality that is used solely by murderhobos. The "Its evil, we can kill freely" bit that leads to characters like Miko. The designers themselves said there were exceptions, even for fiends.

The Alignment is not intended to be used as crutch to provide for freebie killing. That's not what Heroic adventurers would do, sorry. No hero I can think of would use the alignment system as a justification to just kill on sight for some creatures.

hamishspence
2014-03-21, 02:56 PM
The Book of Vile Darkness is wrong, because the character choose to believe what the Glabrezu said and then believed that without apparently taking any action to determine the validity of the claims, but instead poisoned the well. That's bona fide evil to me because you are deliberately killing everyone without taking steps to be sure. Its just so out there as a response.

Monte Cook's take on alignment doesn't always match up with that of other authors.

russdm
2014-03-21, 03:05 PM
The distinction is in the initiator of the action and intent on the part of the enacting person. If you are mad, it is still YOUR decision to kill those people, you're just wrong. Much like how Miko fell because she mistakenly believed Shojo was part of a conspiracy with the OotS, working with Xykon. If you are duped by a fast-talking demon, it is the demon's intent initiating this action. The evil falls on the demon, the good person was just its tool to enact the deed. The person never would have done it if he were not convinced by an outside agent that the townsfolk were demons.

The person still choose to poison the well, meaning that it would kill every last one of the fiends without question. That choice and intent is on your head, not the demon's. Can you justify without using the alignment system that poisoning the well is not murder? I don't think so, because, well apparently its not heroic to be sure that you are poisoning only fiends by making sure you are making choices with enough information.



This is in no way a good analogy with the example in the BoVD. People, even murderous vikings-are not demons. Demons are evil incarnate, Evil is literally a force that composes their physical bodies.

That's true, but what about non-demons that are evil? Does any creature with an Evil descriptor translate into having evil being a force within them and thus they can be treated like demons? Or are you saying that if something is evil, then you are free to kill it like it was a demon, because demons are supposed to be destroyed?

Forum Explorer
2014-03-21, 03:09 PM
No, however that defense does apply to demons and devils in most D&D settings. They are being of pure evil and their goals are always evil. Their intent is evil and their methods are usually pretty evil as well. They cannot be redeemed and their existence is a literal blight on the world. Some people go so far as to have them without true free will. They must do evil in the same way our hearts must beat.

That being said a DM could have it where a demon could be redeemed in rare circumstances, but that's not an average choice for a story involving demons.

Now for races like Goblins, Drow, or Kobolds then you have a point.


Anyways on the subject at hand, well I'd say the Paladin's alignment didn't shift in this case. He was tricked pretty thoroughly and still offered them a chance to surrender. I am curious on why the cleric attacked him afterwards though instead of just letting him leave.

NEO|Phyte
2014-03-21, 03:16 PM
They cannot be redeemed

They can, actually, there is a WotC-sanctioned succubus paladin (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

russdm
2014-03-21, 03:19 PM
No, however that defense does apply to demons and devils in most D&D settings. They are being of pure evil and their goals are always evil. Their intent is evil and their methods are usually pretty evil as well. They cannot be redeemed and their existence is a literal blight on the world. Some people go so far as to have them without true free will. They must do evil in the same way our hearts must beat.

That being said a DM could have it where a demon could be redeemed in rare circumstances, but that's not an average choice for a story involving demons.

Now for races like Goblins, Drow, or Kobolds then you have a point.


Anyways on the subject at hand, well I'd say the Paladin's alignment didn't shift in this case. He was tricked pretty thoroughly and still offered them a chance to surrender. I am curious on why the cleric attacked him afterwards though instead of just letting him leave.

I agree with most of what you said, but Paladins are held to higher standards than the commoners, non-paladins, and are expected to be (According to fluff) shining examples of Goodness and Law-ness. The paladin didn't need to destroy the entire village, and letting that happen is wrong, because there were non-combatants there. If the paladin (and party) had only killed the warriors, I would agree that the paladin doesn't take a hit really, but they did wipe out everyone. That's an extreme response that I would only expect out of murderhobos who would happily kill everything and gleefully celebrate it out of game as being awesome.

Frozen_Feet
2014-03-21, 03:37 PM
Question:

Do you think it is at all fun to require your players to go CSI on every single plot hook ever to ensure that it's not someone trying to trick the team's paladin into falling? Because to me it sounds like the opposite of fun.

If a player of mine volunteers to play the equivalent of a premodern law-enforcement officer, they presumably want to play that role and all it includes, yes.

If playing that role is not what they want, they better not play paladins in the first place. Or alternatively, if they find they weren't up to the task but still want to continue, the Atonement spell and redemption quests exists for a reason.

If your players want to rape, pillage and burn without concerning themselves with petty little things like law, morals or common sense, they could at least be honest about it and do what mine did: kick out the goody-two-shoes, then start a career as pirates. :smalltongue:

Forum Explorer
2014-03-21, 03:51 PM
They can, actually, there is a WotC-sanctioned succubus paladin (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

Weird. You get my point though right?


I agree with most of what you said, but Paladins are held to higher standards than the commoners, non-paladins, and are expected to be (According to fluff) shining examples of Goodness and Law-ness. The paladin didn't need to destroy the entire village, and letting that happen is wrong, because there were non-combatants there. If the paladin (and party) had only killed the warriors, I would agree that the paladin doesn't take a hit really, but they did wipe out everyone. That's an extreme response that I would only expect out of murderhobos who would happily kill everything and gleefully celebrate it out of game as being awesome.

And if they were all paladins I'd agree with you. Also we don't really know the details when it comes to the non-combatants. I'm assuming that non-combatants ran away early on in the fight and simply weren't there for the whole massacre bit. I'm also assuming that the paladin was fighting goblins that were fighting back. But if he my assumptions are true and the party wizard (or a different member) decided to burn down the village while the fight was going or something along those lines, well the paladin isn't responsible for that decision, particularly if he isn't the party leader.

russdm
2014-03-21, 04:01 PM
And if they were all paladins I'd agree with you. Also we don't really know the details when it comes to the non-combatants. I'm assuming that non-combatants ran away early on in the fight and simply weren't there for the whole massacre bit. I'm also assuming that the paladin was fighting goblins that were fighting back. But if he my assumptions are true and the party wizard (or a different member) decided to burn down the village while the fight was going or something along those lines, well the paladin isn't responsible for that decision, particularly if he isn't the party leader.

It sounded from how the OP explained it that the non-combatants were all killed too, though by being burned to death. At no point does it suggest that the paladin encouraged or requested mercy from the other party members after dealing with the chieftain. Nor was there any sign that this camp was simply a "war" camp, which contained only warriors and helpers, but an actual village with goblin women and children. All of whom were also killed besides the warriors fighting against the party. That's something pretty extreme for a paladin to be present for without calling any of his party members to task for it.

I agree with everything Frozen_Feet said.

oudeis
2014-03-21, 05:57 PM
To repost what I said in another Paladin thread about six months ago,



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.

TuggyNE
2014-03-21, 07:52 PM
Actually, it wasn't my intent to have the paladin fall. I am surprised people are suggesting that I do so. I was merely pondering if I should shift the paladin's alignment to lawful neutral.

I don't think you should, no. Nor even shift it significantly towards LN. Alignment change is generally a stronger thing than paladin falls; most falls occur without any significant alignment change, although a change of alignment is enough on its own to trigger a fall even though none of the acts caused a fall directly.

In this case, LN is no more appropriate than LG for an act of "didn't make Sense Motive check": someone who gets fooled is not suddenly more neutral, they're just not wise enough to avoid an accidental atrocity. They may, however, be less paladinly, and a fall requiring XP-free atonement is … possible, but probably not entirely warranted. But "Good" and "has high mental stats and good skill modifiers" are two entirely unrelated things that you should not conflate.

kyoryu
2014-03-21, 10:32 PM
At the end of the day, a paladin that commits an evil act, even unknowingly, should have a hard time of it internally. That may be represented with an atonement.

A Paladin who says "eh, I didn't know, forget about 'em" is begging for a fall.

GungHo
2014-03-31, 08:23 AM
If the paladin finds out, he should probably atone. I don't think he'd fall for being tricked, but he should still not respond dispassionately or remorselessly to discovering that he was tricked, because that'd definitely be a neutral response. I don't think the response should be to necessarily put the village that tricked him to fire, but they should see some form of judgment, even if it's political.

Segev
2014-03-31, 10:47 AM
Suppose a medieval king gets sick of all these viking raiders, so he puts some troops on a boat, follows the vikings home and kills everyone in the village, women, kids, old people, goats, whoever.

Once you make it humans in the example it seems really clear that whatever legitimate grievance you have against the warriors, chopping up the women and kids back in Norway is over the line. You don't get to split little Billy's skull with an axe, even if his daddy is a murderous viking. If it's the dark ages, people might accept it, but to modern ears it's collective punishment and specifically defined as a war crime.Actually...

When it gets to the point of a King, his kingdom, and enemy lands...it becomes war. And war is horrible, but you engage in it until your enemy surrenders unconditionally.

Little Billy and his mommy were living large off of the pillage and murder of your King's people, who were no more able to defend themselves. They even knew and, given Viking culture, celebrated it. Billy was training to grow up and be just like his Daddy.

If Billy and his mother surrender, and aren't about to put a knife in your back, you can take them prisoner, or even adopt Billy. Heck, by Viking standards, you could take Billy's mommy as a concubine. Your standards may not permit this, depending.

But slaughtering them all is not wholly evil in a wartime situation. Only upon unconditional surrender does it become murder to kill those who have no provable connection to the crimes committed that provoked the war. Until then, "civilians" are still support for the enemy soldiers.

Liberation of enslaved populations is awesome when you can do it, but they must also surrender unconditionally to you for it to be something you can do. If they're genuinely beaten down and enslaved, they probably will do so as soon as their (former) masters are gone, whether because they're broken to whoever is exerting power over them or because they're genuinely grateful for their freedom.

Be merciful to those who surrender unconditionally. As merciful as you can possibly afford, even up to taking risks (though not idiotic ones, like simply letting them go or arming them). But don't hesitate, pre-surrender, to do whatever is necessary to secure that surrender or to eliminate all who will not.

Sebastrd
2014-03-31, 11:39 AM
If a player of mine volunteers to play the equivalent of a premodern law-enforcement officer, they presumably want to play that role and all it includes, yes.

If playing that role is not what they want, they better not play paladins in the first place.

I don't recall any of that being in the PHB. :smallconfused:

Zanos
2014-03-31, 12:08 PM
Wait what?

If you killing a bunch of people you mistakenly believe are demons what difference does it make if the delusion is madness or a fast talking glabrezu? I really don't understand what kind of distinction that quote is trying to make.

There's also a dis-analogy there. Mass murder of demons is ok, because demons are physical embodiments of evil, every one of them is guaranteed to be irredeemably evil.

Mass murder of villagers, only some of which are guilty of crimes, and all of whom can potentially be reasoned with is very different.

Think of it this way. Suppose a medieval king gets sick of all these viking raiders, so he puts some troops on a boat, follows the vikings home and kills everyone in the village, women, kids, old people, goats, whoever.

Once you make it humans in the example it seems really clear that whatever legitimate grievance you have against the warriors, chopping up the women and kids back in Norway is over the line. You don't get to split little Billy's skull with an axe, even if his daddy is a murderous viking. If it's the dark ages, people might accept it, but to modern ears it's collective punishment and specifically defined as a war crime.
I skimmed the thread, but I see no mention of the Paladin slaughtering innocent women and children for kicks(or at all). You can easily replace the goblins with a camp of human barbarians or something and it seems fine to me. Wounded guy asks you to take out the bandits who are camped over the hill because they've been raiding his town and attacked him. Paladin walks over, the chief refuses to engage in diplomacy and attacks, and the bandits are killed by the Paladin and his allies.

I see no way in which this situation could possibly require atonement, an alignment shift, or a fall. The paladin offered parlay, was refused, and was attacked.

Kish
2014-03-31, 01:11 PM
I skimmed the thread, but I see no mention of the Paladin slaughtering innocent women and children for kicks(or at all).

He said the entire tribe; why are you parsing that into a bandit camp?

Zanos
2014-03-31, 01:23 PM
He said the entire tribe; why are you parsing that into a bandit camp?
I assume the OP is intelligent enough to not have to ask others if something should happen to a Paladin if they murdered a bunch of children.

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-01, 08:16 AM
I don't recall any of that being in the PHB. :smallconfused:

Any of what?

Like, say, the Paladin code that simultaneously requires them to respect the law, protect innocents and punish those who harm innocents?

Detect Evil, Zone of Truth, Mark of Justice and other Paladin spells explicitly made for purpose of detecting, interrogating and punishing wrong-doers?

The very concept of Lawful Good, demanding respect for and adherence to tradition, authority, creature rights and benevolence towards life?

The Paladin archetype, the Knight in Shining Armor, encompasses and is a direct precursor to the Good Cop, the by-the-book do-gooder of modern fiction. (Best example would be Captain Carrot from Discworld, though other examples of the archetype exists everywhere from chivalry stories to Westerns.) If you don't understand, or are not willing to accept, the Paladin's role as the Good Cop, you should not be playing one. If others don't understand or are not willing to accept that, then it's time for them to do some thinking or find a way to kick the paladin character out of the group*).

*) This is not the same as kicking the player out, or even the same as removing the paladin character from play. It's perfectly possible for players and their characters to play against each other if they can't play with each other. People tend to forget this because they buy too hard to the saying "don't split the group" or have not developed the skills necessary for running a game for a divided group.

Amphetryon
2014-04-01, 04:25 PM
Any of what?

Like, say, the Paladin code that simultaneously requires them to respect the law, protect innocents and punish those who harm innocents?

Detect Evil, Zone of Truth, Mark of Justice and other Paladin spells explicitly made for purpose of detecting, interrogating and punishing wrong-doers?

The very concept of Lawful Good, demanding respect for and adherence to tradition, authority, creature rights and benevolence towards life?

The Paladin archetype, the Knight in Shining Armor, encompasses and is a direct precursor to the Good Cop, the by-the-book do-gooder of modern fiction. (Best example would be Captain Carrot from Discworld, though other examples of the archetype exists everywhere from chivalry stories to Westerns.) If you don't understand, or are not willing to accept, the Paladin's role as the Good Cop, you should not be playing one. If others don't understand or are not willing to accept that, then it's time for them to do some thinking or find a way to kick the paladin character out of the group*).

*) This is not the same as kicking the player out, or even the same as removing the paladin character from play. It's perfectly possible for players and their characters to play against each other if they can't play with each other. People tend to forget this because they buy too hard to the saying "don't split the group" or have not developed the skills necessary for running a game for a divided group.
Emphasis mine. The section I emphasized reads, from here, as saying there's only one possible correct way to play a Paladin, period, regardless of DM/Campaign/etc. Is that truly your intention?

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-01, 04:50 PM
Mu.

Your question presupposes there is no variation within the role. That is incorrect. However, the Paladin, as presented in AD&D and D&D, is a very narrow role. Much narrower than any other base class, with the Druid being a distant second. There are multiple ways to play the class correctly, but all of those require understanding and accepting that being the Good Cop is always part of that role. This is not the same as slavishly adhering to that role; rather, it means a person must understand that a character who is not the Good Cop also isn't much a Paladin.

This should be really obvious, considering Paladin is only allowed one alignment out of nine and is subject to multiple additional restrictions.

It is possible to broaden the concept of "paladin" so that being the Good Cop is no longer a fundmental part of the role, but that requires deliberately breaking off from the alignment restrictions and the code of chivalry - the two things that define the Paladin's role the most. At that point, you should really ask yourself are you really talking of a paladin, or some vastly more generic holy warrior?

Fabletop
2014-04-01, 06:34 PM
Alignment shifts are products of PCs performing knowingly wrong actions in regard to their alignment.

The Paladin thought he/she was in the right, so no issue.

{{scrubbed}}

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-01, 07:00 PM
I assume the OP is intelligent enough to not have to ask others if something should happen to a Paladin if they murdered a bunch of children.

Except, as far as I've seen and read, the party had explicitly murdered Goblin women, children, elderly and other non-combatants. This wasn't a war camp or a wandering band, this was specifically a "tribe", which means anywhere from 40 to 400 non-combatants per the monster entry guidelines.

Jeff the Green
2014-04-01, 07:15 PM
Yes, he should fall. As mentioned, atonement explicitly works for unwitting/compelled bad actions at no XP cost.

However, he should have fallen the moment he attacked an innocent, noticed that he lost his powers, and said "Oh ****, guys, these aren't evil monsters; stop!" Then he could have gone back, dealt with the village, then found a priest somewhere to get his powers back.

In my opinion, making a paladin fall is unacceptable only in a few circumstances:

Morton's fork—when whatever action the paladin takes is evil, so they can't escape falling.
Difficult atonement—when atonement isn't readily available within the restrictions in the spell.
Player expectations—when the player has a reasonable expectation that they won't fall. (N.B. that this isn't the case in standard 3.5, since you fall by default)
OOC trickery—when it is DM trickery (not NPC trickery) that causes them to fall. I.e. the DM leads the player to believe that all goblins are evil when there isn't sufficient IC information for the character to believe that.

Kaun
2014-04-01, 08:46 PM
If the paladin is slaughtering anything it should instantly raise alarm bells.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-01, 11:17 PM
Alignment shifts are products of PCs performing knowingly wrong actions in regard to their alignment.

The Paladin thought he/she was in the right, so no issue.

{{scrubbed}}.

Pretty much this. What the paladin did was really stupid and naive, but stupidity and naivete are not evil and he was deceived into thinking what he's doing is objectively good. Also doing such things to your fellow players is just a colossal jerk move.

Amphetryon
2014-04-02, 06:44 AM
Mu.

Your question presupposes there is no variation within the role. That is incorrect. However, the Paladin, as presented in AD&D and D&D, is a very narrow role. Much narrower than any other base class, with the Druid being a distant second. There are multiple ways to play the class correctly, but all of those require understanding and accepting that being the Good Cop is always part of that role. This is not the same as slavishly adhering to that role; rather, it means a person must understand that a character who is not the Good Cop also isn't much a Paladin.

This should be really obvious, considering Paladin is only allowed one alignment out of nine and is subject to multiple additional restrictions.

It is possible to broaden the concept of "paladin" so that being the Good Cop is no longer a fundmental part of the role, but that requires deliberately breaking off from the alignment restrictions and the code of chivalry - the two things that define the Paladin's role the most. At that point, you should really ask yourself are you really talking of a paladin, or some vastly more generic holy warrior?

Your original post presupposes there's only one viable role. I would posit that this is also incorrect.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-02, 10:34 AM
Pretty much this. What the paladin did was really stupid and naive, but stupidity and naivete are not evil and he was deceived into thinking what he's doing is objectively good. Also doing such things to your fellow players is just a colossal jerk move.

So...placing a tribe that consists of warriors, women, children and other noncombatants is a colossal jerk move now? The OP, as the DM/GM, didn't make any of his PCs burn down the entire settlement and exterminate every goblin present with extreme prejudice. They took it upon themselves to not only slay the goblins who attacked them, but also every other goblin present.

Sebastrd
2014-04-02, 10:37 AM
Any of what?

Like, say, the Paladin code that simultaneously requires them to respect the law, protect innocents and punish those who harm innocents?

Detect Evil, Zone of Truth, Mark of Justice and other Paladin spells explicitly made for purpose of detecting, interrogating and punishing wrong-doers?

The very concept of Lawful Good, demanding respect for and adherence to tradition, authority, creature rights and benevolence towards life?

The Paladin archetype, the Knight in Shining Armor, encompasses and is a direct precursor to the Good Cop, the by-the-book do-gooder of modern fiction. (Best example would be Captain Carrot from Discworld, though other examples of the archetype exists everywhere from chivalry stories to Westerns.) If you don't understand, or are not willing to accept, the Paladin's role as the Good Cop, you should not be playing one. If others don't understand or are not willing to accept that, then it's time for them to do some thinking or find a way to kick the paladin character out of the group*).

*) This is not the same as kicking the player out, or even the same as removing the paladin character from play. It's perfectly possible for players and their characters to play against each other if they can't play with each other. People tend to forget this because they buy too hard to the saying "don't split the group" or have not developed the skills necessary for running a game for a divided group.

It looks like Amphetryon has this one covered, so I'll just say I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation and leave it at that.

theNater
2014-04-02, 11:48 AM
So...placing a tribe that consists of warriors, women, children and other noncombatants is a colossal jerk move now? The OP, as the DM/GM, didn't make any of his PCs burn down the entire settlement and exterminate every goblin present with extreme prejudice. They took it upon themselves to not only slay the goblins who attacked them, but also every other goblin present.
So the DM has the wounded guard explain about the goblin village, and the party heads out and declares their intent to burn the tents. There's a few ways a DM can respond to that.

Good DM: Are you sure? This is a whole village, there are probably women and children in those tents.
Great DM: As the first tent goes up in flames, a family of goblins runs out, screaming. The clothing of one of the little ones is burning, the others are trying to put her out, with limited success.
Jerk DM: OK. By the way, you're Evil now for killing all the noncombatants.

Tengu_temp
2014-04-02, 12:58 PM
So...placing a tribe that consists of warriors, women, children and other noncombatants is a colossal jerk move now? The OP, as the DM/GM, didn't make any of his PCs burn down the entire settlement and exterminate every goblin present with extreme prejudice. They took it upon themselves to not only slay the goblins who attacked them, but also every other goblin present.

Creating a situation that literally has no purpose other than to make the paladin fall is a jerk move. I didn't say anything about placing tribes or noncombatants. Strawman much?

hamishspence
2014-04-02, 01:04 PM
Actually...

When it gets to the point of a King, his kingdom, and enemy lands...it becomes war. And war is horrible, but you engage in it until your enemy surrenders unconditionally.

Little Billy and his mommy were living large off of the pillage and murder of your King's people, who were no more able to defend themselves. They even knew and, given Viking culture, celebrated it. Billy was training to grow up and be just like his Daddy.

If Billy and his mother surrender, and aren't about to put a knife in your back, you can take them prisoner, or even adopt Billy. Heck, by Viking standards, you could take Billy's mommy as a concubine. Your standards may not permit this, depending.

But slaughtering them all is not wholly evil in a wartime situation. Only upon unconditional surrender does it become murder to kill those who have no provable connection to the crimes committed that provoked the war. Until then, "civilians" are still support for the enemy soldiers.

Even Dungeonomicon doesn't go that far - at least, for most monster races:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(DnD_Other)/Socialnomicon


Living With Yourself After a Raid

The goblins have gone and conducted a raid on your village in full force. They rode in, took a bunch of the sheep, killed some of the people, set fire to some of the cottages, and rode away again with Santa Sacks filled with this year's crop. And they laughed because they thought it was funny. And now that your elder brother has been slain you want to dedicate yourself to the eradication of the Goblin Menace and begin the training necessary to become a Ranger so that you can empty the goblin village from the other side of the valley once and for all.
Par for the course D&D, right? Wrong! Killing all the goblins isn't just an Evil act, it's unthinkable to most D&D inhabitants. This is the Classical Era, and actually sowing the fields of Carthage with salt is an atrocity of such magnitude that people will speak of it for thousands of years. In the D&D world, goblins raid human settlements with raiding parties, humans raid goblin settlements with "adventuring parties", and like the cattle raiding culture of Scotland, it's simply accepted by all participants as a fact of life.
When your city is raided by other groups of humanoids, it's a bad thing for your city. Orcs may kidnap some of your relatives and use them as slaves (or food), and many of your fellow villagers may lose their lives defending lives and property important to them. But that's part of life in the age, and people just sort of expect that sort of thing.

Razing Hell: When Genocide is the Answer:

Sometimes in history there would come a great villain who just didn't get with the program. The Classical example is the Assyrians. Those bastards went around from city to city stacking heads in piles and levying 100% taxation and such to conquered foes. They became… unpopular, and eventually were destroyed as a people. That's the law of the jungle as far back as there are any records: if a group pushes things too far the rules of mercy and raiding simply stop applying. Goblins, orcs, sahuagin… these guys generally aren't going to cross that line. But if they do, it's OK for the gloves to come off. In fact, if some group of orcs decides to kill everyone in your village while you're out hunting so that you come home to find that you are the last survivor, other humanoids (even other Evil humanoids like gnolls) will sign up to exterminate the tribe that has crossed the line.

Cultural relativism goes pretty far in D&D. Acceptable cultural practices include some pretty over-the-top practices such as slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice. But genocide is still right out. That being said, some creatures simply haven't gotten with the program, and they are kill-on-sight anywhere in the civilized world or in the tribes of savage humanoids. Mindflayers, Kuo-Toans, and [Monster] simply do not play the same game that everyone else is playing, mostly because their culture simply does not understand other races as having value. And that means that even other Evil races want to exterminate those peoples as a public service. Like the Assyrians, they've simply pushed their luck too far, and the local hobgoblin king will let you marry his daughter if you help wipe them out of an area.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-02, 01:58 PM
Creating a situation that literally has no purpose other than to make the paladin fall is a jerk move. I didn't say anything about placing tribes or noncombatants. Strawman much?
Yeah, no.

He didn't make the situation to make the Paladin fall. He asked if the Paladin should fall for doing what he did, after purposely not really investigating and just taking the people who deceived him at face value. So, I'm going to counter your strawman with a red herring.

@Nater: That's a nice assumption, but I don't believe the OP said what he did in regards to them saying they want to burn the village to the ground.

russdm
2014-04-02, 03:31 PM
I disagree with some people. The OP had the goblin camp be a tribal camp, not a raiding camp with only warriors. So there were non-combatants present and using the justification "They are goblins, so they are guilty of something" is wrong. Also, the party choose to kill everyone freely, they weren't encouraged to do so by the OP.

The party wiped out the entire tribe. The Paladin doesn't appear to be feeling or finding any issues with this. And even if you are still deceived, you are still responsible for your actions. Otherwise, V would not have affected as V was or the fiends pointing out that they couldn't actually control V's actions meaning that they had lied about V's alignment being affected.

Yes, I would suppose that creating situations to make Paladins fall by the DM is bad, but what if the DM didn't do that and the paladin still does something requiring atonement? Are they supposed to then be given a "atonement Free" card because the DM shouldn't have let them fall?

If you play a paladin that does whatever they do based on what they are told, whether or not it is true, is a player that is allowing others to dictate their actions for them. Oh, but he was deceived you say. Sure, but it is the paladin's player who has a responsibility to determine how he will react when creatures try to deceive him because this will happen. The only way for it to not, is to have the DM never be allowed to deceive the poor paladin.

As in regard to the OP, it was stated that the noncombatants' tents were set on fire and that they were killed by fire, and this was both stated by and confirmed by the OP. In my Judgement, the paladin needs to atone. If he chooses to accept what happened, well then he can accept the loss of his powers. Its one thing to feel bad about being tricked, its another to do nothing about it otherwise.

theNater
2014-04-02, 07:10 PM
I disagree with some people. The OP had the goblin camp be a tribal camp, not a raiding camp with only warriors. So there were non-combatants present and using the justification "They are goblins, so they are guilty of something" is wrong. Also, the party choose to kill everyone freely, they weren't encouraged to do so by the OP.
First, I want to remind everybody of this line in the original post(emphasis mine).

I ask because I recently tricked my pals, one of whom was playing a paladin, into slaughtering an entire tribe of goblins.
This suggests that the OP was, indeed, trying to get the party to slaughter the entire tribe. An easy way to do this is to let the party assume that they are dealing with a warband instead of a village proper-note that the goblins are in tents rather than huts, which is going to subtly suggest to most people that this is more likely a raiding party than a full tribe.

If, as is possible from what little we know, the players believed themselves to be attacking a raiding camp instead of a tribal camp, that's on the DM. If the DM fails to make that clear and then goes on to penalize the party for it, that's the DM being a jerk.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-02, 07:14 PM
First, I want to remind everybody of this line in the original post(emphasis mine).

This suggests that the OP was, indeed, trying to get the party to slaughter the entire tribe. An easy way to do this is to let the party assume that they are dealing with a warband instead of a village proper-note that the goblins are in tents rather than huts, which is going to subtly suggest to most people that this is more likely a raiding party than a full tribe.

If, as is possible from what little we know, the players believed themselves to be attacking a raiding camp instead of a tribal camp, that's on the DM. If the DM fails to make that clear and then goes on to penalize the party for it, that's the DM being a jerk.

And then he made this post, clarifying that what he meant was that the party got tricked, not that he was tricking them into a "Paladin falls no matter what" scenario. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338053-Is-alignment-dependent-on-ignorant-actions&p=17222393&viewfull=1#post17222393)

Raine_Sage
2014-04-02, 07:21 PM
There's also the fact that it doesn't seem like the Paladin either ordered the burning or was participating in the burning, that's all on the wizard. I know all too well the sting of your party members deciding they're going to do something without asking input. Hell in a recent game one player literally forced the rest of the party to either assist him in attacking a group of previously cooperative assassins (who obviously were no longer inclined to cooperate with the party) or leave him hanging most likely to die along with the party member he was attempting to rescue. Literally one minute they're talking and the next minute he's flinging his sword at people.

Likewise if the Paladin is trying to engage a bunch of hostile goblins, while in the background his party member is lighting tents on fire, I would not blame the Paladin for that. He's trying to fight he doesn't have time to police everyone in the heat of battle.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-02, 07:27 PM
There's also the fact that it doesn't seem like the Paladin either ordered the burning or was participating in the burning, that's all on the wizard. I know all too well the sting of your party members deciding they're going to do something without asking input. Hell in a recent game one player literally forced the rest of the party to either assist him in attacking a group of previously cooperative assassins (who obviously were no longer inclined to cooperate with the party) or leave him hanging most likely to die along with the party member he was attempting to rescue. Literally one minute they're talking and the next minute he's flinging his sword at people.

Likewise if the Paladin is trying to engage a bunch of hostile goblins, while in the background his party member is lighting tents on fire, I would not blame the Paladin for that. He's trying to fight he doesn't have time to police everyone in the heat of battle.

Unfortunately, for the Paladin, they are considered responsible for the actions of their party members. The Paladin may not have lit the fires, but they also didn't try to put them out and save any goblin lives.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-02, 07:33 PM
Unfortunately, for the Paladin, they are considered responsible for the actions of their party members. The Paladin may not have lit the fires, but they also didn't try to put them out and save any goblin lives.

I think it would be very hard to try and assist the goblins when said goblins are also attempting to put a spear in your back. That's not lawful good that's lawful stupid. I also believe that if you're going to play a murderhobo then paladin is not the class for you, but there's a thin line between "always doing your best to uphold the ideals of good and law" and "being suicidal when your teammates need you." I wouldn't penalize the Paladin for prioritizing preventing a tpk over trying to control the wizard. I might penalize the paladin for failing to go "what the hell man?" after the fighting has died down and he has a chance to process what happened.

But that also depends on how clear the DM was about noncombatants actually being involved. If he mentioned women and children fleeing and on fire then that's one thing. If the wizard just burns the tents and he goes "Ok tents are gone now what?" then that's another. One paints a picture of a horrible atrocity and one assumes the PC just burned a bunch of empty tents.

theNater
2014-04-02, 07:56 PM
And then he made this post, clarifying that what he meant was that the party got tricked, not that he was tricking them into a "Paladin falls no matter what" scenario. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338053-Is-alignment-dependent-on-ignorant-actions&p=17222393&viewfull=1#post17222393)
I read that post, and noticed a distinct lack of any statement even similar to "I reminded them there were probably non-combatants in there" between "the wizard set the tents on fire" and "the entire tribe was scoured by the party". I also noted a distinct lack of indications that the party members saw any goblins at the camp other than the chieftain and the goblins attacking them.

If the DM didn't tell the players there were noncombatants at the camp, the deaths of the noncombatants is the DM's fault, not theirs.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-02, 07:57 PM
I read that post, and noticed a distinct lack of any statement even similar to "I reminded them there were probably non-combatants in there" between "the wizard set the tents on fire" and "the entire tribe was scoured by the party". I also noted a distinct lack of indications that the party members saw any goblins at the camp other than the chieftain and the goblins attacking them.

If the DM didn't tell the players there were noncombatants at the camp, the deaths of the noncombatants is the DM's fault, not theirs.

That's all your assumption until the OP clarifies.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-02, 08:31 PM
Pretty much, unless we get an exact play by play of the situation it's hard to make a definitive call which is generally how most alignment arguments end. I assume the OP has probably already resolved this with the players and moved on by now.

I will say I never really cared for Paladin's being held responsible for the actions of the rest of the party. I understand the reasoning behind it of course, you can't be a paragon of good while turning a blind eye to your companions slaughtering an orphanage or something. On the other hand that's an entirely different kettle of fish from a previously good (as in pinging good on detect evil and having before then been more or less reasonable) party member deciding to jump off the deep end suddenly and without warning.

I mean can you imagine that? You're embroiled in a battle for the fate of the city, you're defending the line from enemy assault when out of nowhere a bomb set by one of the players goes off taking out the enemies and half the city you were supposed to be defending, slaughtering thousands of innocents in an 'ends justify the means' ploy. Laying, stunned, bloody, inches from death on the battlefield and baffled by what has just transpired, your deity goes "wow your friend is nuts, shame on you for not knowing that" before stripping you of your powers.

Basically I guess what I'm saying is context is everything.

russdm
2014-04-02, 10:06 PM
I would think that the Deity would wait until after what you do before stripping you of powers. I think or would think that the designers intended for the paladin character to go all "What the Hell, Hero?" on fellow party members if they did stuff. Otherwise, why make what your party does affect your alignment? That's just designing a class with limitations to grief the class when it is being played.

theNater
2014-04-02, 11:01 PM
That's all your assumption until the OP clarifies.
I am assuming nothing. There are two possibilities.

1)The party knowingly slaughtered the noncombatants of the tribe.
2)Due to poor communication on the DMs, the party unknowingly slaughtered the noncombatants of the tribe.

Neither of these has been ruled out by what we know so far. If the second is true, which is possible, then for the DM to punish the party for the deaths of the noncombatants would be a jerk move.

Note that between the person who I know was trying to trick the other players and the person I know nothing about, the person I know nothing about is the one who gets the benefit of the doubt. As such, I'm currently inclined to side with the players, though I recognize the possibility that doing so may be incorrect.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-03, 01:18 AM
I would think that the Deity would wait until after what you do before stripping you of powers. I think or would think that the designers intended for the paladin character to go all "What the Hell, Hero?" on fellow party members if they did stuff. Otherwise, why make what your party does affect your alignment? That's just designing a class with limitations to grief the class when it is being played.

Unfortunately the pitfall of the Paladin is that it puts a lot of interpretation in the DM's hands. So trouble happens mostly when the DM and the Player have different expectations of how a Paladin should play and when they should be held accountable for things. And given the tricky nature of good and evil even within the simplified D&D morality system, disagreements are always bound to happen.

Both player and DM might agree that the Paladin should fall if he witnesses their team mate commit some crime without making an attempt to stop it or repair the damage caused.

Both Player and DM might agree that the Paladin should fall if a party member does something "off screen" or while the party is split, the Paladin finds out about it, and then proceeds to shrug it off without so much as a lecture.

Player and DM might have a minor disagreement about whether or not the Paladin should fall if the Paladin Lectures the PC about what happens off screen, makes them promise to atone/make amends/not to do it again, but still lets them travel with the party.

Player and DM will probably have a table flipping argument if the Paladin falls for said off screen action before he even becomes aware IC that the action has taken place or that a party member was responsible.

And that's just one facet of "what can go wrong with Paladins" to the point where a lot of people advise would be Paladin players to sit with their DM and go over a code of ethics both can agree upon. It's a wonder why anyone bothers to play them when they can just make a lawful good fighter with shiny armor and a big sword and not be at risk of losing class features to a vindictive DM.

Terazul
2014-04-03, 03:04 AM
And this is basically why I don't play Paladins.

Nah, he shouldn't fall at all. He got set up in a situation where he believed was doing the right thing, tried to be diplomatic about it, was attacked, and subsequently defended himself against enemies who didn't ask for quarter. After he finds out they weren't evil/bad/what have you, he should probably feel bad and seek retribution for being tricked/their losses. You're good. You're Just. That doesn't mean you have to deal nonlethal damage against everything non-evil. To quote the Save My Game article on alignments (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) which has an aside on Paladins:

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.

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

Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.
Emphasis added. Seems like he tried to peaceful about it, but you wouldn't have that. Not his fault.

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-03, 06:07 AM
Your original post presupposes there's only one viable role. I would posit that this is also incorrect.

You are not even wrong.

I said the role of the paladin encompasses the good cop, not "is limited to" it.

The paladin can perform many other roles (and in some cases, must), just as long as they are not in contradiction with being the good cop. Mechanically and conceptually, nothing prevents you from playing a paladin who is also a glorified callgirl. And again, understanding and accepting this is not the same as never playing those contradicting roles - it simply means you cease to be a paladin and end up as something else. (Fallen Paladin, Blackguard etc. - just like a good cop character might end up becoming a fallen hero, or a cowboy cop etc.)

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-03, 09:57 AM
As such, I'm currently inclined to side with the players, though I recognize the possibility that doing so may be incorrect.

And I'm inclined to side with the DM until we have more information that makes our sides more than assumptions on our parts.

Edit:

@ Terazul: He was accessory to the murder of innocents. He's guilty by association at the very least.

Segev
2014-04-03, 10:21 AM
Unless the Paladin's player was given information that would in some way let him know that his character was participating in the slaughter of the innocent and/or defenseless, there is no way the Paladin should fall.

As presented, we know he tried to be diplomatic, and that he was attacked. We are told a fellow PC (who also thought these goblins were evil) burned their tents. We are not given any indication that any of the PCs were given indication that innocents were being burned at the same time.

Since the title of the thread is asking about "ignorant actions," we can actually safely lay greater weight on the possibility that the PCs did not, in character, know there were innocents in the camp.

The PCs - the good-aligned ones, anyway - may feel bad upon discovering this. Probably should. The just PCs - most likely the Lawful ones with any Good leanings at all - will want to seek out those who tricked them.

If there is any reason the PCs should have, in-character, seen/heard/had-hint-that the goblins included non-combatants who were being slaughtered by their actions, the players are within their rights to be angry at the DM for not giving them these cues. If these cues were given and the players missed them, it is still reasonable to expect the DM to point out, "are you sure?" when the players say they do something he thinks wildly out of line with their normal expressed conscience.

If he's trying to tug at heart-strings and it's failing, he should ask the players what their characters are thinking, and maybe even risk giving away too much info just to see if they're on the same page he is. Or at least the same page he thinks they should be.

So, in short, unless he gave all the cues he could and made sure the players knew their characters should realize innocents are being massacred by their actions, nobody should suffer alignment penalties for the actions in that fight. Maybe for how they handle it after they learn the truth, but that's another story.

theNater
2014-04-03, 03:25 PM
And I'm inclined to side with the DM until we have more information that makes our sides more than assumptions on our parts.
Again, I am not making any assumptions. I am recognizing that two possibilities exist, and that I do not know which one is correct.

You are welcome to make any assumptions you like.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-03, 04:21 PM
Again, I am not making any assumptions. I am recognizing that two possibilities exist, and that I do not know which one is correct.

You are welcome to make any assumptions you like.

Those are still assumptions, as you do not know all of the information and are making your basis off of only the information you are privy to. That doesn't make your assumptions fact.

theNater
2014-04-03, 06:29 PM
Those are still assumptions, as you do not know all of the information and are making your basis off of only the information you are privy to. That doesn't make your assumptions fact.
You and I seem to be having some communication difficulties. Let me try something for clarification purposes.

Fact: It is possible that the DM did not properly inform the players of the presence of noncombatants.
Fact: It is possible that the players knowingly slaughtered noncombatants.
Fact: We don't know which, if either, of those two possibilities actually happened.

Do we agree on those three facts?

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-03, 06:51 PM
You and I seem to be having some communication difficulties. Let me try something for clarification purposes.

Fact: It is possible that the DM did not properly inform the players of the presence of noncombatants.
Fact: It is possible that the players knowingly slaughtered noncombatants.
Fact: We don't know which, if either, of those two possibilities actually happened.

Do we agree on those three facts?

I agree that those are two of multiple possibilities. But I do not agree that those are the only two possibilities.

Just as a third possibility, the characters could have possibly been properly informed, but failed to act upon that information.

A fourth is that they were not properly informed, discovered the existence of noncombatants and killed them anyways.

A fifth could be that they were well informed and did not view the goblins as noncombatants as they view goblins as valid targets regardless of age and are divinely mandated alright targets for wanton slaughter.

And so forth.

theNater
2014-04-03, 11:53 PM
I agree that those are two of multiple possibilities. But I do not agree that those are the only two possibilities.
At no point did I say they were. You seem to have spent five lines of text trying to convince me of something I already know; this is what makes me think we're having communication difficulties.

EDIT: Upon review, I note my comment in post #90 that "there are two possibilites". I meant to indicate that there are two possibilities under discussion, not that there are only two possibilities total. If that's the source of the confusion, I apologize for not being clear.

Tanuki Tales
2014-04-04, 02:52 PM
EDIT: Upon review, I note my comment in post #90 that "there are two possibilites". I meant to indicate that there are two possibilities under discussion, not that there are only two possibilities total. If that's the source of the confusion, I apologize for not being clear.

That's how I read it and it's fine. Miscommunications happen and at least we're both now on the same page. :smallsmile: