[3.PF] Paladin falls? Violent warfare.

[Fenryr]

It's Sunday! I don't care it's not Paladin's Falls Day!

The party is protecting a fort in the middle of the Bloody Forest and it's somewhat under the vigilance of a lizardfolk army. Negotiations fail and the lizardfolk has spies. Tired of all this chaos the party decides to scout around and annihilate all the spies. The party is successful against the first group they find, three lizardfolks. The Paladin, who is the leader of the current party, decides it's a good idea to send a message: nail them to a tree.

The DM says "No, you gonna fall" and the debate explodes. DM says it's desecrating a body. Paladin says he's not mutilating them but simply sticking them to a tree.

Additional information: Forgotten Realms. LG Paladin follower of The Red Knight.

The Red Knight, also known as "Lady of Strategy" and "Grandmaster of the Lanceboard", is deity of strategy, planning, and tactics. She is depicted as a dark haired woman in red plate armor who wields a longsword called Checkmate. She is elevated to godhood by Tempus, who she looks to as a father figure. Knowing her real name gives power over her, so only Tempus knows of it. She is an ally of Torm and Valkur, and an enemy of Garagos and Cyric.Her dogma dictates the use of careful tactics in battle to achieve victory, under the belief that sound strategy is the best way to win a battle with the most favorable outcome. Red Knight was first mentioned in the revised Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (1993).
The debate was somewhat unsuccessful and the whole group agreed it's a bad idea so we could keep playing.

But 'm curious. Should the Paladin fall?

[Spore]

Yes. It's unnecessary violence. You could even become LN for that.

[The Grue]

Absolutely the Paladin should have fallen.

Justice is not the same as Vengeance. Nailing scouts to trees to send a message isn't justice, and it isn't even vengeance. It's a scare tactic. Scare tactics are what Blackguards use.

Were I playing the Paladin, my response would be to capture the scouts, and send one of them back unarmed with bearing a note demanding parlay with their general. That's hardly the only possible response, but it demonstrates that the Paladin had the option not to inflict harm, and that said harm was therefore not necessary.

The lizardfolk scouts aren't even necessarily guilty of anything. In a society where citizens swear fealty to their lords, to serve and obey without question or reservation, the Nuremberg defence is completely valid. Those scouts were just following orders. If anyone can understand that it would be the Paladin.

[Gildedragon]

Soooo. I am assuming the Lizardfolk are dead... Nailing any living being to anything in any except the most metaphorical (and BoEF) sense is undoubtedly evil

Now does the paladin want to seem brutal? If not, this is poor tactics. And if yes: brutality isn't a reputation any G character ought to want, also it isn't "careful tactics".

What are the paladin's religion's funerary traditions? This probably violates his sense of proper disposal of the body

[BWR]

I suppose it depends a bit on how the scouts died.
If they were captured then executed, this is a questionable tactic, probably causing the paladin to fall, never mind the nailing to a tree.
If they were nailed to a tree while alive, this goes under torture and is an auto-fall for a paladin (and any good character, in my books)
If they were killed in combat then nailed to a tree, it gets a bit iffier. It's not a good action and I fail to see any reason beyond sheer intimidation (which is not a common paladin tactic). However, causing fear is not per def evil, and in this case might actually provide some strategic benefits, befitting the Red Knight (especially if there is some tenet about dead bodies being fair game to use however you wish to achieve victory). I would probably not topple a paladin on this alone, but would keep a very close eye on any other actions the paladin takes.

The player was wrong, nailing them to a tree is most definitely mutilating a body.

[The Grue]

However, causing fear is not per def evil, and in this case might actually provide some strategic benefits, befitting the Red Knight (especially if there is some tenet about dead bodies being fair game to use however you wish to achieve victory).

On this we disagree. Regardless of which deity the Paladin worships, the Paladin is beholden to his code first. And under that code, the ends do not justify the means. So while the Red Knight might approve, the Paladin's code cannot.

Of course, that is merely my interpretation of the Paladin's code, and the Lawful Good alignment.

[Fenryr]

I suppose it depends a bit on how the scouts died.
If they were captured then executed, this is a questionable tactic, probably causing the paladin to fall, never mind the nailing to a tree.
If they were nailed to a tree while alive, this goes under torture and is an auto-fall for a paladin (and any good character, in my books)
If they were killed in combat then nailed to a tree, it gets a bit iffier. It's not a good action and I fail to see any reason beyond sheer intimidation (which is not a common paladin tactic). However, causing fear is not per def evil, and in this case might actually provide some strategic benefits, befitting the Red Knight (especially if there is some tenet about dead bodies being fair game to use however you wish to achieve victory). I would probably not topple a paladin on this alone, but would keep a very close eye on any other actions the paladin takes.

The player was wrong, nailing them to a tree is most definitely mutilating a body.

Third option. Stealth was involved and we got them while they were unaware of us. No one was nailed to a tree because the DM warned the player.


On this we disagree. Regardless of which deity the Paladin worships, the Paladin is beholden to his code first. And under that code, the ends do not justify the means. So while the Red Knight might approve, the Paladin's code cannot.

Of course, that is merely my interpretation of the Paladin's code, and the Lawful Good alignment.

Personally I agree with this but I wanted to read other opinions.

The player is not pleased, of course, but the DM has the last word.

[Coidzor]

If they died in combat then, no, there's really nothing fall-worthy about it. It's not ideal Paladin behavior, mind, nor is it necessarily a winning strategy or one conducive to their aims.

If the lizardfolk were still alive and the Paladin took a living captive and summarily executed them by nailing them to a tree or nailed them to a tree and left them to die that way, that'd be different.


On this we disagree. Regardless of which deity the Paladin worships, the Paladin is beholden to his code first. And under that code, the ends do not justify the means. So while the Red Knight might approve, the Paladin's code cannot.

Of course, that is merely my interpretation of the Paladin's code, and the Lawful Good alignment.

Please point out how the code deals with the dispensation of bodies or touches upon the use of intimidation or psychological warfare. Because you seem to be reading a document that goes into a lot more depth than the piddly few paragraphs the rest of us have to go on.


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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

The only room for interpretation that I can see is that either A. nailing a body to a tree to communicate that spies are being summarily executed in keeping with the usual treatment of spies in warfare is an Evil Act or B. that doing so is not acting with honor to the point of being a gross violation of the code.

In short, this seems to be a case where people are seeing the code intersect with things that it doesn't even touch upon.

[HunterOfJello]

While I do not fully agree with the sentiment in real life, D&D has rules in several places that point towards the desecration of a dead body as being an Evil act with a capital E.

It's occasionally important that D&D has rather arbitrary definitions of Good and Evil that Paladins are expected to uphold. If you don't agree with them, then you might be d&d evil.

Necrophilia, for instance, is marked in the Book of Vile Darkness as being, "Among the foulest of fetishes" where in real life it's just something really weird and gross.

[BWR]

On this we disagree. Regardless of which deity the Paladin worships, the Paladin is beholden to his code first. And under that code, the ends do not justify the means. So while the Red Knight might approve, the Paladin's code cannot.

Of course, that is merely my interpretation of the Paladin's code, and the Lawful Good alignment.

The problem is you are assuming that intimidation and use of bodies for anything but funeral rites is evil. I can't off-hand recall any source that says that is the case. The paladin code, as ill-defined as it is, doesn't say anything about 'don't intimidate people' or 'don't do funny stuff with corpses'.
Most paladins I would accept in my game would not do this, certainly not as a habitual thing. Even once is questionable, and paladins (and any good characters) should avoid doing questionable things. But I cannot see that it is an autofall situation.

[Coidzor]

Personally I'd let them off with a warning about the questionability and type of reputation and, if they made a habit of carelessly disposing of bodies, cause the bodies of the dead that weren't disposed of properly to start rising as progressively more powerful undead until they either started to get the memo about why funeral rites exist or they started to depend upon their enemies rising as undead for the XP.

But then I don't really like the stranglehold Paladins have over what kind of story is being told at the table. :smalltongue:

[Pex]

Definitely not a Good idea in all meanings of "Good".

[Coidzor]

Definitely not a Good idea in all meanings of "Good".

Indeed. Why alert the spies that you're rounding them up and killing them before you've rounded them up and killed them?

[Gildedragon]

Personally I'd let them off with a warning about the questionability and type of reputation and, if they made a habit of carelessly disposing of bodies, cause the bodies of the dead that weren't disposed of properly to start rising as progressively more powerful undead until they either started to get the memo about why funeral rites exist or they started to depend upon their enemies rising as undead for the XP.

But then I don't really like the stranglehold Paladins have over what kind of story is being told at the table. :smalltongue:

Actually that is a great idea.
The act is squicky and (maybe) dishonorable (to the dead) but not (needfully) evil, esp if they don't have many ranks in Kn Rel (not enough skillpoints)

Couple days later lizardfolk spawn-making undead start appearing in the forest.
They eat a village... and then the PCs gotta rescue the Lizfolk...

[Fenryr]

Indeed. Why alert the spies that you're rounding them up and killing them before you've rounded them up and killed them?

The general idea was to make them mad and lure them to the fort so we the better position to fight. And it worked, the King of the Lizardfolks demanded a 1v1 against "our champion" outside the fort. But that's another story.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

While I do not fully agree with the sentiment in real life, D&D has rules in several places that point towards the desecration of a dead body as being an Evil act with a capital E.

Do we have a hard and fast definition of desecration of a corpse for within the D&D game? Nailing a body to a tree fits the definition used in American law, but so does moving a body or failing to report it to the authorities so I don't think we're using that as a standard.

[Angelalex242]

I wouldn't let him get away with it. I expect better then that from a Paladin. Besides, one guy isn't enough to make that tactic effective anyway. To make something like that really work, you've gotta go full on Vlad the Impaler with it, and that guy was Vile Feat class evil. He's the inspiration for Dracula for a reason.

[The Grue]

Please point out how the code deals with the dispensation of bodies or touches upon the use of intimidation or psychological warfare. Because you seem to be reading a document that goes into a lot more depth than the piddly few paragraphs the rest of us have to go on.


The problem is you are assuming that intimidation and use of bodies for anything but funeral rites is evil. I can't off-hand recall any source that says that is the case. The paladin code, as ill-defined as it is, doesn't say anything about 'don't intimidate people' or 'don't do funny stuff with corpses'.

Seems that in your eagerness to partake in an Internet Argument, you've both overlooked a key part of my post. I've included it below.


Of course, that is merely my interpretation of the Paladin's code, and the Lawful Good alignment.

I've no intention of getting sucked into yet another "RAW" debate. I interpreted the question to be less a "What does the unthinking rulebook say" and "What would you say if you were the DM" and answered it accordingly.

Now, here's an assumption that may not be a given: As the DM, I would not present the situation as "lol you fall sux2bu", I would present it as "Well you can do that, but if you do you're going to fall." Thus, rather than being tricked into losing his class abilities, the player has the option to do something more in line with what he's playing. If a retcon was necessary, it would instead be "Yeah if you'd done that thing last session you would have fallen, so what did you do instead?"

[Kudaku]

I'm going to say something I don't get to say very often:

In my opinion the DM handled the paladin problem well.

Leaving the bodies in a prominent location to serve as a deterrent might not qualify as evil (I'd see it as Neutral personally), but nailing them to a tree is unnecessarily macabre and strays into corpse mutilation.

Either way the DM gave him advance warning that he'd fall, gave him a fair chance to plead his case, and allowed him the opportunity to revise his decision. I think the DM made the right call.

[Coidzor]

Seems that in your eagerness to partake in an Internet Argument, you've both overlooked a key part of my post. I've included it below.

No, that's just what makes me curious to find out what you're interpretting there and why I supplied the two things that seemed most likely to me to be what you were talking about for you to confirm or deny and also why I touched upon you having greatly expanded it without sharing with the rest of the class. :smalltongue:

[The Grue]

No, that's just what makes me curious to find out what you're interpretting there and why I supplied the two things that seemed most likely to me to be what you were talking about for you to confirm or deny and also why I touched upon you having greatly expanded it without sharing with the rest of the class. :smalltongue:

Fair enough.

My starting assumption is that "Good", as one of the five abstract forces that make up alignments, does not believe that the ends justify the means. Case in point: if a Paladin commits an Evil act, they fall no matter the outcome of that act. The code makes no mention of committing evil to prevent a greater evil, of choosing the lesser of two evils, or variations thereof. If a Paladin willingly does something Evil, they fall, no discussion. This is consistent with the passage in the BoED that states (pg 9) "In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may achieve"

That being established, the question is whether or not desecrating bodies is an evil act. Depending on the setting's cosmology desecrating a corpse may interfere with the soul's journey to the afterlife, which is explicitly an evil act(in the BoVD, I think). Creating undead, even mindless undead is also an explicitly evil act, which at least implies that part of the reason it's evil is that you're desecrating a corpse by having it shamble around in a crude mockery of life. If creating undead was evil because it enslaved the departed soul, then it would only be evil to create intelligent undead. In other words not only is it disrespectful to the bloke whose corpse you're puppeting, it's a kind of blasphemy against life itself.

If desecrating a corpse is blasphemy, then there you have it. Nailing a body to a tree isn't nearly evil on the same scale as animating it into a zombie, but it is still an evil act. The Paladin's Code doesn't take the magnitude of an evil act into account, it merely says Willing Evil Act = Fallen. This makes sense, because a Paladin is supposed to be an examplar for all that is good and just.

Of course, if those scouts were still alive, then that's torture which is also explicitly an evil act.

[ArqArturo]

The paladin falls, war is inevitable, and the paladin is tempted by a fiend to join the ranks of the Blackguards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html)... Cookies are optional, black cloaks and blades dipped in the blood of the innocent are mandatory.

[Brunks]

The general idea was to make them mad and lure them to the fort so we the better position to fight. And it worked, the King of the Lizardfolks demanded a 1v1 against "our champion" outside the fort. But that's another story.

Escalating high tension situation into all out war. Not the soundest decision. He definitly should have fallen.

I'm not really a fan of the whole "round up all the cold bloods" but I asume you guys did your homework.

[firebrandtoluc]

It's not good, sure. But it's also not very Lawful. Honoring the dead is a tradition in most cultures. Unless the Paladin believes that Lizardfolk don't count as people...

[Deophaun]

My starting assumption is that "Good", as one of the five abstract forces that make up alignments, does not believe that the ends justify the means.
Then Good watches too many cartoons. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp8MNbyLyBo)

[Raven777]

Nailing critters to a tree is not big enough to warrant a fall.

[The Grue]

Then Good watches too many cartoons. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp8MNbyLyBo)

Are you suggesting that, as presented in the source material, the forces of Law and Good may have unreasonable expectations for how a Paladin should conduct himself?

Gee, I bet nobody's ever considered or commented on that before.

[ChaosArchon]

It's not good, sure. But it's also not very Lawful. Honoring the dead is a tradition in most cultures. Unless the Paladin believes that Lizardfolk don't count as people...

That's actually an interesting question and kind of a sidebar but what if a paladin commits the act with the frame of mind that lizardfolk are essentially animals, as far as I know paladins don't fall for skinning a rabbit so IC why would the paladin think he'd be committing an Evil act.

NB: I do not condone specieism in anyway, shape, or form was just an interesting thought, does intent matter at all. For example a paladin only falls from friendly Evil contact if he worked willingly with the individual knowing they were evil.

[Gildedragon]

That's actually an interesting question and kind of a sidebar but what if a paladin commits the act with the frame of mind that lizardfolk are essentially animals, as far as I know paladins don't fall for skinning a rabbit so IC why would the paladin think he'd be committing an Evil act.

NB: I do not condone specieism in anyway, shape, or form was just an interesting thought, does intent matter at all. For example a paladin only falls from friendly Evil contact if he worked willingly with the individual knowing they were evil.

Oh yeah, but the act becomes more evil because they are willing to reduce an overtly intelligent and sapient creature to "animal" status in their mind. If one is unconcerned for funerary rites, that is one thing, if one is concerned about funerary rites, but is willing to trasgress them on a (monstruous) humanoid "because they are animals" then... well that callousness is the seed of atrocity.

[ArqArturo]

So...

Paladin= High expectations of good.
Paladin + Hospitalier= Higher expectations of good.
Paladin + Hospitalier + Exalted feats/PrC= Saint template material.
Paladin + Hospitalier + Exalted feats/PrC+ Saint template= You make Astral Devas feel like Dretches when compared to you.
Paladin + Hospitalier + Exalted feats/PrC+ Saint template +VoP= Now that's just silly.

[Deophaun]

Are you suggesting that, as presented in the source material, the forces of Law and Good may have unreasonable expectations for how a Paladin should conduct himself?

Gee, I bet nobody's ever considered or commented on that before.
First, bravo on bringing an aggressive sarcastic response to what was a joke.

But if you want a suggestion, here's a serious one: your assumption is bunk. Point of fact: Paladins can use killing as a means, but they can't kill for any old reason ("He pinged evil! Smite!" "He's wearing white after Labor Day! Smite!"). Ergo, Good does believe ends justify means, otherwise it would have no way to call murderers evil, what with the agents of Good allowed to use the exact same methods and all. Instead, while Good has its balance weighted to favor means more, it never loses sight of ends.

[Talvereaux]

It's not good, sure. But it's also not very Lawful. Honoring the dead is a tradition in most cultures. Unless the Paladin believes that Lizardfolk don't count as people...

Considering the Lizardfolk are fully sapient beings, that's a case where they'd be lucky to be considered Lawful Neutral let alone paladin material...

As for the main question, I think it seems like a somewhat needless level of brutality and that a good paladin wouldn't land their self in that kind of hot water if it can be avoided. I believe paladins should have some wiggle room with regards to "borderline actions" for the greater good, but they'd also have a serious obligation to take the ethical high road unless it's absolutely necessary. From my impression of the scene, it seemed desecrating their corpses to send a message was an entirely avoidable course of action, and like it'd do more to exacerbate the conflict than actually solve anything.

If I were DMing, it probably wouldn't be insta-fall material (mostly because I tend to play with a very liberal interpretation of alignment/paladin restrictions), but I agree with the case for other DMs doing it that way, and it would definitely be remembered as a mark against them with their divine arbiters if another transgression came up later in the campaign.

[Angelalex242]

I should mention, though, that no matter how holy the paladin gets, the Astral Deva never feels like a dretch next to him.

Paladin=Astral Deva thinks you're better then the average mortal
Paladin+Hospitaler=Astral Deva thinks you're doing a great job of it too.
Paladin+Exalted Feats/PrC=Astral Deva will call you brother or sister as appropriate
Paladin+Exalted Feats/PrC+Saint=You are the reason Half Celestials exist, cause the Astral Deva thinks you're hot to trot.
Paladin+Exalted Feats/PrC+Saint+VoP=Now you have multiple Deva girlfriends, cause you are a PIMP on Mt. Celestia. Hope you didn't take Vow of Chastity...

[The Grue]

But if you want a suggestion, here's a serious one: your assumption is bunk.

Well that's just like, your opinion man.

[Starbuck_II]

First, bravo on bringing an aggressive sarcastic response to what was a joke.

But if you want a suggestion, here's a serious one: your assumption is bunk. Point of fact: Paladins can use killing as a means, but they can't kill for any old reason ("He pinged evil! Smite!" "He's wearing white after Labor Day! Smite!"). Ergo, Good does believe ends justify means, otherwise it would have no way to call murderers evil, what with the agents of Good allowed to use the exact same methods and all. Instead, while Good has its balance weighted to favor means more, it never loses sight of ends.

No, Good believes the means justify the ends.

Killing isn't aligned. Murder is.
If you are killing not murdering you don't fall. Though you may go to jail.
"He pinged evil! Smite!" won't make you fall, but might put you in jail.

[hamishspence]

Killing isn't aligned. Murder is.
If you are killing not murdering you don't fall. Though you may go to jail.
"He pinged evil! Smite!" won't make you fall, but might put you in jail.

Depends on the DM.

To some "He pinged evil! Smite!" is just like a dwarf who hates elves saying "He's an elf! Smite!"

- even if the character thinks it's enough justification to be "Not Murder" - the universe may not.

Same logic would apply to a cleric of Law smiting people who ping "Chaotic" or vice versa.

[stack]

The paladin falls, war is inevitable, and the paladin is tempted by a fiend to join the ranks of the Blackguards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html)... Cookies are optional, black cloaks and blades dipped in the blood of the innocent are mandatory.

Cookies are never optional. The second rate temptation that goes on these days!

[Coidzor]

The paladin falls, war is inevitable, and the paladin is tempted by a fiend to join the ranks of the Blackguards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html)... Cookies are optional, black cloaks and blades dipped in the blood of the innocent are mandatory.


Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

How fitting.

[Gemini476]

While it certainly isn't a Good act, I wouldn't call it Evil either. It's Neutral at best.

I'll need to consult the BoVD and BoED before making a definite statement, however.

Whether or not it is honourable is an entirely separate can of worms, though.

[Deophaun]

No, Good believes the means justify the ends.
So Genocide is okay as long as you're nice about it? What?

Killing isn't aligned. Murder is.
This is classic begging the question. Murder, by its definition, is unlawful killing. The question is, what makes it unlawful? The answer is ends.