DM Help Would your paladin fall from this? [Archive]

Segev

2015-06-01, 09:03 AM

I'm reasonably confident that the summary execution of someone who is not otherwise a threat at that time is fairly Evil.I disagree. It's certainly not Lawful, but if you, personally, know unambiguously that they are evil, have done evil worthy of execution unto innocents, and will do evil unto innocents again, it is not Evil to execute them. It is not necessarily evil NOT to, either. (It is possible to have choices that are not dichotomous.)

A CG vigilante could absolutely kill such a person without regards for any "trial" or the like. He knows he's in the right, and that this monster must die to protect his future victims and to provide justice to his past ones, and potentially as a warning to other evil-doers.

You don't get to kill people just because they're bad, or even when they confess to doing so; in a situation like this, the guy can be restrained and dragged off to prison.Again, you're arguing Law, not Good, here. Chaos absolutely can take the matter into its on hands. Chaotic Good, even, could do so. Under the right circumstances, so could Neutral Good - it's a chaotic act, but NG is as capable of those as lawful ones.

Killing him is a merciless,True.
cruelNot necessarily.
act of taking the law into one's own hands.Key phrase being "...taking the law..." It isn't Evil; it's Chaotic.

Even if one act doesn't change your alignment (and I agree, it generally should not, unless it's profoundly out of alignment for you), it can violate your Code of Conduct. This does.Now, having hammered on the "Chaotic, not Evil" point, we are discussing paladins. They're supposed to be Lawful Good. There are specific (if a bit vague) rules for what causes them to fall:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities

Does this one Chaotic act change her alignment to Neutral Good? As a singular event, probably not, though the Paladin should feel some guilt over it and strive to repent such that she will not commit similar acts in the future.

This is not an Evil act, as I've discussed extensively. (And, really, Red Fel, shouldn't you of all people recognize the difference between "evil" and "chaotic?" You're our grand-master of one of those!)

Is it grossly against the code of conduct? The CoC repeats the above a bit:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Since this is not an evil act, we're back to the first question. Unless this was the straw that broke the camel's back on her Lawful alignment, she should be still imbued with her class-granted powers.

Hiro Quester

2015-06-01, 09:43 AM

The big picture matters. You can't judge this act alone, in isolation from its context.

She has a lawful and honorable mission, a solemn promise to keep, and keeping that promise might make a very big difference in the ongoing war. Taking these lawbreakers to justice would make that mission impossible to keep.

Especially since one of them has just discovered the nature of that secret mission, and will tell the "authorities" about that secret mission. The authorities would try to stop her from her mission.

In addition, the "authorities" around here would probably not hold these cruel unrepentant lawbreakers accountable, anyway.

Sometimes, in situations just like this, a lawful type must need to be the embodiment of Law herself, by dispensing justice to known confessed lawbreakers, who committed a heinous act of cruelty, and will probably do so again.

In the bigger picture, this act is somewhat pragmatic, but committed in lawful service of a good cause, and is dispensing justice as it needs to be done, by preventing these obvious and confessed agents of Chaos from doing more harm to the Order of Things.

No fall at all. Not even a little bit.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-01, 09:44 AM

First, totally not a paladin.Third, nope. Mark against them if the man had surrendered, but not falling.
I guess this depends on how you handle the Code of Conduct. By RAW, I'd have to agree with Red Fel.

The thing is, a Paladin doesn't actually have to become Evil in order to fall. A Paladin falls for "willfully commit[ting] an evil act," and I'm reasonably confident that the summary execution of someone who is not otherwise a threat at that time is fairly Evil.
RAW, the Paladin's code is really strict.

However this is a case where the Paladin avoided the Good path out of convenience and emotional compromise(disgust). So this is definitely a shameful act even/especially if the Paladin does not see it as such.
This was definitely not the good path, agreed.

I'm not sure if killing someone in a rage is a Lawful or Good action, but I'm going to guess not.

Since you're asking what I would do... Well it depends on the god.
This is how I rule/play all of my paladins. The table I play at and the table I DM at uses the deity's dogma as the code of conduct. Torm probably would have allowed this one. If you're in the wilderness and you don't have a law to follow, Torm would be the only legitimate authority. Thus: "Strike quickly and forcefully against rot in the hearts of mortals."

I know I always use Torm as an example, but I'll be playing a Cleric of Amaunator soon. Hopefully that'll mix things up. Haha.

YossarianLives

2015-06-01, 10:08 AM

Ugh, RAW paladins are just so ridiculous. Not only does it inhibit any character growth or development, it makes paladins near unplayable.

Red Fel

2015-06-01, 10:09 AM

Ugh, RAW paladins are just so ridiculous. Not only does it inhibit any character growth or development, it makes paladins near unplayable.

Which is precisely why we should rename the thread title from "Would your paladin fall from this?" to "Should your paladin fall from this?"

And then proceed to throw out the RAW restrictive alignment noose on Paladin (and Monk, while we're at it) every time we sit down at the table.

Sacrieur

2015-06-01, 10:16 AM

This is how I rule/play all of my paladins. The table I play at and the table I DM at uses the deity's dogma as the code of conduct. Torm probably would have allowed this one. If you're in the wilderness and you don't have a law to follow, Torm would be the only legitimate authority. Thus: "Strike quickly and forcefully against rot in the hearts of mortals."

I know I always use Torm as an example, but I'll be playing a Cleric of Amaunator soon. Hopefully that'll mix things up. Haha.

I really don't see how it makes a lot of sense for a Paladin who worships a god who doesn't care about the laws of mortals to fall for failing to follow them. I'd argue that merely acting in an unlawful isn't enough, and that you're actually beholden only to the judgment of the deity which bestows the divine power you wield.

But let's take a moment to break the cookie-cutter paladin that we're all falling for. I think it's poor DM'ing to force all paladins to adhere to the same rigid personality simply because they're beholden to the LG alignment. A code of honor isn't a personality and is a poor excuse for shallow personalities who are just empty shells that always behave the same way, which seems to be the direction all of these threads head in: that all paladins must behave in a similar or same way and failure to do so will always result in falling out of favor with your deity.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-01, 10:20 AM

I really don't see how it makes a lot of sense for a Paladin who worships a god who doesn't care about the laws of mortals to fall for failing to follow them.
I could understand this depending on the deity. Unfortunately, some deities are pretty clear on how they feel.

Strive to maintain law and order.

That's probably why they invented the Paladin of Freedom.

But let's take a moment to break the cookie-cutter paladin that we're all falling for. I think it's poor DM'ing to force all paladins to adhere to the same rigid personality simply because they're beholden to the LG alignment.
I don't actually think LG is really that hard to maintain. The hard part of a paladin's life is to not commit a willing evil act. I really like how Easy Damus (http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html) breaks down LG.

1. You shall not lie.
2. You shall not harm the innocent.
3. You shall not murder.
4. You shall help the needy.
5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness.
6. You shall follow the law.
7. You shall not betray others.
8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice.
9. You shall not steal.
10. You shall seek unlimited good for others and unlimited order in society.
It doesn't seem hard, but maybe that's just because I prefer being Lawful Good?

Sacrieur

2015-06-01, 10:24 AM

I could understand this depending on the deity. Unfortunately, some deities are pretty clear on how they feel.

If the deity wants you obeying the native laws of the land then yes, you could fall.

Red Fel

2015-06-01, 10:31 AM

I don't actually think LG is really that hard to maintain. The hard part of a paladin's life is to not commit a willing evil act. I really like how Easy Damus (http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html) breaks down LG.

This. Look, I loathe alignment restrictions in the best of cases, but the Code of Conduct takes a Paladin's LG alignment and turns it into a straitjacket. It's overly narrow and unreasonable.

Here's how I play LG, simply: Try to be a decent, moral, ethical person. Each day, try to be better than the day before. Everything else is details. For Paladin, I would add a single proviso: Try to show others that they can do it too. That's it. Don't just be a symbol of LG, be a symbol of practical, livable LG, who inspires others to be LG too. Make that your Paladin code.

LG isn't hard. TN is hard. CN is hard. CE is frustrating. LG is easy.

Brookshw

2015-06-01, 10:36 AM

If the deity wants you obeying the native laws of the land then yes, you could fall.

Paladin's aren't clerics and while they may worship gods the paladin code is distinct from a deities code (possibly with overlap). Lawful doesn't necessarily equate to the laws of the land, that scenario has been addressed in multiple editions with the end result being roughly a bad law is something the government is guilty of.

In this scenario, the paladin hasn't engaged in doing evil though their behavior is suspect. A warning may be appropriate, a fall would not be.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-01, 10:41 AM

This. Look, I loathe alignment restrictions in the best of cases, but the Code of Conduct takes a Paladin's LG alignment and turns it into a straitjacket. It's overly narrow and unreasonable.
I'd be lying if I said alignment restriction bothered me. It's never really impeded me in this game haha. But by RAW, the Code of Conduct sort of ruins LG as it is. It turns something that should be life shaping to you because you want to exemplify lawful goodness, into something you have to do or you lose your fancy abilities.

It took me a while, but I found the thing I was looking for. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice)

Here's how I play LG, simply: Try to be a decent, moral, ethical person. Each day, try to be better than the day before. Everything else is details. For Paladin, I would add a single proviso: Try to show others that they can do it too. That's it. Don't just be a symbol of LG, be a symbol of practical, livable LG, who inspires others to be LG too. Make that your Paladin code.
I play similarly. But instead I would probably change it a little. "Be the best you can be, be moral, ethical, and honorable." Maybe it's just me. But I like people to see my paladin and know they can trust him with anything.

LG isn't hard. TN is hard. CN is hard. CE is frustrating. LG is easy.
Ugh. TN is just impossible for me.

Blackhawk748

2015-06-01, 10:42 AM

Heres a question: is she a noble? If she is, she can pronounce summary judgement against these men, and since they confessed this seems quite clear cut. Is she still speeding things along, possibly to much? Yes. Can she do that? Yes.

Honestly shes doing the same things that some Marshalls in the Old West did, they know the guy is guilty, they know he would be hanged anywhere else, but for whatever reason (his daddy's rich, the judge is corrupt etc) justice will not be served. So you shoot him. Is it Lawful? Nope. Is it good? probably not. Is it Evil? Im not sure DnD is weird on this one. Did he get what was coming to him? Yup.

https://thabto.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/thunder.jpg?w=500

Ettina

2015-06-01, 10:44 AM

Here's how I play LG, simply: Try to be a decent, moral, ethical person. Each day, try to be better than the day before. Everything else is details. For Paladin, I would add a single proviso: Try to show others that they can do it too. That's it. Don't just be a symbol of LG, be a symbol of practical, livable LG, who inspires others to be LG too. Make that your Paladin code.

I'd call that Neutral Good, not Lawful Good. You didn't mention anything particularly Lawful in that.

Lawful Good is not 'extra good' (4e notwithstanding). It's being Good and Lawful.

OldTrees1

2015-06-01, 10:48 AM

Paladin gains the Saint template. (I do houserule the Paladin code quite a bit in my games).
Huh? I think I am missing context. Why would the Paladin, if at your table, gain the Saint template from that action?

I happen to agree, but...

This. I think that the alignment-bits on Paladin are overly constrictive and badly written. Unfortunately, in a conversation on RAW, the line is fairly clear-cut. The rules are explicit on the point - willfully commit an Evil act, you fall. It's rather absurd how explicit they are - it doesn't even have to be an extremely Evil act. It could be a mildly Evil act. It's an unreasonable restraint on what could be an awesome character concept. But it's RAW.

I think you are in the wrong thread. The OP is phrased as a question to DMs and not a question to RAW. Paladin's RAW code of conduct is less applicable to this thread than corrected codes of conduct would be. The RAW thread title would be "Would this cause a Paladin to fall by RAW?" or even "Would this cause a Paladin to fall?"(asking RAW and DMs alike). However the "Your" in the question implies that the asked side is a being(a DM/Player playing under a DM) and not merely RAW.

Taveena

2015-06-01, 11:07 AM

The thing is, a Paladin doesn't actually have to become Evil in order to fall. A Paladin falls for "willfully commit[ting] an evil act," and I'm reasonably confident that the summary execution of someone who is not otherwise a threat at that time is fairly Evil. You don't get to kill people just because they're bad, or even when they confess to doing so; in a situation like this, the guy can be restrained and dragged off to prison.

Killing him is a merciless, cruel act of taking the law into one's own hands. Even if one act doesn't change your alignment (and I agree, it generally should not, unless it's profoundly out of alignment for you), it can violate your Code of Conduct. This does.

I'm inclined to disagree and say that performing vigilante justice is a CHAOTIC act, not an Evil one. In which case he would only lose his Paladin abilities if he consistently performed Chaotic acts enough to become Neutral Good.

Killing him here was not an Evil act, especially if the Paladin had due reason to believe that this would prevent future harm.

So, yeah, he wouldn't fall, unless he keeps doing this. A single impulsive chaotic act does not an Ex-Paladin make.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-01, 11:09 AM

https://thabto.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/thunder.jpg?w=500
I'm using that at some point against a demon.

I'd call that Neutral Good, not Lawful Good. You didn't mention anything particularly Lawful in that.
Hence why I added honorable to mine. But I don't think that means it is Neutral Good. Just LN leaning NG.

Huh? I think I am missing context. Why would the Paladin, if at your table, gain the Saint template from that action?
I am curious as well. Excited, but curious.

I think you are in the wrong thread. The OP is phrased as a question to DMs and not a question to RAW.
I disagree, RAW and DMing tend to go hand in hand. I DM two tables a week and RAW is a very big part of this. Since it wasn't specified if they wanted our opinion by RAW or otherwise, I think it's all fair game.

I'm inclined to disagree and say that performing vigilante justice is a CHAOTIC act, not an Evil one.
It's an evil act if they had surrendered. It's chaotic if they hadn't.

Geddy2112

2015-06-01, 11:14 AM

This is the kind of badass paladins should be where RAW they get hosed. Literal RAW paladins should just not have proficiency with any weapon, take vow of peace and the hospitaliter archtype. Brienne is pretty paladin(although maybe closer to Cavalier) and being lawful and good means sometimes using lethal force. A by the book cop is lawful good, and they carry guns for a reason. Bad people use violence to get their way, and all of the peace and diplomacy won't stop most evil people. Sic vis pacem, para bellum.

If they've surrendered, sure. Cause Paladin is not a well though out class. A 3.5 Grey Guard would have gotten on fine however.

Surrendered? She was attacked 3 on 1 and acting in self defense. Nobody showed any signs of surrender or asking for mercy. Self defense is generally considered lawful and good, and nobody showed any signs of surrender.

First, totally not a paladin.
Third, nope. Mark against them if the man had surrendered, but not falling.

Not by divine right, but Brienne has one of the strictest codes of anybody in GoT. Agree she did not fall.

out of convenience and emotional compromise(disgust). So this is definitely a shameful act even/especially if the Paladin does not see it as such.

The Paladin would be well advised to avoid similar Paladins (like the "all X are evil" Paladins) since they tend to drag each other down in a spiral of this mentality.

Self defense is convenient? She tried to leave and defuse the situation multiple times and was left no choice but to use force. Acting in a bit of rage to evil people who want to do evil things to you? Clearly not the paragon of lawful discipline but paladins are human(oids) and make mistakes. Being a bit miffed at some ******* that is trying to kill you is not grounds for falling.

The thing is, a Paladin doesn't actually have to become Evil in order to fall. A Paladin falls for "willfully commit[ting] an evil act," and I'm reasonably confident that the summary execution of someone who is not otherwise a threat at that time is fairly Evil. You don't get to kill people just because they're bad, or even when they confess to doing so; in a situation like this, the guy can be restrained and dragged off to prison.

Killing him is a merciless, cruel act of taking the law into one's own hands.

This was not summary execution, nor did they enemies show any remorse or ask for mercy. Nor was this a merciless or cruel act. As far as taking the Law into her own hands, in a way Brianne IS the law and was acting to uphold her duty.

Not enough information to say. Was the dude helpless? Did he actually surrender? What are the details of her oath? What are her orders? What is she authorized to do in the name of her temporal liege, or of her god?

Her enemy was far from helpless and did not surrender. Brienne is totally justified within her oath, orders and sworn duty.

The big picture matters. You can't judge this act alone, in isolation from its context.

She has a lawful and honorable mission, a solemn promise to keep, and keeping that promise might make a very big difference in the ongoing war. Taking these lawbreakers to justice would make that mission impossible to keep.

Especially since one of them has just discovered the nature of that secret mission, and will tell the "authorities" about that secret mission. The authorities would try to stop her from her mission.

In addition, the "authorities" around here would probably not hold these cruel unrepentant lawbreakers accountable, anyway.

Sometimes, in situations just like this, a lawful type must need to be the embodiment of Law herself, by dispensing justice to known confessed lawbreakers, who committed a heinous act of cruelty, and will probably do so again.

In the bigger picture, this act is somewhat pragmatic, but committed in lawful service of a good cause, and is dispensing justice as it needs to be done, by preventing these obvious and confessed agents of Chaos from doing more harm to the Order of Things.

No fall at all. Not even a little bit.

+1 to this.

Here's how I play LG, simply: Try to be a decent, moral, ethical person. Each day, try to be better than the day before. Everything else is details. For Paladin, I would add a single proviso: Try to show others that they can do it too. That's it. Don't just be a symbol of LG, be a symbol of practical, livable LG, who inspires others to be LG too. Make that your Paladin code.

A fitting description for Brienne of Tarth. She is one of the few people that tries to be moral, ethical, and honorable in a world full of scumbags.

Heres a question: is she a noble? If she is, she can pronounce summary judgement against these men, and since they confessed this seems quite clear cut. Is she still speeding things along, possibly to much? Yes. Can she do that? Yes.

She is and did, even though she tried to avoid violence numerous times. And after killing them, she is still going to bury them along with the girls they killed.

This is not even close to ground for falling, if anything it should be grounds for praise. She intended to bury the dead, then tried numerous times to use peace before violence, and then acted in self defense. Afterward, she buried all of the dead. If this is not LG, then what the hell is?

Also, a prime example of why singular incidents out of context are poor grounds for alignment shifts, unless they are on a mass scale like killing an entire town for fun.

Vhaidara

2015-06-01, 11:19 AM

Did I say she wasn't LG? No. I said not a paladin. I would probably place her as a Warder from dreamscarred press.

Blackhawk748

2015-06-01, 11:20 AM

I'm using that at some point against a demon.

Oh please do, hell use the whole scene, its a great speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynKoZD-sFi4

Taveena

2015-06-01, 11:24 AM

It's an evil act if they had surrendered. It's chaotic if they hadn't.

It's a chaotic act regardless. But I stand by my statement that the expectation that you will not be harmed if you surrender is an expectation of law, of honor, not of altruism. This act was Chaotic Neutral.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-01, 11:26 AM

Also, a prime example of why singular incidents out of context are poor grounds for alignment shifts, unless they are on a mass scale like killing an entire town for fun.
Unfortunately, we were given only the last minute of the video to work with and no context. Since that is what the OP was asking about, that's what all our opinions are based off of. I don't think this was in reference to the character (I don't watch GoT, so I'd really be out of place.), but in reference to this single act.

Did I say she wasn't LG? No. I said not a paladin. I would probably place her as a Warder from dreamscarred press.
+1

Oh please do, hell use the whole scene, its a great speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynKoZD-sFi4
This makes my LG all warm and fuzzy.

It's a chaotic act regardless. But I stand by my statement that the expectation that you will not be harmed if you surrender is an expectation of law, of honor, not of altruism. This act was Chaotic Neutral.
I think executing a criminal is still lawful, but I don't think spontaneously executing a criminal that surrendered is good. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Blackhawk748

2015-06-01, 11:28 AM

Unfortunately, we were given only the last minute of the video to work with and no context. Since that is what the OP was asking about, that's what all our opinions are based off of. I don't think this was in reference to the character (I don't watch GoT, so I'd really be out of place.), but in reference to this single act.

Agreed. Now i wouldnt make a Paladin fall for that one, but they would get a warning, unless this was like the 3rd or 4th time they've done it. Then you're in trouble

endur

2015-06-01, 11:28 AM

A Paladin falls for "willfully commit[ting] an evil act," and I'm reasonably confident that the summary execution of someone who is not otherwise a threat at that time is fairly Evil. You don't get to kill people just because they're bad, or even when they confess to doing so; in a situation like this, the guy can be restrained and dragged off to prison.

Killing him is a merciless, cruel act of taking the law into one's own hands.

The video aside, summary execution of surrendered prisoners may be fine within the Paladin's code. It took me a while to realize that, but the powers that be may have written the laws in such as way that paladins have that authority (and duty).

I'm not sure whether Brienne qualifies as a paladin ... but if she did ... the bandits in the riverlands are not any better than orcs... would the laws permit a paladin to execute a surrendered orc?

Zaydos

2015-06-01, 11:28 AM

As a DM I'd say it depends heavily on circumstances. In the books she had a mission which made it impossible for her to take them back to legitimate justice, and was in a state wracked with civil war where there was not a legitimate authority to take them to.

If a paladin could take them captive and bring them to a legitimate authority without it causing others to get hurt or a high chance of them escaping and returning to their crimes. Then yes they should do so. It's not a matter of the good-evil part of the code (though killing a surrendered foe is defined as a mildly evil act). It's a matter of respecting legitimate authority. Now even if it was possible to bring them in (i.e. not the whole civil war with no legitimate authority to bring them to) I'm not sure she'd fall, it depend upon many factors (among other things whether the paladin actually had the legal right to act as judge, jury, and executioner, like knights can in certain situations).

In the situation she was in? Totally fine, wouldn't bat an eye. There is no law to take them to, so she is perforce judge and jury and executioner.

Keltest

2015-06-01, 11:33 AM

It's a chaotic act regardless. But I stand by my statement that the expectation that you will not be harmed if you surrender is an expectation of law, of honor, not of altruism. This act was Chaotic Neutral.

Part of being good means having a respect for life, even evil life. Choosing to go straight to killing without even considering other options shows a remarkable lack of respect for life. Its one thing when incapacitation is uncertain, but if your opponent has surrendered you have a moral obligation to explore non-lethal means of dealing with them before going to execution. Even a chaotic good person would capture rather than kill if it was feasible.

Telonius

2015-06-01, 11:43 AM

Huh? I think I am missing context. Why would the Paladin, if at your table, gain the Saint template from that action?

Unfortunately a full answer would probably violate forum rules. Suffice to say that any Good deity (and most Neutral ones for that matter) in my setting would wholeheartedly support the Paladin's action.

OldTrees1

2015-06-01, 11:46 AM

Self defense is convenient? She tried to leave and defuse the situation multiple times and was left no choice but to use force. Acting in a bit of rage to evil people who want to do evil things to you? Clearly not the paragon of lawful discipline but paladins are human(oids) and make mistakes. Being a bit miffed at some ******* that is trying to kill you is not grounds for falling.

I only had the context of "Person with sword killing as a first resort a helpless someone that they were reliably informed was despicable". At my table that is not an evil act but is not Morally Exemplary which makes it shameful for a Paladin at my table.

With the context you present (the multiple non lethal solutions attempted) it does sound very much in line with a Paladin. I am not sure if I would go as far as to slap on the Saint template from that one event(like Telonius said) but it certainly sounds like evidence in that direction.

Unfortunately a full answer would probably violate forum rules. Suffice to say that any Good deity (and most Neutral ones for that matter) in my setting would wholeheartedly support the Paladin's action.

Oh, that's a shame. However the additional context Geddy supplied makes it much easier to guess at the reasoning.

Sacrieur

2015-06-01, 11:54 AM

Paladin's aren't clerics and while they may worship gods the paladin code is distinct from a deities code (possibly with overlap). Lawful doesn't necessarily equate to the laws of the land, that scenario has been addressed in multiple editions with the end result being roughly a bad law is something the government is guilty of.

So the mortals are the ones who control whether she can Smite Evil and use Lay On Hands? Let's be reasonable here. Her deity is the one who controls her powers and is the one who takes them away.

Taveena

2015-06-01, 11:55 AM

I think executing a criminal is still lawful, but I don't think spontaneously executing a criminal that surrendered is good. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Oh, no, it's NOT a Good act at all! The good act is to take the surrender. But killing an Evil creature is a neutral act in D&D. This is why Demons don't become Good for all the Devils they kill.
But similarly, nor would a Paladin have committed an act against her code.

Geddy2112

2015-06-01, 11:58 AM

Unfortunately, we were given only the last minute of the video to work with and no context.

As a DM I'd say it depends heavily on circumstances.

I only had the context of "Person with sword killing as a first resort a helpless someone that they were reliably informed was despicable". At my table that is not an evil act but is not Morally Exemplary which makes it shameful for a Paladin at my table.

With the context you present (the multiple non lethal solutions attempted) it does sound very much in line with a Paladin.

Context is incredibly important. Murder vs self defense depends on who initiated actions of lethal force. Seeing only the last minute of the scene makes Brianne look like a cold blooded killer. Taking the entire encounter into context, she is acting in self defense as a last resort.

squiggit

2015-06-01, 12:06 PM

Let's be reasonable here. Her deity is the one who controls her powers and is the one who takes them away.
But a paladin isn't beholden to any deity. They don't even have to worship one. Or anything.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-01, 12:13 PM

So the mortals are the ones who control whether she can Smite Evil and use Lay On Hands? Let's be reasonable here. Her deity is the one who controls her powers and is the one who takes them away.
*divine high-five*

Oh, no, it's NOT a Good act at all! The good act is to take the surrender. But killing an Evil creature is a neutral act in D&D. This is why Demons don't become Good for all the Devils they kill.
But similarly, nor would a Paladin have committed an act against her code.
I agree, but I think killing an evil creature that has surrendered changes that act to evil. Paladins are supposed to be the light in the darkness and with their light they should lead the blinded back to the path of good. However, devils and demons don't tend to surrender. Humans, however, tend to surrender often.

Seeing only the last minute of the scene makes Brianne look like a cold blooded killer.
I'm don't think it made Brianne look like a cold blooded killer. But it definitely made it look like killing out of anger. How does that Yoda quote go? Something like "anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side." I'm probably horribly mutilating that. But acts like that are what leads people to evil.

Sacrieur

2015-06-01, 12:20 PM

But a paladin isn't beholden to any deity. They don't even have to worship one. Or anything.

Then the "powers of good" have to take it away, whoever they are.

Red Fel

2015-06-01, 12:21 PM

So the mortals are the ones who control whether she can Smite Evil and use Lay On Hands? Let's be reasonable here. Her deity is the one who controls her powers and is the one who takes them away.

But a paladin isn't beholden to any deity. They don't even have to worship one. Or anything.

This. You've mentioned deities several times, Sacrieur, but unless you're playing a custom setting, the default Paladin doesn't derive his class features from a deity. He derives them from his faith or convictions, or from the concept of cosmic LG, or somesuch. Even in Faerun, where all characters worship a deity if they know what's good for them, Paladins don't derive their powers from one the same way Clerics do.

My preferred interpretation is that the Paladin falls when his faith is shaken by his own actions. That is, the Paladin derives his powers from the unshakeable bulwark of his devotion and convictions. When he performs acts which cause him to question his convictions - such as Evil acts, no matter how well he justifies them - those convictions erode, and with them his powers fade. Only after he seeks Atonement, and in doing so redeems himself in his own eyes, does he regain his powers. (To those Paladins who are insane enough to believe themselves acting righteously even when they do horrific things, I simply argue that whatever morality remains, deep within, is what causes them to fall, regardless of conscious belief.)

But yeah. Paladins work right out of the box, no gods required.

Oh, no, it's NOT a Good act at all! The good act is to take the surrender.

Agreed.

But killing an Evil creature is a neutral act in D&D. This is why Demons don't become Good for all the Devils they kill.

Agreed in part, disagreed in part. Killing, in a vacuum, is a Neutral act. Killing out of vengeance or anger, or killing a helpless or surrendered foe, is an Evil act. Killing an Evil creature is a Neutral act, but killing a creature with the (Evil) subtype is a Good act, unless you also have the (Evil) subtype, because cosmic Evil is like that.

In this case, the target was in all likelihood not an Evil Outsider. He may or may not have surrendered, but he looked pretty helpless, and she looked pretty angry. There's a reason someone in that position is called "at your mercy." And Good characters, generally, are expected to be merciful to someone in that position.

To those who argue that Brienne is the law, while I happen to think that would make Westeros an amazingly awesome place, she isn't actually the law, she isn't even a knight, and "I am the law" is not generally a justification that a Good character will accept. I agree that she wouldn't lose her LG alignment for the killing (does anyone in Westeros even have a G on their alignment line?), but that kind of killing just isn't the Paladin way.

Trasilor

2015-06-01, 12:26 PM

No...Paladin in my game would not fall. Definitely not an evil act and maybe not even an unlawful one.

But, then again, I guess paladins in my game are viewed differently. Their code of conduct would allow them to execute a man who has confessed to a heinous crime.

It would be no different than a judge, upon hearing the confession, ordering the prisoner to be executed.

Brookshw

2015-06-01, 12:38 PM

Then the "powers of good" have to take it away, whoever they are.

It's not a "whoever", there's no entity that oversees this (with a possible exception for overdeities). Good is a cosmic thing in D&D.

Segev

2015-06-01, 12:42 PM

Again, this is a chaotic act at "worst." Not evil. The Code of Conduct isn't that strict. Those trying to say "Paladin rules are so ridiculous" don't really have much leg to stand on here. (They do in other discussions, but not the topic at hand.) As it stands, she behaved within the allowable limits of Paladin behavior. It is potentially on the iffy side, enough that if it became a pattern of behavior rather than a relatively rare occurrence brought about by a particularly extreme situation (or she kept finding herself in such extreme situations and never bothered to try to find a "better" way), it might slide her to NG. Which would cost her her paladinal powers. But she could still Atone.

Sacrieur

2015-06-01, 12:45 PM

This. You've mentioned deities several times, Sacrieur, but unless you're playing a custom setting, the default Paladin doesn't derive his class features from a deity. He derives them from his faith or convictions, or from the concept of cosmic LG, or somesuch. Even in Faerun, where all characters worship a deity if they know what's good for them, Paladins don't derive their powers from one the same way Clerics do.

My preferred interpretation is that the Paladin falls when his faith is shaken by his own actions. That is, the Paladin derives his powers from the unshakeable bulwark of his devotion and convictions. When he performs acts which cause him to question his convictions - such as Evil acts, no matter how well he justifies them - those convictions erode, and with them his powers fade. Only after he seeks Atonement, and in doing so redeems himself in his own eyes, does he regain his powers. (To those Paladins who are insane enough to believe themselves acting righteously even when they do horrific things, I simply argue that whatever morality remains, deep within, is what causes them to fall, regardless of conscious belief.)

But yeah. Paladins work right out of the box, no gods required.

That's a good way of putting it.

It's not a "whoever", there's no entity that oversees this (with a possible exception for overdeities). Good is a cosmic thing in D&D.

As Segev has made eloquently clear, it's a question of Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil, so the power of cosmic good shouldn't have a problem with it.

Brookshw

2015-06-01, 01:03 PM

As Segev has made eloquently clear, it's a question of Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil, so the power of cosmic good shouldn't have a problem with it.

Cosmic Law as an intrinsic force is still a thing as much if not more than good but seems like we're in agreement here that deities aren't relevant.

AzraelX

2015-06-01, 01:06 PM

It's an evil act if they had surrendered. It's chaotic if they hadn't.
Neither is evil, and both are chaotic. The only difference is that it could be considered dishonorable if they had surrendered. Dishonorable doesn't equate to Evil, otherwise the Dirty Trick combat maneuver would have an [Evil] tag next to it.

Of course, there is a difference when speaking of paladins specifically, since their Code of Conduct requires them to act with honor. That's really a judgment call by the DM at that point, since their Code of Conduct also requires them to punish those who harm/threaten innocents, and the paladin may determine based on the circumstances that not killing the offender will needlessly harm/threaten innocents.

The fact that paladins fall from any Evil act, but not from any Chaotic act, would suggest they strongly favor being Good over being Lawful; in a situation where the two conflict, they should clearly be prioritizing Good.

Sacrieur

2015-06-01, 01:07 PM

Cosmic Law as an intrinsic force is still a thing as much if not more than good but seems like we're in agreement here that deities aren't relevant.

I was wrong about the deities, that's all. But in the paladin's abilities it does say "powers of good" and not "powers of law".

Red Fel

2015-06-01, 01:16 PM

I was wrong about the deities, that's all. But in the paladin's abilities it does say "powers of good" and not "powers of law".

This is true. A Paladin is Good with Lawful tendencies, not Lawful with Good tendencies. It's why he falls for an Evil act, not a Chaotic one.

Although, apparently, the consensus is not in as to whether the act at issue in the OP is Chaotic, Evil, both, or neither. :smalltongue:

Segev

2015-06-01, 01:37 PM

I'm still waiting for the arguments in support of it being "Evil." I may have missed one or more, but the ones I've seen so far amount to "she took matters into her own hands," which...doesn't actually support the position.

Taking matters into one's own hands is, at worst, Chaotic, because it is, at worst, ignoring rules by which decisions are made.

Obviously, the way matters are taken into one's own hands can be evil, but so can the way in which matters are brought before the proper authorities.

To prove this was an evil act, one needs to demonstrate that there is a moral problem with what was done, without appealing to a lack of authority/authorization.

(Note: doing a good thing for selfish reasons is, at worst, neutral, so even "she did it out of anger" isn't enough to push it to evil. And just as one Neutral Evil act wouldn't cause her alignment to change - even though, per the Code, it would cause her to Fall - one Chaotic Neutral act won't cause her alignment to change, and unlike willing evil acts, won't cost her her powers.)

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 03:01 PM

I think Red Fel has the proper stance on this. According to RAW (which I think everyone seems to agree is somewhat silly in this case) as I see it, a Paladin would fall under the vague circumstances below.

- Random person CLAIMS to have committed a horrible act
- Random person and two others attack the Paladin with threat of committing a horrible act upon the Paladin
- Two others are killed in their attempt on the Paladin
- The final attacker (random person who claimed to have committed horrible act) is helpless when executed by Paladin

Important things to note…
The Paladin does not know the legitimacy of these claims of horrible acts. It could be possible the claims were exaggerated or completely fabricated.

It is also taken for granted that the people killed were evil. There is nothing to support this besides their brief time on screen. While their behavior is horrible, it is possible the individuals executed by the Paladin were not evil.

Conclusion:
The Paladin behaved in accordance with self defense for the first two kills. However, the execution of the helpless attacker was too far out-of-line. IF the Paladin wanted to seek execution for the final attacker, then an investigation should have been conducted to determine the truth of their claims.

Instead, the Paladin jumped to a conclusion without any substantial evidence to support her actions (Seriously, believing the word of a person who is trying to harm you? I guess people who mean you harm NEVER LIE…). The last execution is EVIL (because helpless and maybe not evil person) and CHAOTIC (did not seek proper lawful manner in dispensing justice).

Disclaimer: While I did not watch the video, I remember fairly well the scene in question. The only detail I don’t recall is if the last attacker was helpless. However, it seems the common understanding from the discussion is that the last attacker was helpless.

Segev

2015-06-01, 03:07 PM

Er, the paladin is equipped with a means of proving whether or not the people in question are, in fact, evil. Furthermore, the people in question are claiming not just to have committed horrible acts upon innocents, but at least heavily implying that, given even slight opportunity, they will do so again.

The Paladin does not owe somebody who is unquestionably evil and who is claiming they will perpetrate more evil any benefit of a doubt, here. Again, the whole "follow a carefully specified procedure of gathering formal proof, first" protocol is a Lawful thing that, yes, a Paladin should be striving to adhere to, but which it is not inherently evil to bypass if you have sufficient "informal" proof that you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that their death is necessary to protect innocents from their future willfully evil deeds.

And this paladin KNOWS they did it; she's not guessing. (At least, that's the impression I got from what's been said; I, too, have not watched the video clip.)

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 03:13 PM

The Paladin does not owe somebody who is unquestionably evil and who is claiming they will perpetrate more evil any benefit of a doubt, here.
I do agree with the statement in general. However, the people killed are not unquestionably evil. The only thing the Paladin has to go off of is the word of her attacker.
That amounts to nothing or next to nothing when passing judegment on alignment.

And this paladin KNOWS they did it; she's not guessing. (At least, that's the impression I got from what's been said; I, too, have not watched the video clip.)

Actually, unless my memory is wrong (please correct me if so), but the Paladin actually doesn't KNOW.

The only thing she has to go off of is are the words of her attackers.

She didn't witness the specific incident in question nor does she have any evidence besides the attackers current agressive behavior.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-01, 03:17 PM

If I understand the situation correctly, someone who is sworn to serve someone is helping a kid get to safety. Given the premise of the series that I know about from not watching it, I assume the following: 1) Everything has gone to hell and there's a lot of instability 2) Nobles are jerks 90% of the time 3) Getting this kid to safety is a big priority for some reason. I assume this woman killed that man because the chances of him getting justice are poor, and she and the kid would likely die in the attempt. Would I make a paladin fall for this situation? No. They tried to uphold the law as they see fit to the best of their abilities, factoring in their previous mission and the fact that the local law is probably corrupt.

What I WOULD more likely make the paladin fall for is the fact that the man was not given a quick death. AFIAK, stab wounds to the stomach take a very long time to kill and are quite painful. She did not executed, she tortured. That for me, brings it down to Lawful Neutral, of delivering punishment for the sake of the law, with the punishment being equal to the crime, regardless of results or the means it is done with. In this case...I'd probably be more inclined to have the paladin go on a religious quest to show that they can give mercy without hurting the victim (or that the victim isn't really helped by the violence, so who is it done for, eh?), or throw in a devil trying to sway them to the dark side of things as opposed to outright falling. I kinda hate doing that, almost as much as I hate playing with actual alignment.

Red Fel

2015-06-01, 03:20 PM

Er, the paladin is equipped with a means of proving whether or not the people in question are, in fact, evil.

The problem with that is that Detect Evil is not a license to kill everything that pings. One book, I don't remember which, goes so far as to point out that as much as one third of the population is some mild stripe of Evil; that doesn't justify Paladins putting them all to the sword.

And while a Paladin can detect Evil, he can't detect lies.

Furthermore, the people in question are claiming not just to have committed horrible acts upon innocents, but at least heavily implying that, given even slight opportunity, they will do so again.

And again, they couldn't possibly be lying, could they? I'm not saying it's likely, but let me offer a hypothetical. A person is a braggart, a liar, and a bit of a coward; he mouths off about some horrible things he didn't actually do, hoping they will earn him status. Confronted by a Paladin, he doubles down on his lie. This person is, at worst, a liar and an idiot; he isn't actually some sort of unquestionably Evil monster. A Paladin who kills him under suspicion of him being an irredeemably Evil monster is still committing a cosmic no-no, because the guy wasn't actually some sort of horribly Evil person; he was just an ordinary, if incredibly stupid, braggart and buffoon.

The Paladin does not owe somebody who is unquestionably evil and who is claiming they will perpetrate more evil any benefit of a doubt, here.

See above for the dispute of "unquestionably evil." Also: Doesn't he? The Paladin in this context would be going on the word of the villain, an historically untrustworthy source. I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt, if for no other reason than I'd love to see the bastard stew behind bars while waiting for the gallows. But then, that's me.

Again, the whole "follow a carefully specified procedure of gathering formal proof, first" protocol is a Lawful thing that, yes, a Paladin should be striving to adhere to, but which it is not inherently evil to bypass if you have sufficient "informal" proof that you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that their death is necessary to protect innocents from their future willfully evil deeds.

And again, this "sufficient 'informal' proof . . . beyond any shadow of a doubt" is the bad guy's own words, as well as the implication of further misdeeds. Not exactly iron-clad.

And this paladin KNOWS they did it; she's not guessing. (At least, that's the impression I got from what's been said; I, too, have not watched the video clip.)

It's been awhile, so I honestly don't remember if Brienne knew for a fact that they did what they're accused of. Admittedly, it's a different beast altogether if she knows it to be true. If she doesn't, though, we're back to the question of how much evidence is sufficient for a Paladin to execute someone and not consider it cold-blooded murder.

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 03:40 PM

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-01, 03:41 PM

Eh...Close enough. One criminal for two children, okay, good enough, probably an important mission. Through I am now more curious why he isn't tied up.

Karl Aegis

2015-06-01, 03:46 PM

The fact that the sword she pulls out of the guy is the sword she threw to the ground leads me to believe she took the time to drop the first sword she stabbed the guy with, picked up her bigger sword and then stabbed him again in an area that wouldn't have likely killed him. The dude probably died from either shock or blood loss in the end, not the stab wound(s).

The fact that its a different sword leads to believe she either:
A) She has an insane Sleight of Hand check

B) Used some sort of magic or

C) Blacked out while stabbing the guy

For me, C seems to be the most likely. At the very least, if C is true, she is a psychopath.

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 03:47 PM

Eh...Close enough. One criminal for two children, okay, good enough, probably an important mission. Through I am now more curious why he isn't tied up.

The prisoner was tied up.

The Paladin was escorting the prisoner when she was waylaid by these other individuals who attacked her.

Segev

2015-06-01, 03:48 PM

Actually, unless my memory is wrong (please correct me if so), but the Paladin actually doesn't KNOW.

The only thing she has to go off of is are the words of her attackers.

She didn't witness the specific incident in question nor does she have any evidence besides the attackers current agressive behavior.Ah. In that case, what she does know is that they're evil (because of detect evil), and that, even under her blade, they're bragging about what they've done and that they'll do it again.

I cannot imagine a paladin who would let them go and hope they were lying. Also, if this is Brienne of Tarth, she likely was at the point in the story where she's working under a legitimately-granted authority by a noblewoman in a war-torn country where there IS no more legitimate authority than her own.

The problem with that is that Detect Evil is not a license to kill everything that pings.Of course not. But if somebody who pings is discussing in detail the evils they've performed, and is making obvious plans to commit them again after having attacked you with the expressed desire to do such things to you, personally, as their goal for attacking you in the first place, one actually has pretty good reason to trust their word on it.

And while a Paladin can detect Evil, he can't detect lies.

And again, they couldn't possibly be lying, could they?They could be, but this is not something about which villains are known for lying. More on that in a moment.

I'm not saying it's likely, but let me offer a hypothetical. A person is a braggart, a liar, and a bit of a coward; he mouths off about some horrible things he didn't actually do, hoping they will earn him status. Confronted by a Paladin, he doubles down on his lie. This person is, at worst, a liar and an idiot; he isn't actually some sort of unquestionably Evil monster.None of that would cause him to ping as "evil." And you do get a strength for the aura. If he's not pinging strongly enough to have committed the acts he's claimed, that's one thing. If he is...

...well, then a Good person can kill them (assuming those acts are kill-worthy) without moral repercussions. Even if they're lying about the specific acts, they've done something that bad and likely plan to do it again.

A LAWFUL person might not be able to; Paladins have to link punishments to crimes. But one chaotic act does not a fallen paladin make.

A Paladin who kills him under suspicion of him being an irredeemably Evil monster is still committing a cosmic no-no, because the guy wasn't actually some sort of horribly Evil person; he was just an ordinary, if incredibly stupid, braggart and buffoon.Detect evil tells you how evil he is. 1/3 of humanity pinging doesn't mean 1/3 pings the way a man guilty of the crimes being confessed (falsely or otherwise) would.

Also: Doesn't he? The Paladin in this context would be going on the word of the villain, an historically untrustworthy source. I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt, if for no other reason than I'd love to see the bastard stew behind bars while waiting for the gallows. But then, that's me.Less historically untrustworthy when it comes to bragging about crimes with the metaphorical blood still on his hands.

Sure, he could be a butcher's apprentice who hasn't washed up and is lying about the kind of blood it is, but evil alignment of the strength required to generate a murderer/rapist's aura is ... well, there's no real mistaking it. Maybe he's a creature with the unfortunate [evil] subtype but isn't actually living up to it and is bragging to cover that up? But that's definitley not the case when dealing with humans.

The "best" case scenario for your hypothetical is that he's using some sort of false-aura magic to make himself appear that evil, and lying to try to back up the disguise. But if that were the case, there's no reason to maintain the charade while under the paladin's sword. Confess the lie and explain the ruse, sotto voce. Now the paladin has to think about it a bit more, weigh the likelihood of your lies being what you said before vs. what you're now claiming.

Paladins can make honest mistakes; that's why they are LAWFUL and prefer to adhere to laws and practices which are centered around proving links of crimes to perpetrators before administering punishments.

But this is a law/chaos issue, not a good/evil one. The paladin who lets the guy go only for the guy to go do exactly what he claimed he would has permitted evil to be done. The CG vigilante who kills the guy to prevent it, but the guy was lying and innocent, has done wrong to an innocent (though not willfully or knowingly).

we're back to the question of how much evidence is sufficient for a Paladin to execute someone and not consider it cold-blooded murder.Again, that's a matter for how well they're following the "lawful" side of things. Total lack of doubt as to their guilt is sufficient, good/evil-wise. Even lack of "reasonable" personal doubt (i.e., "I'm never positive they won't reform after this,") is sufficient to justify it, good/evil-wise.

The good person could let them go or kill them or take them prisoner and try to get them to proper authorities. I'd actually argue that letting them go is the LEAST good of the options, though it is at worst neutral.

Killing them is only getting evil if you have no mercy nor regret about it. If you have an eagerness to kill them such that you're looking for excuses, that's evil. But that's not Brienne at all. She isn't a ruthless, cold-blooded killer. It's actually one of her weaknesses as a warrior, at times.

To sum up: This is still a law/chaos issue. The reason this seems a transgression for a Paladin is not because it's evil, but because it's chaotic. Paladins always prefer to err on the side of proper process and law, because they'd rather not execute an innocent and let guilty men go free as a consequence. CG types are often the reverse (though they, too, being Good, prefer to be certain at least to their own satisfaction). The paladin, in our scenario here, is as certain as vigilantes tend to be. She has performed a Chaotic act because she didn't trust in the law to handle it. She has not performed an Evil act...yet. Certainly not willfully.

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 03:53 PM

Ah. In that case, what she does know is that they're evil (because of detect evil), and that, even under her blade, they're bragging about what they've done and that they'll do it again.

I didn't read the rest of this post because I don't think it was directed at me.

Anyhow, in this situation the Paladin didn't use detect evil.
So, there is still no way for her to know the individuals she killed are of evil alignment.

Had she actually used detect evil on the individuals, that would still constitute gathering of evidence.
While I may not agree with killing the individual based on alignment alone, that would put the Paladin in a better position had such an ability been used.

So, since detect evil wasn't used, do you still think this execution wasn't an evil act?

AzraelX

2015-06-01, 04:14 PM

Actually, unless my memory is wrong (please correct me if so), but the Paladin actually doesn't KNOW.
Sure, except for the numerous raped and brutalized corpses of young girls which are hanging from trees right next to them with insults written on signs attached to their desecrated bodies.

Other than that, yeah, she should probably just assume no one can ever be punished for anything unless she witnesses a heinous act herself (and even then, who's to say they aren't being mind controlled? she can't KNOW, so she needs to err on the side of caution and not kill them).

A few people on this forum have a very warped and blatantly wrong concept of paladin conduct and alignments in general.

Segev's posts have been the closest to both RAW and common sense. It's not often that the two align, but hey, apparently it happens.

Necromancy

2015-06-01, 04:19 PM

Too many people try to apply 21st century idealism to D&D and it doesn't fit.

Read this crap

http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-archive/threads/1045716

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 04:23 PM

A few people on this forum have a very warped and blatantly wrong concept of paladin conduct and alignments in general.

Segev's posts have been the closest to both RAW and common sense. It's not often that the two align, but hey, apparently it happens.

Wow, that almost seems like an attack at me.

Sure, except for the numerous raped and brutalized corpses of young girls which are hanging from trees right next to them with insults written on signs attached to their desecrated bodies.

Other than that, yeah, she should probably just assume no one can ever be punished for anything unless she witnesses a heinous act herself (and even then, who's to say they aren't being mind controlled? she can't KNOW, so she needs to err on the side of caution and not kill them).

Did this actually happen in the scene or book?
I don't remember that detail if it did.

Andreaz

2015-06-01, 04:25 PM

A 3.5 Grey Guard would have gotten on fine however. No, they would not. Grey Guards have a stricter code.

OldTrees1

2015-06-01, 04:25 PM

Too many people try to apply 21st century idealism to D&D and it doesn't fit.

Read this crap

http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-archive/threads/1045716

I jumped to that link but it was unclear what part you wanted people to read(I assumed the OP) in order to uphold your assertion about idealism not fitting the concept of Paladin that D&D is attempting to model.

Are you sure idealism is the thing you are having issue with?

AzraelX

2015-06-01, 04:33 PM

Did this actually happen in the scene
Yes. Start the video at 0:37.

mostholycerebus

2015-06-01, 04:35 PM

Some of the context being ignored here:

Who is the rightful ruler of that area?
What are the laws the rightful ruler set in place there re: rape and dispensing justice?
Does the paladin believe that the killed guys would find justice through the rightful rulers legal system?
Is the engagement something covered under standard law, or a more strict and streamlined martial/wartime law?

Brookshw

2015-06-01, 04:41 PM

I was wrong about the deities, that's all. But in the paladin's abilities it does say "powers of good" and not "powers of law".

Sure, I'm not arguing that or making a claim about cosmic forces of law being intrinsically tied to a paladins powers in the sense good is. I don't think we're in disagreement.

Red Fel

2015-06-01, 04:57 PM

None of that would cause him to ping as "evil." And you do get a strength for the aura. If he's not pinging strongly enough to have committed the acts he's claimed, that's one thing. If he is...

Detect evil tells you how evil he is. 1/3 of humanity pinging doesn't mean 1/3 pings the way a man guilty of the crimes being confessed (falsely or otherwise) would.

Sure, he could be a butcher's apprentice who hasn't washed up and is lying about the kind of blood it is, but evil alignment of the strength required to generate a murderer/rapist's aura is ... well, there's no real mistaking it. Maybe he's a creature with the unfortunate [evil] subtype but isn't actually living up to it and is bragging to cover that up? But that's definitley not the case when dealing with humans.

I'm going to stop here, because we seem to disagree as to how Detect Evil works. According to the language of the spell, and by extension of the Paladin ability, it detects the presence of Evil, as well as the strength of the aura. It does not, however, tell the user how Evil a given subject is; rather, "An evil aura’s power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two."

An Evil aura will not be stronger because a person is particularly more Evil. It is stronger because a person is more powerful, irrespective of his moral offenses. A first level pickpocket and a ninth-level serial killer both enjoy a "faint" aura. The second-level Neutral Cleric of an otherwise Evil deity has the same "moderate" aura as a 20th-level genocidal warlord, or a Lemure. It says nothing about how Evil the person is.

These humans, at best, would generate a faint aura of Evil. They are not Outsiders, or Undead, nor Clerics of an Evil deity. It is unlikely that they have more than 10 HD. As such, faint aura, which tells you next to nothing about them.

The "best" case scenario for your hypothetical is that he's using some sort of false-aura magic to make himself appear that evil, and lying to try to back up the disguise. But if that were the case, there's no reason to maintain the charade while under the paladin's sword. Confess the lie and explain the ruse, sotto voce. Now the paladin has to think about it a bit more, weigh the likelihood of your lies being what you said before vs. what you're now claiming.

No, the best case scenario is that he's a part of that one-third, and therefore generates a faint aura, and that he's stupid to realize that this person will likely kill him for the crime which he claims to have committed. Most worlds enjoy an abundance of people who, when confronted with their mistakes, are more inclined to dig themselves deeper than to climb out of the hole.

Again, that's a matter for how well they're following the "lawful" side of things. Total lack of doubt as to their guilt is sufficient, good/evil-wise. Even lack of "reasonable" personal doubt (i.e., "I'm never positive they won't reform after this,") is sufficient to justify it, good/evil-wise.

Here's the thing. Murder is something that's unLawful because it's Evil. The two are inextricable in this context. And killing someone because you're convinced they're bad, absent other evidence, is generally murder. Now, I don't plan to get into what a literal application of this concept would do to most campaigns, but in a vacuum, that's sufficient.

Killing is generally a Neutral act, dependent upon circumstances. Murder is not Neutral, it is Evil. Killing someone when there is no need to kill them, when there is no reason other than your own unsubstantiated suspicion, is likely to be murder. The reason it's Good to submit a person to the authorities rather than perform a summary execution is confidence in the outcome. Relying on one's own subjective beliefs requires a person to believe themselves to be infallible. A Paladin preparing to bring the sword down should ask a simple question: What if I'm wrong? That's why you turn the guy over to the authorities. At best, he receives a fair trial and a proper sentence; at worst, you are not morally culpable for what happens. When you decide who lives or dies based solely upon your own view of whether the evidence is reasonably sufficient, who's to say other people don't get to do the same thing? That kind of discretion is easily abused, and a Paladin would - at least in my view - not trust the average sword-toting murderhobo with that moral responsibility.

Herself included.

SowZ

2015-06-01, 05:01 PM

The thing is, a Paladin doesn't actually have to become Evil in order to fall. A Paladin falls for "willfully commit[ting] an evil act," and I'm reasonably confident that the summary execution of someone who is not otherwise a threat at that time is fairly Evil. You don't get to kill people just because they're bad, or even when they confess to doing so; in a situation like this, the guy can be restrained and dragged off to prison.

Killing him is a merciless, cruel act of taking the law into one's own hands. Even if one act doesn't change your alignment (and I agree, it generally should not, unless it's profoundly out of alignment for you), it can violate your Code of Conduct. This does.

It's more blatantly non-LG than blatantly evil. Is it Evil for a Good empire to execute a horrible war criminal lawfully? A Chaotic Good character might not care if due process is followed; whether through vigilante justice or through the legal system, either way a person equally deserving is just as dead.

iDesu

2015-06-01, 05:07 PM

Not necessarily rules text, but the Book of Exalted Deeds does have a small section about mercy.

For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness...

... In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless...

... A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.

Segev

2015-06-01, 05:18 PM

Ah, but it's not murder. It's execution. The distinction matters to all alignments except CE, interestingly.

The distinction is whether it is performed for a transgression, or merely for the personal convenience or pleasure of the one performing the act.

Yes, gangs perform unlawful executions rather frequently; they are operating by their own internal codes (even if it's a fairly informal "obey the boss" type) or by the laws of vengeance (as non-Lawful as those often are).

Lawful alignments care about the distinction because an execution CAN be lawful; murders rarely are. (Particularly LE societies might have legalized murder under certain circumstances; targetted groups, for example, or groups considered so lowly and unimportant that their deaths are as meaningless as their lives.) Execution is lawful as long as it is performed with the authority to do so.

Good alignments care about the distinction because an execution CAN be good; murders NEVER are. Execution is neutral (and possibly even Good) if it is performed to prevent future evil by the target and any who might be intimidated by his fate.

TN cares about the distinction because murder can happen to them for no reason, while execution is predictable. They can measure their actions around avoiding the latter through behavioral choices; the former is more about being prepared and relying on those Lawful types to defend them.

NE cares about the distinction because Lawful types do, and thus knowing what a particular killing is will help them decide how to "clean up" after it.

CN cares about the distinction because executions are how "wilderness justice" works. Murder is justification for execution; the reverse is not true (though CN types may do it anyway, sometimes).

CE doesn't care. Dead is dead. Make sure it's the other guy and not you, if it comes to it. Or if it's fun. Don't piss off those strong enough to kill you when you can't kill them.

All of this is to say, what Brienne did was an execution. Arguably unlawful. Definitely not evil (her reasons were good).

I have a paladin who absolutely would have done the same, and he's very much the kind and merciful sort.

Yes, if they were lying? If they were that stupid? She killed innocent men. That's why Lawful behavior demands she take them in for trial et al. It's why Lawful behavior would seek evidence. (Though, um, the evidence of corpses everywhere combined with their expressed intent behind the attack against her and her charge really serves as sufficient, I think.)

But that's LAWFUL behavior. It prefers to err on the side of getting second opinions and following authorized judgments.

Chaotic behavior is to act on your own, individual judgment. Even if you make a mistake. Learn from it and move on.

Them being innocent is the Lawful person's reason for risking their guilt but letting them go. The rape and murder they would go on to commit is the Chaotic person's reason for not taking the chance on their innocense and instead risking killing an innocent too stupid to even plead their case.

mashlagoo1982

2015-06-01, 05:20 PM

Yes. Start the video at 0:37.

So, this is MORE than just the fight and killing the last man who accosted her.

Taking into account the ENTIRE situation, the Paladin (Brienne) would probably not fall.

The proof of her attackers evil actions are all around her.

She even has reason to believe the killers would not be punished as they should. They are Stark soldiers after all, and the women killed had been tavern girls who had relations with Lannister men. I do believe the men would have been punished had the crimes were brought to the attention of the Starks. However, Brienne was not in a position to do that. The oath she took basically meant she couldn’t return to the Stark’s camp.

More than likely, the army would have marched on and the murders would be free to commit more crimes.

Brienne took the best option available to her.
It could be argued that the slow death was a form of torture, but I don’t think the rules would support that stance. There are actual forms of torture and rules governing them. I would not agree with a slow death as a type of torture.

Minor note, whether directed at someone specifcally or not, stating people have "very warped" opinions probably isn't the best way to support your opinion.
As I had stated earlier, I didn't watch the video (currently unable to), so I forgot the detail about the other bodies hanging up.

From my perspective (before the extra detail), many of the other posters on the side of not falling had warped opinions for being ok with the execution of the potentially helpless(and wrongly accused) person.

Terazul

2015-06-01, 05:28 PM

Not necessarily rules text, but the Book of Exalted Deeds does have a small section about mercy.

Yeah. The BoED has some quite extreme views.

"Do you have Smite Evil? Are you charged with the expressed purpose of eliminating Evil in the world? Well too bad, you got Spare Evil now. What's that? The person you're dealing with has done this 5 times before now? Always immediately surrendered, but then escaped and committed even further atrocities? Well too bad, they surrendered, your hands are tied. Put that sword away or you're a jerk."

When you decide who lives or dies based solely upon your own view of whether the evidence is reasonably sufficient, who's to say other people don't get to do the same thing?

Because you are a Paladin, and that is sort of explicitly your job. You can make mistakes, and those mistakes cost you, and you should feel bad about them. The chance you could have made a mistake doesn't make you fall, though. Actually making one does. Lawful doesn't even mean (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) "hey I respect all laws and believe everyone deserves a right to a fair trial" either. As the article I linked points out, "A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power.", and has little if anything to do with the Lawful Alignment itself (other than respecting laws are one way of demonstrating the alignment). The character in question is literally standing over a guy, next to a tree from which his victims are hanging from, as he discusses his plans to continue to do the same to those he encounters.

The Paladin is totally justified in eliminating that Evil from the world. That wasn't premeditated murder, it was the execution of a villain who had straight up accosted her like 30 seconds previous.

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.
Being Lawful and "acting with honor" doesn't mean just rolling over and accepting every set of terms of surrender; It would be dishonorable to accept them and then blatantly attack, certainly. But as it says immediately afterwards, there is no need to help someone just so they can continue to perform evil acts in the first place. In this instance (as they are transporting a prisoner to begin with, and are nowhere near any form of civilization), they are the legitimate authority to boot, and if later they go and explain themselves and the local government takes issue with it, that is when they'd be subject to that authority, and whether they submitted to possible punishment or not is when the code comes into play (and even then, it's still Lawful stuff, depending on the nature of the government).

I don't understand how a Paladin even does their job in half you guys' worlds. Nowhere in the code does it say "The Paladin falls if they had any feelings about the matter if they kill an Evil guy", they're supposed to hate evil. Nor "the Paladin falls if the person could have in theory possibly been innocent". Only if they actually were. The code is kind of ridiculous enough, it gets worse when you start going into shoulda-coulda-wouldas.

General Sajaru

2015-06-01, 09:46 PM

I think that throughout this discussion, there are three things to keep in mind:

First, whatever else she may be, Brienne is not a paladin, with all of the powers and responsibilities associated with the class.

Second, Westeros, and the world of A Song of Ice and Fire in general, are not a D&D setting; moral ambiguities are as much, if not more so, the rule than in our own world.

And third, a paladin doesn't follow their code and keep their LG alignment for fear of falling; they keep it because they believe it's the right way to live their life. After all:

No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one’s destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin’s nature by any act of will.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-01, 09:59 PM

That...Quote is probably more horrifying then what those men were implied to do, or what she did in response. That one is or is not good enough. One cannot strive to be better, one is already better, or one is consigned to forever fail to uphold this standard. You are one of the chosen, or not.

Jergmo

2015-06-02, 01:47 AM

Venger

2015-06-02, 02:48 AM

You know how in Christianity it's said.. "thou shalt not tempt the Lord"? Nor should you tempt a God/ess's servant. If someone is outright bragging about murdering and raping innocents, a quick and clean death seems like a no-brainer to me. They clearly have no remorse and would do it again if allowed to live.
sure is. if you don't agree with the execution of moustache twirlers of this caliber... then I'm not sure D&D's a great system for the kind of story you want to tell.

Not killing someone who has surrendered is a logical and moral fallacy when someone can throw a baby off a balcony and then tell the exemplar of Justice "I surrender, so you can't hurt me!"

this is why BoED's rules on mercy, as quoted above are at best, suicidal, and at worst, evil.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 02:51 AM

Now I wonder if the Cosmic force of Good itself isn't evil...Thanks guys.

Venger

2015-06-02, 02:54 AM

Now I wonder if the Cosmic force of Good itself isn't evil...Thanks guys.

it is. As I always say in alignment/paladins always fall threads, it's really important to understand that in D&D Good is evil and Evil is good. my goto quote here is from savage species:

Many monstrous beings are
not tolerated by the surrounding community and must keep
their existence secret. Evil communities may tolerate the presence
of monsters that other communities would not, but
neutral and good communities are liable to drive away
monsters and those who would associate with them

BoED as a whole is really full of creepy stuff like this. their idea of being Good is basically to brainwash everyone to think and act the way you do, and if not, to kill them. even their goodiest of two-shoes only prohibit themselves from seriously hurting or killing the pretty creatures (humanoids/nonhumanoids)

that's why I always capitalize when talking about Good and Evil (alignment components) versus good and evil (universal moral absolutes)

OldTrees1

2015-06-02, 06:03 AM

Not killing someone who has surrendered is a logical and moral fallacy when someone can throw a baby off a balcony and then tell the exemplar of Justice "I surrender, so you can't hurt me!"

this is why BoED's rules on mercy, as quoted above are at best, suicidal, and at worst, evil.

I believe you are both missing something on the topic of Justice and Mercy. (Missing something does not imply you are wrong)
1) When someone surrenders they give up the right to be free to do evil. The person they surrendered to has the authority to prevent them from being able to repeat their crimes.

2) The road of the higher standard is not always an easy road. Sometimes the Morally Supererogatory path carries additional personal risk, struggles, and difficult choices.

3) The very beginning of the Mercy rules in the BoED speak to properly containing the individual in question. Then it talks about using Diplomacy rather than Torture to extract information. Then it talks about the redemptive process. Managing a properly contained individual is hardly suicidal and most moral systems would not call such containment evil.

But the topic of Mercy might not be applicable in the video. I am not sure if she was capable of properly containing the man.

Now I wonder if the Cosmic force of Good itself isn't evil...Thanks guys.
If judging it by some real world moral theory? Yeah WotC wrote a rather evil Cosmic Good.

Necroticplague

2015-06-02, 06:32 AM

Yes. She's murdering a defenseless, surrendering person (at least, that's what I get from his hand motions) because it was convenient to her. An Evil act. Just because the person you're butchering is Evil doesn't stop the murder from being Evil as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Taelas

2015-06-02, 06:43 AM

Whether or not the Paladin in question would fall is all up to whether you consider the act of killing these men Evil. If yes, then they fall. If no, then they don't.

I wouldn't consider the act Evil, personally. Good is not necessarily "nice." If you're a murdering rapist scum, guess what happens when you attack someone with the will and power to fight back?

I find Brienne's actions to be entirely in keeping with a paladin's Code of Conduct. A bit brutal, perhaps, but considering what these men were, I can understand it. You can totally execute a surrendering enemy, even if he is disarmed. You can also choose to take him into custody, which is likely the more Good option.

You can, in fact, have two possible acts that are opposite to each other but which are both still Good. Imagine that!

Segev

2015-06-02, 08:36 AM

Again, not murder: execution.

To the "surrender" bit... nowhere in the Paladin's code does it say they have to accept an enemy's surrender. So, if your interpretation of "acting honorably" requires not killing those who've surrendered (and I'm still not clear how turning them over to proper authorities you know will have them executed is "better," on the "can't kill the surrendered" grounds), then your paladin should tell the baby-off-the-balcony badguy, "No. You don't. Take up your sword and defend yourself, or die the coward's death you deserve."

Paladins are champions and heroes of justice and righteousness. They can get snarled by the conflicts of law and good, but they aren't so ensnared as many try to interpret their code as making them.

That said, there are flaws in their code in places. This just isn't one of them.

OldTrees1

2015-06-02, 09:15 AM

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 09:30 AM

Yeah. The BoED has some quite extreme views.
Book of Exalted Deeds tried to give everyone the nudge to be Superman. They want exalted characters to be the paragon of light and hope for the world to look upon when they are down and out. It wasn't explicitly for Paladins. Just exalted characters. However, I think that the mercy section is really important for Paladins.

Put that sword away or you're a jerk."
This is why I have a Large +5 Holy Avenger Greatsword. If someone that bad has time to surrender, I am not doing my job well enough.

Because you are a Paladin, and that is sort of explicitly your job.
I disagree. This is Dredd syndrome. If you ever become the judge, juror, and executioner as a paladin, you need to fall. At that point you've decided you are beyond your cause. This sort of reminds me of a certain Elder Evil.

That wasn't premeditated murder, it was the execution of a villain who had straight up accosted her like 30 seconds previous.
My previous statements have been based off the minute or so we were given before, with all the new knowledge being thrown around. I would say that she is correct in slaying them up until the surrender. She should have tied him up and toted him away. However, I am also gathering that she is not a Paladin. I have never watched GoT, so I wouldn't know.

Being Lawful and "acting with honor" doesn't mean just rolling over and accepting every set of terms of surrender; It would be dishonorable to accept them and then blatantly attack, certainly. But as it says immediately afterwards, there is no need to help someone just so they can continue to perform evil acts in the first place.
I partially agree here. If Asmodeus surrenders, you should not let him go. (Partially because he will just stab you in the back.) But if Tom Stabsalot surrenders, you should tie him up and tote him away. It's a pain. Trust me. I am the LoyalPaladin. But that's what MWK Manacles, Anti-Magic Shackles, and your party rogue with use rope are for. Oh. Also Dimensional Anchor. Because teleporting is obnoxious.

I don't understand how a Paladin even does their job in half you guys' worlds.
I don't think too many people had skewed views. You're just hearing a lot of people say they'd fall a Paladin because that was the explicit purpose of this thread.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 09:30 AM

Terazul

2015-06-02, 11:35 AM

Book of Exalted Deeds tried to give everyone the nudge to be Superman. They want exalted characters to be the paragon of light and hope for the world to look upon when they are down and out. It wasn't explicitly for Paladins. Just exalted characters. However, I think that the mercy section is really important for Paladins.

Superman sucks :smalltongue:

This is why I have a Large +5 Holy Avenger Greatsword. If someone that bad has time to surrender, I am not doing my job well enough.
Exactly.

I disagree. This is Dredd syndrome. If you ever become the judge, juror, and executioner as a paladin, you need to fall. At that point you've decided you are beyond your cause. This sort of reminds me of a certain Elder Evil.

Ehh. Everything in the Paladin chassis is all about giving you ability to do just that. You literally have judging eyes. You literally are given an execution move that only functions on the unworthy. If anything, the one thing is missing is the jury, which is to be filled in by the player's actions towards fulfilling the other two roles. Nothing in the Paladin says "go beat up Evil--but not too bad! Make sure to take them to someone more important than you to figure out what to do with them". You are very much given the tools and the code that sets you on the path to handle that yourself. You don't have to be a **** about it, and you shouldn't be going around judging all willy-nilly, but this is very much not a case of this in the first place. As a player, most of your time as an adventurer away from any legitimate authority exacerbates this, unless you're planning to keep enough manacles, rations, and supplies to bring along every "Tom Stabsalot" you decide to spare because he felt bad when you waved a sword over his head. You straight up are made to be a Judge and Executioner of Evil, it's how you go about being the Jury that matters most; Just slapping down anyone who detects Evil without knowing why is bad. When clearly presented with evidence, testimonials, and everything else straight from the Abyssal's Horse's mouth is another thing entirely.

My previous statements have been based off the minute or so we were given before, with all the new knowledge being thrown around. I would say that she is correct in slaying them up until the surrender. She should have tied him up and toted him away. However, I am also gathering that she is not a Paladin. I have never watched GoT, so I wouldn't know.

She's not, but the thread is basically going "if this was a Paladin, would they fall?". Even without the minute before, did nobody watch the video to the end? We see her cut the hanging bodies down. C'mon.

I partially agree here. If Asmodeus surrenders, you should not let him go. (Partially because he will just stab you in the back.) But if Tom Stabsalot surrenders, you should tie him up and tote him away. It's a pain. Trust me. I am the LoyalPaladin. But that's what MWK Manacles, Anti-Magic Shackles, and your party rogue with use rope are for. Oh. Also Dimensional Anchor. Because teleporting is obnoxious.

I disagree here. Sure, not every person you deal with calls for a straight up execution, but where is this threshold of evil coming from that separates them? They both ping as Evil, they've both performed Evil acts. Asmodeus has a couple hundred under his belt, and the other guy only being up to 30 doesn't mean that the latter guy gets the shackles. Plus, I find a bunch of this line of thinking comes from applying modern-day philosophies on criminals to settings that don't follow them at all.

I don't think too many people had skewed views. You're just hearing a lot of people say they'd fall a Paladin because that was the explicit purpose of this thread.

I mean you say that, but that also seems to be the case of every Paladin thread I've ever seen.

This is why I just play Crusaders. Nobody would bat an eye at that exchange. It'd just be "yeah, Evil serial murderhobo guy was a jerk, probably a good move". I just find it hilarious that the second a Paladin is brought into the equation, the class explicitly charged with eradication of Evil, it suddenly becomes a question of whether offing the guy was a good (or Good) idea or not.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 11:49 AM

Superman sucks :smalltongue:
I'm a big fan of Superman. Dude's seen it all and he still wants to help Earth. I'd have flown away a long time ago.

Ehh. Everything in the Paladin chassis is all about giving you ability to just that. You literally]have judging eyes. You literally are given an execution move that only functions on the unworthy.
That is the point though. You have all the tools to deal with the unjust. Your job is to know when not to use them. That is the Paladin's plight.

If anything, the one thing is missing is the jury, which is to be filled in by the player's actions towards fulfilling the other two roles.
That is the most important part. Even as a player, you are not the law. This is probably an "agree to disagree" moment.

I disagree here. Sure, not every person you deal with calls for a straight up execution, but where is this threshold of evil coming from that separates them?
The difference between Asmodeus and a thief isn't how evil they are. It brings us back to "can you deliver them to justice". You can not deliver Asmodeus to justice. Unless you can get Torm to ride in on Bahamut, you aren't transporting Asmodeus anywhere. The thief though? You can do that. You can almost always deliver someone to justice. In the case you can't? You don't have another option.

I mean you say that, but that seems to be the case of every Paladin thread I've ever seen.
People don't like Paladins. Sometimes they would rather see them fall as a "I told you this class was bad". But most of the people I see here aren't all that bad about ruling a fall.

This is why I just play Crusaders.
I don't know why, but I do not like playing crusaders.

Taelas

2015-06-02, 11:56 AM

Agreed. However what are your thoughts on someone that frequently/regularly/consistently avoids the more Good option? Obviously they would still be good but would you think of them as a Paladin?*

*I don't think anyone deserves to be a featless fighter. So let's assume Ex Paladin is not mechanically crippling.

It depends on whether or not consistently acting in that manner would break his Code of Conduct. He wouldn't fall just because he chooses the less Good option every time -- it's still Good, not Evil. But if he does it while disrespecting legitimate authority, for example, then that's a whole other ball of wax.

For instance, a Paladin might be judge, jury and executioner while out adventuring, and he should be fine (assuming the people he kills are Evil, etc.), but if he takes that behavior into an area under what he considers a legitimate authority -- a democratically chosen judge, for example -- then he has to conform. He can't take the lesser Good option, here -- since he has the opportunity to bring the Evil person before a judge, then he has to defer judgement, or risk breaking his Code. It isn't because it is the lesser Good option, though -- it's solely because he must respect legitimate authority.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 11:57 AM

The difference between Asmodeus and a thief isn't how evil they are. It brings us back to "can you deliver them to justice". You can not deliver Asmodeus to justice. Unless you can get Torm to ride in on Bahamut, you aren't transporting Asmodeus anywhere. The thief though? You can do that. You can almost always deliver someone to justice. In the case you can't? You don't have another option.

Tormypants isn't the strongest LG deity out there, so even then...So I think he'd be pretty legit to simply smite the guy instead of bringing him back to justice. Heck, Chauntea might stand a better chance because of her beefy divine rank.

Regardless...Why isn't the paladin the law? Paladins tend to operate in areas where the law is 1) Useless 2) Evil. They're not beholden to bring someone back to a village of mud and sticks who'll just lose the guy in two minutes. They're not beholden to stop administrating justice just because the local lord is figuratively and or literally in bed with the devil. What are you going to do, ignore the plight of innocent people because, whoa nelly, actually judging people is too big of a task for you? Most paladins probably follow a god of law anyway, so what makes them unqualified to enforce it in dire circumstances?

squiggit

2015-06-02, 11:58 AM

I'm a big fan of Superman. Dude's seen it all and he still wants to help Earth. I'd have flown away a long time ago.
That doesn't sound very loyal or paladin...ish

That is the point though. You have all the tools to deal with the unjust. Your job is to know when not to use them. That is the Paladin's plight.But also when to use them.

It brings us back to "can you deliver them to justice". You can not deliver Asmodeus to justice.
I think my quibble here is that we're treating "deliver them to justice" as an absolute with an arbitrary definition? How exactly isn't, in the right society with the right laws and right moral code, executing a mass murderer not bringing them to justice?

I just can't see why it's so beyond the pale that said paladin might, in fact, actually be the law, given the way D&D morality works.

Terazul

2015-06-02, 12:08 PM

I'm a big fan of Superman. Dude's seen it all and he still wants to help Earth. I'd have flown away a long time ago.
That's fair.

That is the point though. You have all the tools to deal with the unjust. Your job is to know when not to use them. That is the Paladin's plight.

Yeah, I covered that; It goes both ways! You can't recklessly use your abilities, but you don't refuse to use them when necessary either. For the topic in question, I believe she was totally in the right. She was already transporting a prisoner, didn't have the means to take another, and the guy was unquestionably Evil.

That is the most important part. Even as a player, you are not the law. This is probably an "agree to disagree" moment.
More than likely. You're not the law, but acting as though your own judgement can't be relied on ever seems like a terrible way to... well, stay alive for one.

The difference between Asmodeus and a thief isn't how evil they are. It brings us back to "can you deliver them to justice". You can not deliver Asmodeus to justice. Unless you can get Torm to ride in on Bahamut, you aren't transporting Asmodeus anywhere. The thief though? You can do that. You can almost always deliver someone to justice. In the case you can't? You don't have another option.

I mean, that's an opinion to have. Fun fact: nowhere in the Paladin class description, abilities or anything does it say anything about bringing people to justice. The only exemption is in the one-line blurbs of the Classes section of the PHB:

Paladin: A champion of justice and destroyer of evil, protected and strengthened by an array of divine powers.
There is never a description of what justice actually entails, though. I think this is just another case of tying Lawful Good to "always wanting to follow the letter of the law", combined with expectation of modern day ideals of justice (fair trials and all that) though. As a Paladin you should probably strive to uphold the law. In this case, this dude would be straight up hung without a trial anyway. While mercy is an important thing for Good in general, a Paladin is by no means required to show quarter to any Evil they face. Especially one talking about how Evil he is. With evidence of his deeds right next to him. You are not stun-baton-bad-people-and-bring-them-to-society-man, you are sword-of-evil's-bane-man.

I don't know why, but I do not like playing crusaders.
Heh.

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 12:09 PM

I just can't see why it's so beyond the pale that said paladin might, in fact, actually be the law, given the way D&D morality works.

I think I can take this one. Or rather, Uncle Ben can.

http://www.unilotto.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tumblr_lw4ciws0Vn1qc1u27o1_500.png

Paladins are given all the tools to root out and destroy Evil. They can sense it, they can crush it, and they rise to the call because they have a compelling desire to do so.

They also take up the call because they have the self-restraint not to do so. What defines a Paladin isn't just the fact that he has power, but that he abstains from abusing it. And I'm not talking about his immunity to STDs.

The Paladin doesn't take the law into his own hands, he doesn't go all Judge Dredd, because he knows what kind of temptation that creates. He could go down that path. He could be good at it. Frighteningly good. But think about whenever pretty much any of the good guys in Lord of the Rings was offered the Ring by Frodo. Gandalf, Galadriel, they turned it down. Why? Because they knew that the power the Ring offered would be coupled with a desire to wield that power, and despite their best intentions, to ultimately do so indiscriminately.

The Paladin faces that temptation constantly. Remember the Powder Keg of Justice story. The Paladin walks that line every day, wondering whether today will be the day that he does the wrong thing for all the right reasons. Having the power to be the law, and using that power, are two separate things.

Kinda stinks for the good guys, doesn't it? :smallamused:

Keltest

2015-06-02, 12:16 PM

That doesn't sound very loyal or paladin...ish

But also when to use them.

I think my quibble here is that we're treating "deliver them to justice" as an absolute with an arbitrary definition? How exactly isn't, in the right society with the right laws and right moral code, executing a mass murderer not bringing them to justice?

I just can't see why it's so beyond the pale that said paladin might, in fact, actually be the law, given the way D&D morality works.

I think the problem here is that its actually two separate issues. One is whether or not a paladin has the right to judge those they've captured. The other is whether or not their judgment is the final word in what happens to them. I think the first answer is that yes, paladins are totally able and in fact are encouraged to judge beings they confront. That's practically the whole point of a paladin. As for the second issue, I believe that whatever the paladin personally judges on their prisoner, if there is a legitimate authority recognized by the paladin that the issue could reasonably be brought to, they get the final word. Having said that, a ramshackle village is not an authority that the issue could reasonably be brought to if, for example, the paladin had captured a master thief and escape artist.

So basically, Paladins are totally able to judge, however if there is a system that could plausibly handle the issue, the Paladin is bound to let them deal with it for a totally different reason.

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 12:20 PM

Why isn't a paladin the law? Because they by no means operate outside of the realm of honest and competent legal systems. Now in the video, she is in the place with no legitimate authority, even if you consider the Lannisters legitimate. There is no where to take them back to where they won't just kill more people, she doesn't really have a choice. It is not that she is the law, it is that there is no law so Lawful or not she has to adapt.

In general, though, it depends upon circumstances we cannot see from the video. In the above it's background information on Westeros. Now were she in let's say Solamnia from Dragonlance (yeah yeah no paladins in DL) she'd have a place to bring them back to, respect of legitimate authority would mean taking them back for trial because hey look Solamnia has honest and competent legal systems. Now competence varies by period, the Solamnic Knights rather fell apart during the whole everyone hates them for not preventing the Cataclysm period but they could handle this easily enough. Throw them onto Khorvaire and even with the varying levels of corruption there are legitimate authorities the paladin could and should bring them back to. I'm less familiar with FR and Greyhawk. So I'll turn to weirder settings. In Planescape if it happened in Sigil (say in the Hive) you take them to the Harmonium, while the Harmonium has corruption problems (and I suspect at times they wrote the Book of Exalted Deeds to justify themselves but they'd never have included the section about mercy, though they very much do Sanctify the Wicked so much that they caused an entire layer of a plane to fall away from good) they are the legitimate authority and will hold them until they get their court date with the Guvners and from there most likely go to see the Mercykillers for some swift efficient justice. Now outside of Sigil... in the Outlands at the minimum there's the nearest Gate Town, though if it is one of the more Chaotic/Evil ones there might not be legitimate authority, like I think Limbo's gate town is actually an anarchy. Even so there's usually some civilization you can take them to which could handle it. Of course this being Planescape how close you are matters sort of, planar distances have a tendency to shift and you end up moving at speed of plot. On the Upper Planes (here including Ysgard) it's easy to find a legitimate authority. Even on Acheron one has their commanding officers, though as they're deserters and it's Acheron you don't need to bring them in, standing rules deserters are given summary execution, but really a paladin should feel dirty about doing anything based on Acheron's rules. That brings us to Limbo where Githzerai are the most legit authority and are an option sometimes, and the Lower Planes. Those are... actually something that could be fascinating to get into, does a paladin have to respect the rules of Dispater while within Dis? But I'm not going to explore it here. Spelljammer, on the other hand, varies a lot as to whether there is legitimate authority over a given region of space. Generally, though, you can always bring them back to the Elven Imperial Navy and let the !Federation handle them. Unless they're elves, orcs, or goblinoids they'll even get a fair trial! Even elves might be executed for it, it's just less likely.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 12:24 PM

Tormypants isn't the strongest LG deity out there, so even then...So I think he'd be pretty legit to simply smite the guy instead of bringing him back to justice. Heck, Chauntea might stand a better chance because of her beefy divine rank.
I'm not so sure about that. I think Ao is a bad parent and plays favorites with Torm. I also choose him because the guy is the walking definition of loyalty and good. That guy. Excuse me while I fangirl and hyperventilate.

Regardless...Why isn't the paladin the law? Paladins tend to operate in areas where the law is 1) Useless 2) Evil. They're not beholden to bring someone back to a village of mud and sticks who'll just lose the guy in two minutes.
Since they're devoted to a cause/deity, I think it'd be a bit far fetched to say they are the absolute authority. For the sake of the argument though, I was assuming that the village they'd bring them back to was more capable than not. A Paladin won't release a villain into the hands of a villain. That is what Detect Evil is for.

However, just recently that logic failed me. A person had a ring of concealed alignment. Lucky for me, our Yuan-Ti couldn't get a read on the guy so we caught him red handed.

What are you going to do, ignore the plight of innocent people because, whoa nelly, actually judging people is too big of a task for you? Most paladins probably follow a god of law anyway, so what makes them unqualified to enforce it in dire circumstances?
Here is the deal. This is more of a design flaw with the Paladin than a roleplay issue. What they should have done, was put the crusader in core. If the Paladin was required to have a patron deity and take on it's alignment and dogma as a code of conduct, that would have solved a lot. The crusader on the other hand, gets to take up a cause and possibly a lawful alignment. Boom. Solved all issues in this thread. "Did your patron deity agree? No? Boom. Fall." Then, with the crusader, you can have a ton of little Judge Dredds running around. Fills both Archetypes and solves nearly all the problems.

That doesn't sound very loyal or paladin...ish
Superman isn't a Paladin. He just happens to be a good guy.

But also when to use them.
That argument is circular.

I think my quibble here is that we're treating "deliver them to justice" as an absolute with an arbitrary definition? How exactly isn't, in the right society with the right laws and right moral code, executing a mass murderer not bringing them to justice?
It's not the best movie, but the new Superman movie did a really good job of portraying a situation like this. When Supes has Zodd all wrangled he is trying to give him a chance. Because Superman is the walking definition of hope. But when Zodd decides to get zappy zappy with humans, Superman has to end him. That's how I think Paladins should behave. I mean, your ultimate goal is to improve the world through your deeds, not nuke anything that pings evil. That's pretty much genocide, considering the statement Red threw out earlier about 33% of the prime material pinging evil.

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 12:32 PM

In general, though, it depends upon circumstances we cannot see from the video. In the above it's background information on Westeros.

Well, I can cover that one. In Westeros, it's a thoroughly feudal system; there pretty much aren't any "free" lands south of the Wall. So every village, no matter how minor or crappy-looking, is subject to oversight by the local lord. And there are laws against things like rape and murder. We know this, and we know that they are enforced, because very early in the series we are introduced to those who were given a choice between execution for their crimes and a life sentence in the Night's Watch. (Seriously, they get to the Wall and start introducing people by what they did to get there. "Murderer. Raper. Raper. Raper. Thief. Raper. Murderer.")

So we know that justice is nearby, and that it is fairly brutal - the system doesn't spare mercy on the peasantry. Let's pretend for a moment that Brienne is a Paladin (there are none in Westeros, but she's pretty close to it). She has access to horses and rope, she's strong, and she can secure and tow prisoners. It would be easy1 for her to approach the local lord's courts, inform them that she has captured a murderer and suspected rapist, and hand him over, or simply to hand him over to the town constabulary to do the same. She could be fairly confident that justice would be swift and generally unpleasant, too.

So why would she have to handle it herself?

It's not the best movie, but the new Superman movie did a really good job of portraying a situation like this. When Supes has Zodd all wrangled he is trying to give him a chance. Because Superman is the walking definition of hope. But when Zodd decides to get zappy zappy with humans, Superman has to end him. That's how I think Paladins should behave. I mean, your ultimate goal is to improve the world through your deeds, not nuke anything that pings evil. That's pretty much genocide, considering the statement Red threw out earlier about 33% of the prime material pinging evil.

No. No, no, no. Classic Supes did a really good job of presenting the idea that the Man of Steel shows mercy whenever possible. Timmverse Supes did a great job of showing how he completely cuts loose on irredeemably and unstoppably Evil characters, like Darkseid. New Supres did a great job of showing how Supes is an idiot who lets far too many people die instead of coming up with prompt, reasonable solutions that save lives.

Come on, LP. Really?

1 You know, unless she was on some sort of secret mission or avoiding the notice of nobles for some reason or another.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 12:37 PM

No. No, no, no. Classic Supes did a really good job of presenting the idea that the Man of Steel shows mercy whenever possible. Timmverse Supes did a great job of showing how he completely cuts loose on irredeemably and unstoppably Evil characters, like Darkseid. New Supres did a great job of showing how Supes is an idiot who lets far too many people die instead of coming up with prompt, reasonable solutions that save lives.
I agree with all of the above. But I was shooting for something along the lines of "even after all that, he still had hope".

Come on, LP. Really?
I'm sorry! It's my job to defend other LG people! I'm not a Paladine Paladin of Palladian for no reason! In the city of Palathis, on the continent of Palgera, on the planet Pal, in the galaxy Pallabrius, near the constellation of Palsterberous...

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 12:45 PM

I agree with all of the above. But I was shooting for something along the lines of "even after all that, he still had hope".

No. He didn't have hope. He had a body count.

I'm sorry! It's my job to defend other LG people! I'm not a Paladine Paladin of Palladian for no reason!

Whereas you know perfectly well what my job is. Human resources.

In the city of Palathis, on the continent of Palgera, on the planet Pal, in the galaxy Pallabrius, near the constellation of Palsterberous...

Ahh, sweet Pallabrius, Land of Night... To sing, and dance once more to your dark refrain... To take... That... Step to the right! HA!

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 12:45 PM

Huh. I was more under the impression she was escorting a politically advantageous prisoner in hostile territory, so turning him into the authorities would have amounted to her getting a few more holes put in to her. If she is NOT in hostile territory and unlike as I previously believed, has no reason to assume the man would not be brought to justice, then that's a goof on my part. No, she clearly messed up here unless her mission is super time critical for some reason.

I had assumed that the nearby populace was hostile and that his crime wouldn't be punished, in which case, I'd say her actions weren't the greatest, but I wouldn't say fall worthy.

Also, if Torm, a Lesser Deity, could take on the Lord of the Nine Hells, then...Someone isn't doing their job correctly. Ao might favor him, but he didn't exactly do much other then scrape him off of the cobble when he died.

jiriku

2015-06-02, 12:46 PM

Because you are a Paladin, and that is sort of explicitly your job. You can make mistakes, and those mistakes cost you, and you should feel bad about them. The chance you could have made a mistake doesn't make you fall, though. Actually making one does. Lawful doesn't even mean (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) "hey I respect all laws and believe everyone deserves a right to a fair trial" either.

I give this a hearty +1. Recall, the paladin's code requires you to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Failing to punish a murdering rapist will cause the paladin to fall.

Now, I won't speak directly about Brienne because it's been years since I read the books and I don't remember the legal environment of Westeros clearly. But in a typical fantasy society, trial by jury is not a thing. The presumption of innocence is not a thing. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a thing. Execution, severe corporal punishment, and mutilation are all valid punishments. Executions for severe crimes are common and legal. And by legal, we mean "sanctioned by Good gods", since the highest form of law is divine law set forth by the deities your society worships. Performing an execution in careful accordance with the divine commands of a Good deity is not an Evil act.

So only one question remains: "is the paladin legally authorized to render judgment"? If the position of your king/emperor/church/whatever is that no law exists out in the wilds between city-states, then the default answer to that question in most adventuring settings is "yes". If the law says you don't need a trial out in the wilderness, then you don't. On the other hand, if some legal requirement does exist, then the paladin does not have the right to perform an execution without first being invested as a judge.

I'd suggest that for a paladin, one of a character's first goals should be to obtain that right, precisely because paladins tend to venture out into environments where chaos and evil are rampant and the paladin himself may be the strongest and most capable representative of law and order for many miles around. A paladin should no more go adventuring without the law behind him than he would go adventuring while leaving his sword at home. If you play a paladin, the first thing you should do is obtain judicial authority -- get deputized, get a writ from a magistrate, or even write it into your backstory and be a traveling magistrate. I think a lot of DMs and paladin players get mired in "what do I do with the prisoner?" debates because they don't realize that "what do I do with prisoners?" is a question the paladin should ask and answer for himself before he goes on the adventure, not in the dungeon when the prisoner is tied up in front of him. They're not prepared.

Consider this: as a PC, when given a quest, you approach a regional magistrate, explain your quest, and ask to be deputized to administer the king's law while you are traveling on your quest. From the magistrate's perspective, a wise, temperate paladin who clearly respects the law and has been marked as the vassal of a Good deity is exactly the sort of person who can be trusted. The magistrate gives you the authority, and a writ to carry so that you have proof of your claim to be acting under the law. You ask the magistrate for advice about how to handle various situations, which he answers using his Knowledge (local) skill, the skill that governs knowledge of the law. On the an adventure, you take a prisoner, whom you believe to be guilty of crimes. You then hold a trial and do your best to judge correctly, then administer the punishment, up to and including execution when you deem it appropriate. You keep records of your actions. When you return to civilization, you deliver a report of your activities to the magistrate and provide the record of your trial.

Are you respecting legitimate authority? Yes.
Have you acted with honor? Yes.
Did you punish those who harmed or threatened innocents? Yes.

The code is satisfied.

Ahh, sweet Pallabrius, Land of Night... To sing, and dance once more to your dark refrain... To take... That... Step to the right! HA!

Oh no you didn't.... Sigh. You did.

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 12:46 PM

Well, I can cover that one. In Westeros, it's a thoroughly feudal system; there pretty much aren't any "free" lands south of the Wall. So every village, no matter how minor or crappy-looking, is subject to oversight by the local lord. And there are laws against things like rape and murder. We know this, and we know that they are enforced, because very early in the series we are introduced to those who were given a choice between execution for their crimes and a life sentence in the Night's Watch. (Seriously, they get to the Wall and start introducing people by what they did to get there. "Murderer. Raper. Raper. Raper. Thief. Raper. Murderer.")

So we know that justice is nearby, and that it is fairly brutal - the system doesn't spare mercy on the peasantry. Let's pretend for a moment that Brienne is a Paladin (there are none in Westeros, but she's pretty close to it). She has access to horses and rope, she's strong, and she can secure and tow prisoners. It would be easy1 for her to approach the local lord's courts, inform them that she has captured a murderer and suspected rapist, and hand him over, or simply to hand him over to the town constabulary to do the same. She could be fairly confident that justice would be swift and generally unpleasant, too.

So why would she have to handle it herself?

Because she's traveling through civil war torn lands where the feudal lords are dead and/or missing, she passes through many places where the local lord is dead or missing, or has betrayed his king. As the feudal lord derives his legitimacy from the king, the last disqualifies them, and due to the whole question of 5 Kings it's actually very hard to say who is a legitimate authority. Stannis and Renly have the claims there, and Renly is dead, and Stannis isn't in control of the region in the least. The Lannisters are the closest, but explicitly also don't have control of the region she's going through because of the war with the North. The King in the North... really has no claim at legitimacy in this region so um.. yeah. And then there's the Greyjoys who aren't particularly relevant. It's one of the big things we see in Brienne's, and the Hound's, travels in the books, that there is no legitimate authority left away from the concentrations of the high lords because they're all too busy killing each other like idjits.

Though that does beg the question does a paladin have to respect legitimate authority based on some cosmic litmus test, societal views in the area, or their own judgment as to who is legitimate?

jiriku

2015-06-02, 12:51 PM

Though that does beg the question does a paladin have to respect legitimate authority based on some cosmic litmus test, societal views in the area, or their own judgment as to who is legitimate?

Well, societal views don't work, I think. From the paladin's perspective, legitimacy is divine mandate, not majority vote. And if the majority is chaotic and evil, their view could be expected to be incorrect. I'd think you go with cosmic litmus test, or own judgment when the litmus test is unavailable.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 12:52 PM

Whereas you know perfectly well what my job is. Human resources.
That I do, and you know perfectly well what my job is.

Ahh, sweet Pallabrius, Land of Night... To sing, and dance once more to your dark refrain... To take... That... Step to the right! HA!
Hahaha. That falls in line with your deity as well.

Also, if Torm, a Lesser Deity, could take on the Lord of the Nine Hells, then...Someone isn't doing their job correctly. Ao might favor him, but he didn't exactly do much other then scrape him off of the cobble when he died.
I don't know what Torm (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Torm) you are talking about. But last time I checked, he was the big LG. Tiefling! What does the scouter say about his power level!?

Taelas

2015-06-02, 12:58 PM

That is the most important part. Even as a player, you are not the law. This is probably an "agree to disagree" moment.
A Paladin can most definitely be the law. In fact, if there is no more legitimate authority around, then they bloody well should be the law, otherwise who is going to enforce it?

The difference between Asmodeus and a thief isn't how evil they are. It brings us back to "can you deliver them to justice". You can not deliver Asmodeus to justice. Unless you can get Torm to ride in on Bahamut, you aren't transporting Asmodeus anywhere. The thief though? You can do that. You can almost always deliver someone to justice. In the case you can't? You don't have another option.
The option doesn't matter. It is not any less of a Good act to kill someone simply because you also have the option to do a more Good act in bringing them into a more legitimate authority. If it is Good while you have no options, then it is STILL Good even with it. Period.

Since they're devoted to a cause/deity, I think it'd be a bit far fetched to say they are the absolute authority. For the sake of the argument though, I was assuming that the village they'd bring them back to was more capable than not. A Paladin won't release a villain into the hands of a villain. That is what Detect Evil is for.

However, just recently that logic failed me. A person had a ring of concealed alignment. Lucky for me, our Yuan-Ti couldn't get a read on the guy so we caught him red handed.
They don't have to be an absolute authority. They can leave that up to the DM. If the Paladin is in error, then they fall. The system is self-correcting. I'm not saying they should use that to act with impunity, but in cases where there is no legitimate authority, they absolutely can enact justice solely on their own judgement -- purely because if they do mess up, they are instantly punished for it.

If you have two Paladins, one that acts with mercy when possible, and one whom is merciless -- the example Paladin in core, Alhandra, is characterized as someone who "fights evil without mercy" -- then the first Paladin is the "better" Paladin. They are less likely to fall. But the other Paladin is still solidly a Paladin. They are closer to the edge, but unless they stray across it, they're perfectly capable of retaining their status.

The two types of Paladin are likely to disagree vehemently on how to be a Paladin. The first one feels the second one is too close to a Knights Templar. The second feels the first is much too lenient, and that it's going to end up with disastrous results when an Evil creature "surrenders" and catches them by surprise. But they are both still Paladins.

You seem to be pretty firmly in the first camp. Which is fine. But there are other ways to legitimately play the class.

Here is the deal. This is more of a design flaw with the Paladin than a roleplay issue. What they should have done, was put the crusader in core. If the Paladin was required to have a patron deity and take on it's alignment and dogma as a code of conduct, that would have solved a lot. The crusader on the other hand, gets to take up a cause and possibly a lawful alignment. Boom. Solved all issues in this thread. "Did your patron deity agree? No? Boom. Fall." Then, with the crusader, you can have a ton of little Judge Dredds running around. Fills both Archetypes and solves nearly all the problems.
There really isn't a design flaw here. People just don't get how the Paladin works. Well. That could be the flaw, I suppose.

Superman isn't a Paladin. He just happens to be a good guy.
He's Exalted. :smallamused:

He's basically taken a Vow of Nonviolence. He'll beat you to kingdom come, but with nonlethal damage.

It's not the best movie, but the new Superman movie did a really good job of portraying a situation like this. When Supes has Zodd all wrangled he is trying to give him a chance. Because Superman is the walking definition of hope. But when Zodd decides to get zappy zappy with humans, Superman has to end him. That's how I think Paladins should behave. I mean, your ultimate goal is to improve the world through your deeds, not nuke anything that pings evil. That's pretty much genocide, considering the statement Red threw out earlier about 33% of the prime material pinging evil.
Superman can afford to be the shining paragon of Hope. He's got stronger than anyone, is basically immortal, can fly and shoot laser beams out of his eyes. He's not really a good example of a Paladin -- he holds himself to a much higher standard than Paladins can. Paladins are generally still mortal. Superman... really isn't.

I don't know what Torm (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Torm) you are talking about. But last time I checked, he was the big LG. Tiefling! What does the scouter say about his power level!?

Torm is an Intermediate deity in 3.5. He only becomes a Greater deity in 4E post-Spellplague when Tyr abdicates his seat to him. Tyr's the big Kahuna in 3.5 FR (along with Lathander). Torm and Ilmater are Tyr's servants.

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 12:59 PM

Oh no you didn't.... Sigh. You did.

Oh, yes. Yes I did. But it isn't all bad, is it?

Hahaha. That falls in line with your deity as well.

You mean this guy?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll9ryjM7Db1qclvq3.gif

I don't know what Torm (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Torm) you are talking about. But last time I checked, he was the big LG. Tiefling! What does the scouter say about his power level!?

Do you want to tell him, HT, or shall I?

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 01:00 PM

You mean this guy?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll9ryjM7Db1qclvq3.gif

As an evil dragon I am required through filial piety to prefer Tiamat, but Tim Curry is an acceptable second choice.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 01:00 PM

I don't know what Torm (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Torm) you are talking about. But last time I checked, he was the big LG.

3rd Edition Torm, actually, and that wiki is well known to be 4th edition. In 3rd edition, he takes orders from Tyr, the big honcho of Lawful Good in that era (And an actual Greater Deity, unlike Torm, his underling).

And I'd say that in some cases, the church might not care if the king really endorses their brand of justice. They could have put their dim-witted cousin who is more interested in stuffing their face in charge of things, and I wouldn't exactly blame a paladin for deciding to administer justice themselves, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the possibly corrupt or inept. Perhaps this is only my opinion, but I would assume that a lawful good religion would hold the tenets of goodness and their own religion above that of mortal law.

Heck, how many settings even have kings with divine mandate? I've...Never actually seen it, except in homebrew. Tyr didn't vote for you, and I wouldn't hold it against people to not follow the mandates of a guy who has nothing to do with goodness or any good aligned religion. What, he's got a nice hat on and some people work down to him, so the paladin has to pay attention? No, pay attention to legitimate authority, authority granted by the people and by service to those people.

Do you want to tell him, HT, or shall I?

I think I failed my sense motive, but I think I already told him. I still say if you're a lesser deity and...Somehow, you got Asmodeus on the ropes, just go ahead and smite him for pete's sake. The chances of you bringing that to justice are slim to none.

jiriku

2015-06-02, 01:08 PM

No, pay attention to legitimate authority, authority granted by the people and by service to those people.

Except that the idea that governmental authority is derived from the governed is an 18th-century concept. In a gaslight fantasy, sure, but in generic medieval setting #385756 it is an artificial graft-on if it's present at all. Authority comes from Torm, not from Torm's worshippers.

Mehangel

2015-06-02, 01:10 PM

I would say that with the scenario presented, the act would be chaotic not evil. As such the paladin would not fall. However, if the it was an exalted paladin, then yes, the paladin would lose its exalted status, but the act itself wouldn't even come close to causing the paladin to become an ex-paladin.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 01:13 PM

Do you want to tell him, HT, or shall I?
You're awful, and you know it. When were you going to tell me!?

3rd Edition Torm, actually, and that wiki is well known to be 4th edition. In 3rd edition, he takes orders from Tyr, the big honcho of Lawful Good in that era (And an actual Greater Deity, unlike Torm, his underling).
Huh, I wasn't aware it was 4th edition since it had the tabs for other editions. I've played 2nd-5th now, so forgive me that my lore is all over the place. I'm appreciative that my DM just runs 3.5 in whatever the current lore is. Anyways, Tyr then. If Tyr comes riding in on a abomination mixture of Tiamat, Helm, and Torm. Go ahead and update that.

I'm still pleased knowing Torm ends up big dog on campus. Faith unwavered.

Hey Red, what happens if we drop The Paladin Most Loyal into Baator?

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 01:15 PM

Except that the idea that governmental authority is derived from the governed is an 18th-century concept. In a gaslight fantasy, sure, but in generic medieval setting #385756 it is an artificial graft-on if it's present at all. Authority comes from Torm, not from Torm's worshippers.

I think I wasn't clear here, I'm going to be opportunistic and blame the flu I have. What I mean, is that if a government doesn't have the best interests of the people at heart...I really don't see why the paladin has to really uphold that society. I mean less that power is granted from the people, but more that people willingly pledge their fealty as opposed to being afraid of it. I really don't see why a paladin has to respect such a society. Change it, sure, but if they don't happen to have diplomacy or sense motive ranks...I can actually see that their god has given them another task to complete, instead of wasting everyone's time shouting at people. Put out little fires the lack of the law cannot, while other guys skilled in this sort of thing try to change it.

Anyways, Tyr then. If Tyr comes riding in on a abomination mixture of Tiamat, Helm, and Torm.

...I know that not all LG types are prudes, but I wasn't aware it meant an orgy, either. Well, okay, then, whatever floats Tyr's boat, then...Even if that includes kinky dragon sex?

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 01:20 PM

You're awful, and you know it. When were you going to tell me!?

When it caused the most anguish and despair, obviously.

Huh, I wasn't aware it was 4th edition since it had the tabs for other editions. I've played 2nd-5th now, so forgive me that my lore is all over the place. I'm appreciative that my DM just runs 3.5 in whatever the current lore is. Anyways, Tyr then. If Tyr comes riding in on a abomination mixture of Tiamat, Helm, and Torm. Go ahead and update that.

Yeah, if memory serves, he was a minor power, and then got promoted to Lesser by Ao. Then something something, 4th ed something, Greater.

I'm still pleased knowing Torm ends up big dog on campus. Faith unwavered.

That's cute. You just keep on with that.

Hey Red, what happens if we drop The Paladin Most Loyal into Baator?

I win. I always win.

...I know that not all LG types are prudes, but I wasn't aware it meant an orgy, either. Well, okay, then, whatever floats Tyr's boat, then...Even if that includes kinky dragon sex?

... We should be friends now.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 01:23 PM

I know that not all LG types are prudes, but I wasn't aware it meant an orgy, either. Well, okay, then, whatever floats Tyr's boat, then...Even if that includes kinky dragon sex?
I'm significantly less fond of Tyr.

When it caused the most anguish and despair, obviously.
Good job. Keep up the good work.

Yeah, if memory serves, he was a minor power, and then got promoted to Lesser by Ao. Then something something, 4th ed something, Greater.
I knew that, I just figured it was pre-3rd. I like Torm, he got where he was by being the best at what he does.

That's cute. You just keep on with that.
I will. Have fun bleeding in Baator!

I win. I always win.
I don't know, Red. You beefed that guy up to be a good contender. He also doesn't give a hoot about the Pact Primeval.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 01:26 PM

I'm still pleased knowing Torm ends up big dog on campus. Faith unwavered.

Well, since that was a marketing decision, maybe Torm is getting some side action from Waukeen? She's not bad looking, not at all. Hail the Merchant's Friend!

And personally, I am far more fond of Tyr then Torm, so I am quite sad the ol' gumpypuss got demoted.

... We should be friends now.

Does this make me a minion or something? Through I have to say, I was actually quite confused why Tyr would be riding around a LE chick, a LN dude and a LG dude. I mean...I don't think gods work quite like balloons here so any image I think of is silly or naughty or both.

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 01:28 PM

I knew that, I just figured it was pre-3rd. I like Torm, he got where he was by being the best at what he does.

According to the wiki you linked he became a Greater Deity when Tyr died and gave him his power during or shortly before the Spellplague (i.e. 4e).

That does make me wonder how much of his power he's lost now that Tyr, Ilmater, and Helm are alive again.

And Tiamat would never have anything to do with Tyr, Helm, or Torm, she's the original Lord of the First for goodness sake.

jiriku

2015-06-02, 01:28 PM

What I mean, is that if a government doesn't have the best interests of the people at heart...I really don't see why the paladin has to really uphold that society. I mean less that power is granted from the people, but more that people willingly pledge their fealty as opposed to being afraid of it. I really don't see why a paladin has to respect such a society. Change it, sure, but if they don't happen to have diplomacy or sense motive ranks...I can actually see that their god has given them another task to complete, instead of wasting everyone's time shouting at people. Put out little fires the lack of the law cannot, while other guys skilled in this sort of thing try to change it.

Ok. I think I agree with you, just for different reasons. If a government doesn't act in the interest of the people, it's probably not a [Good] government. A paladin might legitimately have issues with such a government just on the basis of its moral stance. Historically, though, it was quite common for people to fear their governments, and the leaders didn't seek pledges of fealty so much as demand them with force. The idea of voluntary government is modern.

D&D is its own animal, though, and has all kinds of modern ideas poorly grafted into it. Still, I wonder how that would work? If a kingdom didn't have a Lawful Good nature, I would think that any Lawful Good church militant enough to support an order of paladins would inevitably take a stand against the "moral decline" of the government, triggering a power struggle between the king and high priest. In such an environment, there would be a strong tension between the ideals of the church and the laws of the land, but any halfway decent hierarch should have given his paladins proper marching orders so they'd know how to conduct themselves. After all, they might have Knowledge (nobility and royalty) and Knowledge (religion) as class skills, but that just means the scholarly paladins will know what's going on. The rank and file are probably not book-smart and will need to be told what's going on and how to deal with it.

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 01:31 PM

I don't know, Red. You beefed that guy up to be a good contender. He also doesn't give a hoot about the Pact Primeval.

The Paladin Most Loyal is a zealot and a lunatic whose mind has been shattered and whose moral compass is virtually inverted.

The Hells are full of the most cunning, conniving, manipulative beings in the cosmos. Beings who are able to convince even ancient and powerful gods to agree to unfavorable pacts, which bind them eternally. Beings who have been able to corrupt even the noblest souls, with simple rhetoric and misdirection.

Tell me again for whom this ends badly.

Does this make me a minion or something?

Minion is a word that carries an awful lot of baggage. We prefer "probationary trainee" or "deductible corporate expense." Or "practice dummy."

Through I have to say, I was actually quite confused why Tyr would be riding around a LE chick, a LN dude and a LG dude. I mean...I don't think gods work quite like balloons here so any image I think of is silly or naughty or both.

I assure you, it had nothing to do with me, or with any wine-related deities. Further, no blackmail material resulted from the ensuing bacchanal. You can trust me.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 01:38 PM

I don't think Faerun has a wine deity, unless you count Sharess. It does have a beer deity, sort of, in Chauntea, but I'd like to think that the most powerful good aligned deity has better things to do then getting people drunk and posing them all weird. I mean, she's the ultimate spy!

...I also think I prefer being a minion to those positions. :smalleek:

Back on topic, jiriku, I agree, much of my stance is probably based on more modern ethics. However, I don't really see a way to separate DnD from it and still make it...Palatable to a modern audience. Obviously, I am challenging you because I find this idea intriguing and I am wondering if you had a take on it.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 02:13 PM

That does make me wonder how much of his power he's lost now that Tyr, Ilmater, and Helm are alive again.
I'm curious as well. I ran home for my lunch and looked in my 5th edition books. They were... less than helpful. The wiki (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Sundering_(event)) doesn't mention Tyr coming back though. I'm a little sad Lathander is coming back. I really like Amaunator.

Tell me again for whom this ends badly.
Don't things go sour for the plane before he even shows up?

Minion is a word that carries an awful lot of baggage. We prefer "probationary trainee" or "deductible corporate expense." Or "practice dummy."
Hold on, let me translate. I speak Red Fel. "Yes."

Edit:
I didn't find anything special on the sundering. My heart is sad. I was hoping to absorb that knowledge. However, someone (on a different board) said that if Tyr does come back, he should play a role similar to Jergal. I would actually appreciate Tyr a lot more if he did this and I would play an old man Paladin PC that worshiped him as tribute.

Segev

2015-06-02, 02:42 PM

"You also have to know when not to use your power," is a silly, pointless statement.

Of course you do. This is true of good and of evil. Of law and of chaos.

This was not such a case. She had a clearly evil man who confessed to the crimes whose evidence she saw all around her, who (along with two she'd had to slay) just got done attacking her with the expressed intent to add her to his list of victims of the same heinous crimes whose evidence she still SEES all around them both. To be honest, not even the pinnacle of the kinds of ideals of mercy that the Paladin archetype aspires to would have let him go. "Go forth and sin no more" came after the recipient of that benediction plead for (and was granted) forgiveness for his wrongdoings. Those who were unrepentant were ever chastised, and at least once violently expelled. (You don't have to believe in this particular narrative to agree that Paladins are modeled on a religious belief in the philosophies outlined therein.)

The whole point of the Paladin's powers to uncover evil and smite it is that he should do so when prudent. It was prudent here.

I admit, Red; I'm unsure if you're seriously advocating this as evil, or merely trying to corrupt potential paladins with a self-serving reticense to stand up against your malevolent allies. "All it takes for evil to triumph..." and all that. ;)

AzraelX

2015-06-02, 02:59 PM

Again, not murder: execution.

To the "surrender" bit... nowhere in the Paladin's code does it say they have to accept an enemy's surrender. So, if your interpretation of "acting honorably" requires not killing those who've surrendered (and I'm still not clear how turning them over to proper authorities you know will have them executed is "better," on the "can't kill the surrendered" grounds), then your paladin should tell the baby-off-the-balcony badguy, "No. You don't. Take up your sword and defend yourself, or die the coward's death you deserve."
Sounds like the perfect way to handle it, for anyone who believes "killing an enemy who pinky-swears that they're sorry" is dishonorable. That's very paladin-esque.

Brookshw

2015-06-02, 03:01 PM

The Paladin Most Loyal is a zealot and a lunatic whose mind has been shattered and whose moral compass is virtually inverted. Bwah?

The Hells are full of the most cunning, conniving, manipulative beings in the cosmos. Beings who are able to convince even ancient and powerful gods to agree to unfavorable pacts, which bind them eternally. Beings who have been able to corrupt even the noblest souls, with simple rhetoric and misdirection.

Let's see, /pull out A Paladin in Hell, /flip, flip, flip.

So the paladin (or their ghost, who died prior to the temple getting nabbed) fights a bunch of evil, protects good, helps get their temple and followers restored to the Prime, Lord of Hell who assaulted the temple eventually loses that fight, his position, and his life.

Tell me again for whom this ends badly. Sure doesn't seem to be the Paladin by Canon :smallwink:

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 03:05 PM

Bwah?
This. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19275687&postcount=57)

Let's see, /pull out A Paladin in Hell, /flip, flip, flip.

So the paladin (or their ghost, who died prior to the temple getting nabbed) fights a bunch of evil, protects good, helps get their temple and followers restored to the Prime, Lord of Hell who assaulted the temple eventually loses that fight, his position, and his life.

Sure doesn't seem to be the Paladin by Canon :smallwink:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a55/WildeRebellion/Gifs/tumblr_ltmkvsA5qF1qb93t3.gif

Taelas

2015-06-02, 03:13 PM

[image omitted]

It's an old 2nd Edition adventure.

Brookshw

2015-06-02, 03:14 PM

This. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19275687&postcount=57) Ah, thanks!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a55/WildeRebellion/Gifs/tumblr_ltmkvsA5qF1qb93t3.gif
Nooo! Trash cans! My one weakness! How did you knooowwwwwww

atemu1234

2015-06-02, 03:15 PM

Arguments about RAW aside, yes, she'd fall in my gamed. But not without a chance at redemption.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 03:18 PM

It's an old 2nd Edition adventure.
Thanks! I was confused. My time with 2e was brief.

Ah, thanks!
No problem. It's in my job description to be helpful.

Nooo! Trash cans! My one weakness! How did you knooowwwwwww
I didn't... I mean... uh. Bwahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHA. *gagging noises* I don't like evil.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 03:20 PM

*gagging noises* I don't like evil.

I really want you to know the amount of restraint I have to practice not to comment on this. And I'm not even lawful!

Through atemu1234's comment has got me thinking, how many people would permanently fall such an action, as opposed to temporarily, or indicating for the character not to continue down this path?

Segev

2015-06-02, 03:21 PM

Arguments about RAW aside, yes, she'd fall in my gamed. But not without a chance at redemption.

Under what circumstances could a paladin in your games execute somebody? How close must their next victim be to justify it as defending said victim? How sure the paladin's inability to keep the prisoner from escaping, possibly killing the paladin and her other prisoner in the process (or freeing her other prisoner, as well)?

"He's going to go to the next inn and rape and kill those wenches, too," is apparently not justification enough. Would there have to be a farmhouse visible that you passed with a comely young farmwife? Would there have to be a young lady a hundred yards away at whom he had been leering?

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 03:29 PM

I really want you to know the amount of restraint I have to practice not to comment on this. And I'm not even lawful!
At least you're honest, tiefling. (Ohhhhh!) Well, I've learned about Torm, 3.5, the Playground, and everyone's opinions on how Paladins should handle the law today. That's about a full day for me. Wanna catch some lunch, Tiefling? Red?

Through atemu1234's comment has got me thinking, how many people would permanently fall such an action, as opposed to temporarily, or indicating for the character not to continue down this path?
I've never fallen. That's not because of my DM either. Other people who have played Paladins fell. I just like to be beyond compromise.

Under what circumstances could a paladin in your games execute somebody? How close must their next victim be to justify it as defending said victim? How sure the paladin's inability to keep the prisoner from escaping, possibly killing the paladin and her other prisoner in the process (or freeing her other prisoner, as well)?
Find out next time on: PALADINS!

Brookshw

2015-06-02, 03:34 PM

Thanks! I was confused. My time with 2e was brief.
It's a good one if you're interested in lore, helped flesh out a lot of the reckoning, the dark eight, and other details of hell.

I didn't... I mean... uh. Bwahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHA. *gagging noises* I don't like evil.
Oh no worries, now I can get nabbed by the hells, you can come in, we can save some innocents, smite some devils, depose a lord, and the cycle will continue :smallwink:

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 03:35 PM

I'm pretty sure minions do not get a choice about employment or lunch breaks.

Also, I meant Brienne or whoever that character is not you, there are other paladins around. I know she's not a paladin, but I think one factor is not just IF she would fall, but how far. I mean, I assume plenty would, but I wonder how many would go as far to strip her of paladinhood were she a paladin.

Through the idea of who has gone through a paladin falling is indeed interesting. I wonder if it's ever gone well.

squiggit

2015-06-02, 03:39 PM

Superman isn't a Paladin. He just happens to be a good guy.
Well no, but he tends to fit the archetype very well. That was more poking fun at your reaction and name.

I think I can take this one. Or rather, Uncle Ben can.
Smart guy, but you can be responsible and still smite the wicked (and one could argue that constantly trying to take the nonviolent or nonlethal approach which in turn constantly leads to evil getting a second and third and fourth and fifth and so on chance and hundreds or thousands of more people being killed because of it is far less responsible).

They also take up the call because they have the self-restraint not to do so. What defines a Paladin isn't just the fact that he has power, but that he abstains from abusing it. And I'm not talking about his immunity to STDs.

The Paladin doesn't take the law into his own hands, he doesn't go all Judge Dredd, because he knows what kind of temptation that creates. He could go down that path. He could be good at it. Frighteningly good. But think about whenever pretty much any of the good guys in Lord of the Rings was offered the Ring by Frodo. Gandalf, Galadriel, they turned it down. Why? Because they knew that the power the Ring offered would be coupled with a desire to wield that power, and despite their best intentions, to ultimately do so indiscriminately.

The Paladin faces that temptation constantly. Remember the Powder Keg of Justice story. The Paladin walks that line every day, wondering whether today will be the day that he does the wrong thing for all the right reasons. Having the power to be the law, and using that power, are two separate things.

Kinda stinks for the good guys, doesn't it? :smallamused:

That's certainly a very good and interesting way to play a paladin, but I don't think it's the only way or even necessarily any more valid than playing the judge. The judge might walk the line even tighter than your normal paladin, but she doesn't succumb because she knows better, because every decision she makes is one she weighs very carefully, because lives hang in the balnace. It's not something she does because it's fun. It's not something she does because it's the easy answer. It's a burden the paladin bears, weighing the value of a single life against the good of the world. She doesn't succumb to corruption because she knows that very clearly each time she raises that holy avenger against a defeated enemy.

Frankly I'd even go a step further and say that a paladin who thinks the best solution is to dump their problems on someone else's lap and force them to make the hard decisions isn't much of a paladin at all. She has all those tools you just mentioned for a reason. And you're right, she does have to resist abusing them, but that doesn't that they're only a weapon of last resort either.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 03:41 PM

It's a good one if you're interested in lore, helped flesh out a lot of the reckoning, the dark eight, and other details of hell.
What was the module called? I might want to adapt it to 3.5 if I get the chance.

Oh no worries, now I can get nabbed by the hells, you can come in, we can save some innocents, smite some devils, depose a lord, and the cycle will continue :smallwink:
Huh. Sounds like a good morning work out. We could even be back before midday tea. I'm game.

Through the idea of who has gone through a paladin falling is indeed interesting. I wonder if it's ever gone well.
The guy in our group knew he had it coming. He had so many chances.

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 03:42 PM

I am reminded I've never seen a paladin fall...

Even the one who was fencing stolen goods using "I'm a paladin they'll trust me that it's not stolen" :smallannoyed:

I did have to rule once that I would allow the paladin to lie to a butler to stop a dragon kidnapping ring from inciting a war with dragons, in a city where bringing in chromatic dragon eggs was also highly illegal (noble had stolen the grand-egg of the de facto lord of evil dragons on that continent, grandpa was not happy).

Segev

2015-06-02, 03:45 PM

Think again about Uncle Ben.

His message - delivered somewhat meta by virtue of how his death drove it home for Peter - was that the great responsibility was to use the power to stop evil and save the innocent. Ben died to a man Peter could have stopped before Ben's life was in danger, but Peter, out of spite, chose not to. It was a neutral action, not an evil one. He did not help the guy get away; he merely didn't stop him.

Brienne letting this guy go would have been more akin to disobeying Ben's words of wisdom. (It's a stretch to apply it here, however, simply because she clearly is acting, either way. She had to to be in that position.)

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 03:46 PM

The guy in our group knew he had it coming. He had so many chances.

And yet, it doesn't sound like that ended well...Full story, please?

Brookshw

2015-06-02, 03:48 PM

What was the module called? I might want to adapt it to 3.5 if I get the chance. A Paladin in Hell (http://www.amazon.com/Paladin-Hell-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786912103)
There are a few conversions out there I believe.

Huh. Sounds like a good morning work out. We could even be back before midday tea. I'm game. I'll bring some bisquits :smallbiggrin:

Red Fel

2015-06-02, 03:53 PM

At least you're honest, tiefling. (Ohhhhh!) Well, I've learned about Torm, 3.5, the Playground, and everyone's opinions on how Paladins should handle the law today. That's about a full day for me. Wanna catch some lunch, Tiefling? Red?

Sure thing. I'm buying. Let's just say that today has been great for business.

I'll bring some bisquits :smallbiggrin:

I'll bring the popcorn. I always enjoy watching corporate restructuring in the home office.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 03:57 PM

Even the one who was fencing stolen goods using "I'm a paladin they'll trust me that it's not stolen" :smallannoyed:
That is annoying.

And yet, it doesn't sound like that ended well...Full story, please?
Ugh. This guy. He was a Paladin of Pelor. At some point, dude gains liquid metal arms that can become zero edge blades. (Essentially a 15-20 crit on them.) He pillages, plunders, lies, cheats, and disrespects everything in sight. I mean the guy'd be better off CN or CE. Aura of Courage? Nope. He hid under a bed for an entire encounter. Decided to take a leak on the NG deity's temple. Killed an innocent witness to a murder to "keep the peace".

Keep in mind, I still play with this guy. He plays a lot of archetypes well. His NE Bard was awesome. His TN Duelist is even better. But this LG Paladin. So bad. Finally, he offs a priestess at his own temple. Boom. Falls. I was so happy that I began weeping axiomatic tears.

I have to thank him though. It was at that moment I knew my true purpose. I must be the big LG. Fast forward... 3 campaigns and 6 years later. Here I am, sitting at a computer talking to you.

A Paladin in Hell (http://www.amazon.com/Paladin-Hell-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786912103)
There are a few conversions out there I believe.
Annnd.... purchased.

I'll bring some bisquits :smallbiggrin:
Hooray!

Sure thing. I'm buying. Let's just say that today has been great for business.

I'll bring the popcorn. I always enjoy watching corporate restructuring in the home office.
I knew hiring you was a good decision. You know, despite the whole "must be provided with a ring of undetectable alignment" part of your contract...

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 04:03 PM

Here I am, sitting at a computer talking to you.

Holy **** the voices are real! I thought you were just typing at me! What sort of paladin tells me to steal from orphanages anyway!?

I guess I can kinda see where you're coming from. Used to annoy me that people thought that chaotic types were all so zaaaaaany or willing to steal, kill and maim on a whim despite what the second half of their alignment is or common sense. But then I gave up and settled on Neutral...Uh, just Neutral. Yup, that's it.

Still not convinced that having paladins fall works out in any case, unless someone has a real gem of a worthwhile time it happened.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 04:09 PM

Holy **** the voices are real! I thought you were just typing at me! What sort of paladin tells me to steal from orphanages anyway!?
Wait what? You've got the wrong guy. I'm Palladian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19051786&postcount=19). I think you need to consult Malevolus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19052019&postcount=34).

I guess I can kinda see where you're coming from. Used to annoy me that people thought that chaotic types were all so zaaaaaany or willing to steal, kill and maim on a whim despite what the second half of their alignment is or common sense. But then I gave up and settled on Neutral...Uh, just Neutral. Yup, that's it.
Some of us were just born to be an alignment and we just can't handle it when someone does it wrong.

Still not convinced that having paladins fall works out in any case, unless someone has a real gem of a worthwhile time it happened.
I don't mind. You know the risks when you play the class. If people whine about it, that sucks. Work hard and get an atonement spell.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 04:25 PM

Yanno, maybe I'm just being overly optimistic here, but I'd like to assume that the paladin doesn't have a hidden class 'feature' of 'get boned by the DM'. Unless you people are into that, or something. Not judging.

I think I used to have a house rule that you came up with your own dang code of conduct that I approved as a DM. This conversation has only reminded me of this house rule, and it will be one I will have to revive.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 04:31 PM

I think I used to have a house rule that you came up with your own dang code of conduct that I approved as a DM. This conversation has only reminded me of this house rule, and it will be one I will have to revive.
I'll fall a paladin if I have to. But I've house ruled Paladins as I stated above. They have to have a patron deity and share it's alignment. Their code is then written in accordance with the deity's dogma by the player/DM. All my players were happy with that and I've seen a few exceptional paladins be brought to the table. My favorite one of theirs was a Paladin of Silvanus.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 04:33 PM

Was the paladin Neutral then? Admittedly, I dislike the idea of such a core option being locked to one singular alignment, but I'm surprised and intrigued.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-02, 04:36 PM

Was the paladin Neutral then?
Yep. It was the best play of a TN character I've ever seen. That character was the definition of balance.

Admittedly, I dislike the idea of such a core option being locked to one singular alignment, but I'm surprised and intrigued.
With my fix, you can be any alignment you want. :smallwink:

Segev

2015-06-02, 05:18 PM

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 05:22 PM

Frostthehero

2015-06-02, 05:33 PM

I'm going to have to agree with red, but it depends on your world. In my setting, paladins are hyper idealistic, and basically have to follow the knights code, but with the penalty of falling if they violate it.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 06:02 PM

As I am not well-versed in older editions, did this actually work, or...? From what I know of older editions, probably not.

I played a 1e paladin for several years. More than just restricting me from acting selfishly, it actually kept a reign in the party doing stupid destructive stuff as well. "The paladin wont like it" is like the DM saying no without actually saying no.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 06:05 PM

I played a 1e paladin for several years. More than just restricting me from acting selfishly, it actually kept a reign in the party doing stupid destructive stuff as well. "The paladin wont like it" is like the DM saying no without actually saying no.

Were people back then just a lot more agreeable, because if you tell that to many a disruptive player I knew, you'd quickly find that they'd start to murder each other to be the first to get the paladin to fall.

Taelas

2015-06-02, 06:34 PM

It was a very different scene. Games weren't played as fast -- a campaign could easily last years, without any characters reaching max level. There were incentives not to mess things up.

Venger

2015-06-02, 06:45 PM

In theory, the Paladin's Code of Conduct is a balancing mechanism against how powerful the class is. And in 1e AD&D...it WAS, especially at low-mid level. So part of the restraint on the Paladin was that, if he didn't behave with the utmost moral and ethical character (and thus not always exert his power in the most personally optimal fashion), he would lose his powers. It stemmed certain kinds of abuse. It was a way to make a class that was powerful in a focused area but far more constrained in another.

3e Paladins just aren't powerful enough to justify it, and it has long since become something DMs view as a personal challenge to their creativity. Because it's THERE.

3e paladins are very weak. they don't need a nerf at all.

you could always just... remove the falling mechanics and adjudicate your players being naughty through roleplaying, like literally every single other class in the game. if your wizard burns down a puppy orphanage, you have the cops chase him, or have one of the survivors come after him. you won't say "gotcha! now you lose all your class features, sucker" as people do with paladins. you also won't try to put your wizard in a situation where he has to choose between two options you morally disaprove of, forcing him to fall as everyone seems to enjoy doing for pallies.

Taelas

2015-06-02, 06:47 PM

It's one of the sacred cows that stuck around. I actually like the mechanic, for what it's worth. It sets paladins apart.

Scheming Wizard

2015-06-02, 06:48 PM

No she wouldn't fall, because the penalty for murder is death and the man clearly admitted to murder and rape. There was no doubt requiring a trial or evidence.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 06:56 PM

Were people back then just a lot more agreeable, because if you tell that to many a disruptive player I knew, you'd quickly find that they'd start to murder each other to be the first to get the paladin to fall.

Well, besides having a reasonable DM who would roll their eyes and veto that sort of behavior, I also happened to be the party tank, loaded up with so much AC and Spell Reflection that antagonizing me even without my knowledge became dangerous. My paladin mount was a panther too, which was cool.

Necroticplague

2015-06-02, 06:56 PM

No she wouldn't fall, because the penalty for murder is death and the man clearly admitted to murder and rape. There was no doubt requiring a trial or evidence.

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 06:59 PM

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Ill be honest, I am of the opinion that anyone who goes around claiming to be a murderer and subsequently attacking a paladin deserves any consequences that result. If youre that stupid, you wouldn't have gone much further in life anyway.

Necroticplague

2015-06-02, 07:09 PM

Ill be honest, I am of the opinion that anyone who goes around claiming to be a murderer and subsequently attacking a paladin deserves any consequences that result. If youre that stupid, you wouldn't have gone much further in life anyway.

So for being mind-controlled, the penalty is death? That's an entirely plausible scenario to have occur (other dude murdered them, Dominated these dudes to act as fall guys).

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 07:10 PM

So for being mind-controlled, the penalty is death? That's an entirely plausible scenario to have occur (other dude murdered them, Dominated these dudes to act as fall guys).

And a DC 15 Sense Motive check. Sense Motive is a class skill on Paladin for a reason.

Terazul

2015-06-02, 07:10 PM

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Except that (assuming she was a Paladin), she has Detect Evil, and he literally has the dead bodies hanging from a tree right next to them!

This is getting ridiculous. By that logic a Paladin shouldn't even bother killing anything at all because hey! Through some extreme machinations they could be acting against their own will. :smallannoyed:

And yeah, Sense Motive is a thing.

Venger

2015-06-02, 07:16 PM

besides, committing Evil acts under mind control isn't an Evil act, so if that were the case, they wouldn't ping.

Brookshw

2015-06-02, 07:21 PM

Scheming Wizard

2015-06-02, 07:30 PM

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Westeros is a pretty low magic campaign setting. There are the white walkers to the North and the Dragons across the ocean, but the everyday folk aren't even aware that they exist. I mean what is more likely that some soldiers raped and murdered some women in the woods then bragged about it or that a wizard nobody has ever heard of brainwashed these random soldiers just to make Brienne of Tarth commit murder? She's not even a well known knight/paladin.

Necroticplague

2015-06-02, 07:36 PM

Except that (assuming she was a Paladin), she has Detect Evil, and he literally has the dead bodies hanging from a tree right next to them!

This is getting ridiculous. By that logic a Paladin shouldn't even bother killing anything at all because hey! Through some extreme machinations they could be acting against their own will. :smallannoyed:

And yeah, Sense Motive is a thing. They shouldn't kill anyone who isn't currently a threat. Anyone you think might be a threat should be checked to make sure they are or aren't. Yes, it's a pain, but nobody ever said avoiding ever committing a single evil act was easy. And it still leaves them free for the most common category of killing I've ever seen, killing people who attacked you while you were doing something else.

besides, committing Evil acts under mind control isn't an Evil act, so if that were the case, they wouldn't ping.

But they could be Evil, but innocent of this act, and mind controlled. Evil=/=guilty of whatever recent heinous act went down.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 07:37 PM

So for being mind-controlled, the penalty is death? That's an entirely plausible scenario to have occur (other dude murdered them, Dominated these dudes to act as fall guys).

If theyre being mind controlled, then their deaths are on the hands of whoever controlled them and sent them after the paladin in the first place. The paladin has no reasonable way to know that theyre (potentially) innocent victims and so shouldn't be judged based on that.

Also, a character dominated into trying to kill the paladin is unlikely to surrender as that would be counter to the domination.

Necroticplague

2015-06-02, 07:43 PM

Also, a character dominated into trying to kill the paladin is unlikely to surrender as that would be counter to the domination.

They aren't dominated to kill the paladin, they're dominated to take the fall for this. In that case, having a public trial in which they confess actually serves the purpose of the dominator.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 07:44 PM

Zaydos

2015-06-02, 07:46 PM

They aren't dominated to kill the paladin, they're dominated to take the fall for this. In that case, having a public trial in which they confess actually serves the purpose of the dominator.

And is an obviously suicidal command and thus isn't followed..

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

Necroticplague

2015-06-02, 07:46 PM

If theyre only dominated to "take the fall" then they wouldn't be engaging the paladin in the first place.

And looking at the video, they didn't. They taunted her (I think, volume not working), then she turned around and killed them, with the last living one trying to surrender.

Keltest

2015-06-02, 07:49 PM

And looking at the video, they didn't. They taunted her (I think, volume not working), then she turned around and killed them, with the last living one trying to surrender.

And with regards to the self-destructiveness of the idea, that is any different how?

Brookshw

2015-06-02, 07:55 PM

And with regards to the self-destructiveness of the idea, that is any different how?

Suicide's a sin and this was suicide by paladin so clearly they were evil and killing them was okay :smalltongue:

atemu1234

2015-06-02, 08:06 PM

Suicide's a sin and this was suicide by paladin so clearly they were evil and killing them was okay :smalltongue:

Line we don't cross-> | + <- This.

Honest Tiefling

2015-06-02, 08:08 PM

While I think that mind control might be a valid concern in DnD, it would imply that being outwitted is somehow a moral failing of the paladin.

atemu1234

2015-06-02, 08:17 PM

While I think that mind control might be a valid concern in DnD, it would imply that being outwitted is somehow a moral failing of the paladin.

Not taking into consideration the possibility of it in some cases may be because of the Paladin's rash decisions, but I'd agree in this case. While falling for it is debatable, I could never see permanently losing one's powers over it. At worst it's a mistake, causing them to lose their powers until they atone, or at best it's a reasonable outrage (maybe there's some backstory justification or somesuch?) that the gods will understand.

Sith_Happens

2015-06-03, 12:38 AM

(Not reading the rest of the thread for now.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2fofPEgD4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m48s

Background: The guy who dies has just bragged that he and his friends have given a helpless girl a slow, horrible death, with clear indications of a gang rape.

The paladin in question is the armored woman who kills the man.

Fall or no fall?

Ironically it's not what the man in this scenario did that saves the paladin from falling, it's what he would do if allowed to flee. Namely, come back with reinforcements. Lots of reinforcements, and in waves. It would be impractical taking him prisoner and he's a threat if left behind alive, which just leaves killing him.

Aspiration

2015-06-03, 02:29 AM

Taelas

2015-06-03, 02:44 AM

They shouldn't kill anyone who isn't currently a threat. Anyone you think might be a threat should be checked to make sure they are or aren't. Yes, it's a pain, but nobody ever said avoiding ever committing a single evil act was easy. And it still leaves them free for the most common category of killing I've ever seen, killing people who attacked you while you were doing something else.

But they could be Evil, but innocent of this act, and mind controlled. Evil=/=guilty of whatever recent heinous act went down.

Even if this was the case, the Paladin wouldn't fall for killing them. :smallconfused:

Venger

2015-06-03, 03:02 AM

Yeah, even though I think Brienne would make a pretty good paladin, I'd say she'd fall for that one. Killing them = lawful, justified, not evil. Killing in a deliberately and unnecessarily painful way... imo that is lawful, but also evil.

deliberately unnecessary and painful may not be good, but it is Good. the terms are backwards. look no further than basically the ultimate Good act, sanctify the wicked. entrap an enemy in solitary confinement for an entire year and brainwash him into sharing your views on morality. to add insult to injury, you even burden him with a junky template to make it harder for him to gain xp.

Anlashok

2015-06-03, 03:05 AM

"reflects on past evils and finds within itself the spark of good" doesn't particularly sound like brainwashing. But I guess you can refluff however you want.

Venger

2015-06-03, 03:11 AM

"reflects on past evils and finds within itself the spark of good" doesn't particularly sound like brainwashing. But I guess you can refluff however you want.

not getting a choice about changing the fundamental aspect of your personality is pretty much the definition of brainwashing. unlike atonement, it's not like they're actually into joining your alignment gang. you're forcing it on them. just like if you're mind controlled into doing naughty things it doesn't count morally (common sense, not game mechanics) you can't be said to be making the change to the ide of the angels if somebody lobotomizes you without your consent. stanley kubrick made a movie about it and everything. there's no refluffing involved, that's how the spell works.

Anlashok

2015-06-03, 03:21 AM

icefractal

2015-06-03, 03:37 AM

Regarding the OP: Not fall. Assuming that the Paladin's code/god was ok with capital punishment, anyway. Which I think most D&D Paladins are, judging by the adventures which they're part of. But if you disagree on that point, see the second to last paragraph.

I've seen a fair number of opinions in this kind of scenario, that acting as judge, jury, and executioner is the problem, the Paladin should take them to the "proper authorities". Aside from the fact that "proper authorities" is rather difficult to determine in most D&D settings, and often not easily reached when out away from civilization - why would a divine agent of justice value the word of mortal authorities over their holy code? Maybe higher-ranking members of their faith, but a simple case like executing a confessed murderer wouldn't require that, any more than it would automatically require escalation to the Supreme Court IRL.

Now maybe if the Paladin followed a god of Community, or Rulership, or something like that, they'd particularly value temporal authority and go out of their way to consult it. But for the more traditional sorts, focused on things like justice, protection, opposing evil, etc. - I don't see it. You have a confessed murderer, you know your god's stance on those, you're in a position to execute judgement - what does the opinion of some random man who calls himself a Duke matter?

And as an addendum - if the Paladin is not ok with capital punishment, they also shouldn't be ok with handing the murderer over to authorities that would do so. Being a Paladin means taking responsibility; you can't just delegate it elsewhere.

TL;DR - Paladins IMC are agents of divine judgment, and that makes them frightening as hell to many mortal authorities. And I believe this to be supported by the books - to the extent that anything is.

Venger

2015-06-03, 03:42 AM

The lack of mind effecting tag like other effects that actually do what you say the spell does and the fluff text describing something completely different happening seem to heavily disagree with that assertion though. I mean the whole "Good is evil and evil is good and up is down!" thing is pretty cute, but I'd rather lean on what the spell actually says than what's simply a cute little idea.
I don't do it to be cute, I do it because it's true. tolerance for races that look different from the default (human) is Evil. there's really nothing more I can say about that.

what does it being mind-affecting have to do with anything?

that's what I'm doing, leaning on what the spell says instead of people's opinions that it's from BoED, so must be a nice thing to do to someone.

the point is that it is cast on unwilling creatures and drastically alters their personalities. everyone is willing to concede that using mindrape to do something like this against someone's will is an evil thing to do (ooc and in-game) so this is not any different. mindrape is at least over quickly and has positive applications, since it can even be used constructively and not just as a cudgel like sanctify the wicked.

Anlashok

2015-06-03, 03:53 AM

what does it being mind-affecting have to do with anything?
Well, magical brainwashing tends to be [mind-affecting], like the mindrape spell you keep referring to, and given that it isn't tends to work against your argument a bit.

that's what I'm doing, leaning on what the spell says instead of people's opinions that it's from BoED, so must be a nice thing to do to someone.
Has nothing to do with the source material and everything to do with the fact that the spell doesn't say it behaves in that fashion.

everyone is willing to concede that using mindrape to do something like this against someone's will is an evil thing to do (ooc and in-game) so this is not any different.

It's very different. As this spell lacks the [evil] and [mind-affecting] descriptors and has entirely different fluff that describes wholly different things happening.

Venger

2015-06-03, 04:02 AM

Well, magical brainwashing tends to be [mind-affecting], like the mindrape spell you keep referring to, and given that it isn't tends to work against your argument a bit.

Has nothing to do with the source material and everything to do with the fact that the spell doesn't say it behaves in that fashion.

It's very different. As this spell lacks the [evil] and [mind-affecting] descriptors and has entirely different fluff that describes wholly different things happening.

just to clarify, I am not talking about mechanics. I'm perfectly aware that it does not have the mind affecting tag, nor does it belong to the enchantment school.

I know it's a [Good] spell. that is irrelevant. the whole reason we will always have alignment threads is because Good and Evil are not perfect analogues to good and evil. even if you disagree that they're wholly inverted, surely you must understand that it's not gonna be perfect every time.

a [Good] tag does not make putting someone in solitary confinement for a year and brainwashing them a good thing to do. the same way an [Evil] tag doesn't make whipping out deathwatch to search a collapsed building for survivors a bad thing to do.

what you are ignoring is that sanctify the wicked is not only usable, but intended to be cast on people who don't want to start following your philosophy/religion/adventuring guild/improv group/whatever. reprogramming people's minds without their consent is not okay.

Taelas

2015-06-03, 05:49 AM

Sanctify the wicked is not Evil, but it is deeply disturbing.

Brookshw

2015-06-03, 05:51 AM

what you are ignoring is that sanctify the wicked is not only usable, but intended to be cast on people who don't want to start following your philosophy/religion/adventuring guild/improv group/whatever. reprogramming people's minds without their consent is not okay.

No it's not, its meant for Evil creatures, notably with "foul corrupt souls", and while it changes alignment the breadth of L/N/C:G views and beliefs still leaves a very large tract of options available for them. Brainwashing requires instilling a belief, StW only takes away belief. You can argue changing them from who they are is Evil if you like but its a stretch to say its used as you've outlined.

Edit: admittedly I'm noting my definition of brainwashing is off. Point stands though that there is both a broad scope of actions/beliefs still available and the original argument I quoted misrepresentation StW.

Taelas

2015-06-03, 06:51 AM

No matter how you slice it, sanctify the wicked is brainwashing.

Whether or not that is Evil is up for debate. I would argue that on the whole it is not -- it feels more like a Lawful/Chaos issue. Free will, and all that.

Losing free will is squicky, though. Which is why a lot of people really, really, really dislike sanctify the wicked.

Segev

2015-06-03, 08:30 AM

What we actually face here is a problem that exists in any game with social mechanics. That D&D has to go to a magical spell that somehow isn't actually doing magical mind-control to bring this concern up is an interesting side note.

I will digress to Exalted to illustrate.

In Exalted 2e, there are mechanics for social influence. They resemble combat sufficiently that they're often called "social combat." Using these social mechanics, it is possible to have sufficient prowess that you are 100% guaranteed to overcome almost any mortal NPC's "mental defense values," forcing him to choose to either spend "Willpower" (WP) or basically start to agree with you. This is utterly non-magical.

Nevertheless, extensive and heated arguments occurred on the old Exalted forums. There were GMs who would have NPCs immediately start physically attacking PCs (and PCs who would immediately attack anybody) who used social mechanics against them. They felt they were justified because "social combat" is even worse, in their minds, than physical combat on the level of violation of the rights of the target. After all, you're mind-controlling them!

I always felt that this was silly. The mechanics clearly are meant to reflect the kind of thing wherein one person tries to convince another of something through talking and persuasion (and occasionally bribery or the like). They're there to make there be a metric by which to judge if your investment in social prowess is sufficient to influence a given character who, before you started talking, may have thought nothing could persuade them.

But everybody has, at some point, said, "No, I will do it THIS way today," only for the opportunity to do it the other way to come up and change their mind in the heat of the moment. That's not "mind control." It's just persuasion.

Getting "talked into" something isn't magic, isn't mental invasion.

But players treat it like such in games because we continue to forget a key truth: we are not our characters. Our characters want and feel things we do not.

To use an old classic, it's really easy to say, "My guardsman would never abandon his post for a tawdry bit of pleasure with a gorgeous woman." Many guardsmen in real life doubtless said the same thing. Some were, in fact, right. Clearly, however, others were wrong. In the heat of the moment, when the seductress stirred their desire, they forgot or ignored their duty because they were seduced into her suggested activities.

It's similarly easy to say, while you've got a comfortably full stomach and a can of soda in easy reach, "No way would I fail to complete the last 2 hours of my 3-day fast!" When you're stomach is growling and you have a low blood sugar headache and your mouth tastes like sandpaper, however...

These sorts of mechanics are meant to model the temptations and forces which impact the decision-making process of the character independent of the easy-for-him-to-say player's desire. Of course you want to play a character of iron will and constitution who never forsakes his duties and always makes the right choice. The hard choice. Except...they're not hard for a guy sitting comfortably at a table. They're hard for the guy who is really in that situation.

It's not mind control any more than it is when you're told your character can't get up through "heroic willpower" when he's out of hit points. (Not without mechanics to back it up, anyway.)

Sanctify the wicked is trying to be an effect which presents so persuasive an argument for an undenyable truth that nobody comes out unchanged.

The ability to resist it is represented by a willpower roll, not because it's "unnatural mental influence," but because it takes willpower to willfully ignore all the evidence presented and to refuse to reconsider your deeds.

Now, I'm not saying this is a good design. But that's the concept behind it.

Venger

2015-06-03, 11:17 AM

Sanctify the wicked is not Evil, but it is deeply disturbing.

okay. that's all I'm trying to convey here.

No it's not, its meant for Evil creatures, notably with "foul corrupt souls", and while it changes alignment the breadth of L/N/C:G views and beliefs still leaves a very large tract of options available for them. Brainwashing requires instilling a belief, StW only takes away belief. You can argue changing them from who they are is Evil if you like but its a stretch to say its used as you've outlined.

Edit: admittedly I'm noting my definition of brainwashing is off. Point stands though that there is both a broad scope of actions/beliefs still available and the original argument I quoted misrepresentation StW.
all right. it sounds like we're on the same page. thanks for listening.

No matter how you slice it, sanctify the wicked is brainwashing.

Whether or not that is Evil is up for debate. I would argue that on the whole it is not -- it feels more like a Lawful/Chaos issue. Free will, and all that.

Losing free will is squicky, though. Which is why a lot of people really, really, really dislike sanctify the wicked.
taking away someone's free will is not Evil (since charm/dominate/etc are not [Evil]) but it is definitely evil. sanctify the wicked is pretty darn indefensible.

Zaydos

2015-06-03, 12:47 PM

Sanctify the wicked is trying to be an effect which presents so persuasive an argument for an undenyable truth that nobody comes out unchanged.

The ability to resist it is represented by a willpower roll, not because it's "unnatural mental influence," but because it takes willpower to willfully ignore all the evidence presented and to refuse to reconsider your deeds.

Now, I'm not saying this is a good design. But that's the concept behind it.

The big problem is that Sanctify the Wicked makes this argument by locking them in a sensory deprivation chamber where the only thing they are allowed to experience is designed simply to make them believe what you do (it changes Law-Chaos axis to match yours), while forcing them to feel bad about being who they were, and badgering them for a year; i.e. classic brainwashing tactics.

It's not Sanctify the Wicked is magical mind-control, it's "wait... did they really copy something out of a handbook on brainwashing techniques and call it [Good]?" If Sanctify the Wicked took place instantaneously when you cast the spell, i.e. was just an argument so persuasive it couldn't be ignored that would be one thing, but instead it uses Room 101 techniques, performs acts which are called out as only done by evil creatures (removing souls and trapping them), and causes the target to hate you if it is ended 1 round before the magic finishes which undermines the persuasive argument bit. It also changes the target's ethical alignment to match yours, making it not just a means of getting rid of evil.

You are right, that's what they were aiming at, but they missed by a long shot. Though it is possible to find 2e sources for something that worked like StW, it was used by the Harmonium on Arcadia and was so evil it caused a whole layer of Arcadia to fall into Mechanus when they did it on a large scale (Planescape being the setting that did nuanced exploration of what alignment means, the difference between Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and leaning towards one and the other, etc).

Of course having the [Good] tag doesn't indicate that using it is a Good act, the only one where that applies is [Evil] and Evil (because corruptive). The [Good] tag simply indicates that it's a power that is not given to Evil creatures, with a sanctified spell that simply means that the spell was created by an entity that didn't think Evil should have this power, my guess is something like St. Cuthbert.

Sith_Happens

2015-06-03, 09:51 PM

performs acts which are called out as only done by evil creatures (removing souls and trapping them)

Nitpick: neither Trap the Soul nor Soul Bind is an [Evil] spell.

Zaydos

2015-06-03, 09:59 PM

Nitpick: neither Trap the Soul nor Soul Bind is an [Evil] spell.

As both Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds makes clear it's highly possible for a spell's use to be evil without that tag (and the [Good] tag conversely doesn't make it a Good aligned act).

Though Contagion having the Evil tag is a little odd... apparently you specifically channel Evil power to create the disease.

Sith_Happens

2015-06-03, 10:11 PM

As both Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds makes clear it's highly possible for a spell's use to be evil without that tag (and the [Good] tag conversely doesn't make it a Good aligned act).

Neither of them call out trapping souls as Evil. Destroying souls, yes, trapping them no.

Zaydos

2015-06-03, 10:20 PM

Neither of them call out trapping souls as Evil. Destroying souls, yes, trapping them no.

They do talk about torturing souls and never granting them the release of death as evil, and BoVD specifies that non-evil creatures kill foes quickly letting them go to... eternal torture in the afterlife.

Creatures without corrupt hearts simply dispatch their foes quickly, believing that sending a villain off to the justice of the afterlife is punishment enough. But evil beings like to capture foes and torture them to death, and some even prefer to torture the souls of their foes, never granting them the release of death.

Edit: I am having trouble finding an effect which actually tortures souls. Though BoVD does talk about using souls in receptacles to fuel magic (which means you'd best protect any gems you put souls into), and does say that Trap the Soul should have the Evil tag... along with Contagion, Desecrate, Deathwatch (:smallsigh:), and Doom. Why did 3.5 take this advice on Deathwatch?!

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 05:44 AM

They do talk about torturing souls and never granting them the release of death as evil, and BoVD specifies that non-evil creatures kill foes quickly letting them go to... eternal torture in the afterlife.

Albeit here we're talking about a spell that's making the target think about the evil they've done and finding their own internal spark of good, with the entrapment for a finite duration. Strikes me a bit as somewhere between an intervention or moment of clarity an alcoholic might experience with a prison sentence. Conversely why they made it have any impact on the L/C axis and went the destroy the body approach rather than something akin to imprisonment with a duration is odd.

Scheming Wizard

2015-06-04, 06:10 AM

Taelas

2015-06-04, 08:00 AM

All beings (that aren't mindless) have free will to choose their alignments. Many of the fiends are fiends because they chose that alignment -- they used to be mortals.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-04, 09:04 AM

I love Sanctify the Wicked. People are thinking about it when applied to humans and PC races (elves, dwarves, half orcs etc).
There is a reason they don't give this spell to Paladins haha.

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 09:44 AM

There is a reason they don't give this spell to Paladins haha.

I'm sure we can find a way to add it to your list if you promise to hit Red Fel with it :smallwink:

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-04, 10:02 AM

I'm sure we can find a way to add it to your list if you promise to hit Red Fel with it :smallwink:
Tempting! What do you say Red? You could be a LG Warblade?

Sacrieur

2015-06-04, 10:37 AM

All beings (that aren't mindless) have free will to choose their alignments. Many of the fiends are fiends because they chose that alignment -- they used to be mortals.

Could you elaborate?

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 10:50 AM

I love Sanctify the Wicked. People are thinking about it when applied to humans and PC races (elves, dwarves, half orcs etc). Those races have a choice whether to be good or evil or to be lawful or chaotic and sanctify the wicked does deprive them of that choice. Making it a permanent dominate person/geas spell when used on them. (not bad but not good)

But when cast on creatures that are marked always chaotic evil or always lawful evil the spell is quite the tool of good. Creatures like demons and mindflayers don't actually get to choose their alignments. They are born evil and they die evil, so by changing their alignment you aren't robbing them of anything. You are just repurposing their robot like morality. You don't feel bad when you cast control construct or command undead do you?

See demons, devils, and mindflayers (specifically mindlflayers*) are when it doesn't feel nearly as squick. Guess what you can't apply the sanctified template (only available via the spell and very much what enforces the alignment change) to? :smallsigh: The spell has some mechanical problems as well. That said the construct and undead analogy doesn't really work since you are talking about intelligent creatures.

*Mindflayers are brain parasites which takes over someone's mind and warps it into the image of their culture, giving them something more resembling their original morality doesn't feel dirty.

Could you elaborate?

In D&D the default origin of fiends is that they begin as petitioners, or the souls of the dead sent to their plane for matching that alignment. From these petitioners the most evil are taken and made into lemure and mane (the lowest levels of Baatezu and Tanar'ri respectively), those who survive this become higher orders of fiend and most fiends who die come back as lower orders of fiends (and used to be specific that lemure and mane who died off their home planes came back on their home plane and possibly those who did die on their home plane). While some Tanar'ri are naturally occurring (succubi are called out as being the first to naturally occur and among the most common), most are former mortals, and Baatezu are all former mortals since only nuberibo (might have mispelled that, comp is freezing so can't google the spelling atm and I suck at spelling these made up names) are naturally occuring and the Baatezu will not let them mature for fear of the great evil which would be released... and then proceed to kill them, reclaim Baator as its own, laugh off the Tanar'ri, and turn its gaze to the Heavens. Seriously the closest place I know of where an Ancient Baatorian has stats they are "nothing short of a wish spell can meaningfully affect it, and this is a module for 7th-9th level characters so we aren't going to provide stats. If they wake it up they die." Though some can be found frozen in ice, midcombat with armies of Baatezu and Archons.

On that note, Loyal you don't want to convert Red Fel his evil is keeping greater horrors contained.

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 11:04 AM

@Zaydos, which module are you thinking of? The closest I can recall offhand is Unbound but that one was still developing.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-04, 11:06 AM

On that note, Loyal you don't want to convert Red Fel his evil is keeping greater horrors contained.
I feel like Red and I have an agreement. We can screw each other over and attempt to convert each other. But magic is cheating. As the big LE and the big LG, we can't do that.That, and we are both martials...

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 11:07 AM

@Zaydos, which module are you thinking of? The closest I can recall offhand is Unbound but that one was still developing.

One of the three in the Hellbound: The Blood War box set. I think it with the 'loth plan to rob the baatezu and tanar'ri of teleportation abilities but not 100% sure anymore since it is just the thing that really stuck with me from the three modules. It was underground on the 6th Layer of Baator, and snuffed out light sources.

Segev

2015-06-04, 11:16 AM

Oh, Piffle. Red's AE. "Law" is just a way to add to the politeness.
AE = "Affably Evil"

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 12:10 PM

One of the three in the Hellbound: The Blood War box set. I think it with the 'loth plan to rob the baatezu and tanar'ri of teleportation abilities but not 100% sure anymore since it is just the thing that really stuck with me from the three modules. It was underground on the 6th Layer of Baator, and snuffed out light sources.

Oh okay, I think we're thinking of the same one but I recalled the name wrong. I'll have to pull it out, thought the creatures in the ice only had an identity hinted at but was still largely unknown.

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 12:13 PM

Oh okay, I think we're thinking of the same one but I recalled the name wrong. I'll have to pull it out, thought the creatures in the ice only had an identity hinted at but was still largely unknown.

The ice one I mainly remember as being listed as an ancient baatorian online a lot, and various hints to one in ice.

There are stats for a nupperibo(?) which has started to evolve in one module (I think it's part of Tales of the Infinite Staircase, but I am not 100%).

I was so excited to see an Ancient Baatorian in Elder Evils and then... they repurposed a (famous) Mystara boss who had nothing to do with Baator or Baatorians and made him the weakest Elder Evil and CR 19 and their king who was a threat to Asmodeus and an army and... Zargon displeased me.

Venger

2015-06-04, 12:15 PM

The ice one I mainly remember as being listed as an ancient baatorian online a lot, and various hints to one in ice.

There are stats for a nupperibo(?) which has started to evolve in one module (I think it's part of Tales of the Infinite Staircase, but I am not 100%).

I was so excited to see an Ancient Baatorian in Elder Evils and then... they repurposed a (famous) Mystara boss who had nothing to do with Baator or Baatorians and made him the weakest Elder Evil and CR 19 and their king who was a threat to Asmodeus and an army and... Zargon displeased me.

that's the correct spelling of nupperibo.

zargon is embarrassing as an elder evil. he's an elder evil in the same way imhotep is a god: by technical definition only.

atemu1234

2015-06-04, 01:18 PM

I feel like Red and I have an agreement. We can screw each other over and attempt to convert each other. But magic is cheating. As the big LE and the big LG, we can't do that.That, and we are both martials...

And since I chose TN, I've debated using Mind Rape on both of you. For Balance's Sake

Venger

2015-06-04, 01:20 PM

And since I chose TN, I've debated using Mind Rape on both of you. For Balance's Sake

just use sanctify the wicked! then they'll be brainwashed into agreeing with you and you'll win the argument.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-04, 01:47 PM

And since I chose TN, I've debated using Mind Rape on both of you. For Balance's Sake
Red has Mind blank and I've got Magic Circle Against Evil from my levels in Fist of Raziel...

just use sanctify the wicked! then they'll be brainwashed into agreeing with you and you'll win the argument.
Do you really want to sacrifice two character levels?

Segev

2015-06-04, 01:51 PM

Wait, Red Fel's a martial class? I thought for sure he was a wizard-base.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-04, 01:53 PM

Wait, Red Fel's a martial class? I thought for sure he was a wizard-base.
Depends on which aspect you are talking about. He's got quite a few.

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 02:27 PM

just use sanctify the wicked! then they'll be brainwashed into agreeing with you and you'll win the argument.

Nah, let him StW, stitch to his whatever/good and then keep disagreeing with him. It's not as if like alignments always agree :smallbiggrin:

Venger

2015-06-04, 02:44 PM

Nah, let him StW, stitch to his whatever/good and then keep disagreeing with him. It's not as if like alignments always agree :smallbiggrin:

I just want to trick him into losing 2 character levels.

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 03:18 PM

Oh, just saw something relevant to Good forces trapping souls, from page 127 of BoED

If the save fails, the attack utterly annihilates the victim’s body, killing it instantly. Further, the victim’s soul is bound to a great prison in the Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, where it remains until the archons that manage the celestial donjon see fit to release it. Release involves bartering with Barachiel, with some quest for the cause of law and goodness being the most common price bolding mine. Seems like trapping souls isn't unknown if they have a great prison (though admittedly its inconclusive as the prison could house a number of things besides souls).

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 03:27 PM

Oh, just saw something relevant to Good forces trapping souls, from page 127 of BoED
bolding mine. Seems like trapping souls isn't unknown if they have a great prison (though admittedly its inconclusive as the prison could house a number of things besides souls).

Which really seems odd given that it's preventing a soul from going to its just rewards. It's almost as if the alignment books were very poorly and inconsistently written.

Which actually was sort of my point in that BoED has [Good] spells which do things that are said to only be done by Evil characters and does things like forbids poisons for causing undo harm and then has Good poisons which specifically cause pain... despite most poisons being relatively painless. It's almost as if the [Good] descriptor doesn't make something a Good act even in D&D terms or the eyes of cosmic forces.

LoyalPaladin

2015-06-04, 03:32 PM

Seems like trapping souls isn't unknown if they have a great prison (though admittedly its inconclusive as the prison could house a number of things besides souls).
Well... if the big B is in charge of it, I'm not going to argue.

It's almost as if the [Good] descriptor doesn't make something a Good act even in D&D terms or the eyes of cosmic forces.
All good can be used for evil I suppose.

Venger

2015-06-04, 03:42 PM

Which really seems odd given that it's preventing a soul from going to its just rewards. It's almost as if the alignment books were very poorly and inconsistently written.
imagine that.

Which actually was sort of my point in that BoED has [Good] spells which do things that are said to only be done by Evil characters and does things like forbids poisons for causing undo harm and then has Good poisons which specifically cause pain... despite most poisons being relatively painless. It's almost as if the [Good] descriptor doesn't make something a Good act even in D&D terms or the eyes of cosmic forces.

Yes. the "ravages" and "positoxins" and other nonsense (slayer of domiel, etc). right. it doesn't. that's what I've been trying to say the whole time too. glad I'm not alone here.

Scheming Wizard

2015-06-04, 03:57 PM

See demons, devils, and mindflayers (specifically mindlflayers*) are when it doesn't feel nearly as squick. Guess what you can't apply the sanctified template (only available via the spell and very much what enforces the alignment change) to? :smallsigh: The spell has some mechanical problems as well. That said the construct and undead analogy doesn't really work since you are talking about intelligent creatures.

*Mindflayers are brain parasites which takes over someone's mind and warps it into the image of their culture, giving them something more resembling their original morality doesn't feel dirty.

Well that is what is weird about the template. It says you can't apply the template to evil outsiders, but then in the next line it says that outsiders lose the evil subtype as well as baatezu and tanar'ri subtypes. Does the template specifically change their type so you can then apply the template? Maybe the sanctify the wicked spell changes their alignment so that the template can then be applied?

Venger

2015-06-04, 04:04 PM

Well that is what is weird about the template. It says you can't apply the template to evil outsiders, but then in the next line it says that outsiders lose the evil subtype as well as baatezu and tanar'ri subtypes. Does the template specifically change their type so you can then apply the template? Maybe the sanctify the wicked spell changes their alignment so that the template can then be applied?

No. It says you can't apply it to outsiders with the evil subtype. You can't brainwash a bebilith, but you could brainwash an evil-aligned tiefling if you wanted to.

having the evil subtype is not the same thing as having an evil alignment

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 04:07 PM

Yes. the "ravages" and "positoxins" and other nonsense (slayer of domiel, etc). right. it doesn't. that's what I've been trying to say the whole time too. glad I'm not alone here.

See I have no problem with ravages being a thing, but they aren't really any more good than poison, they are a weapon the forces of good might use to fight evil because it's less likely to have collateral damage, and they should have the [Good] descriptor because they require channeling holy energy anathema to Evil, but that doesn't make using them good. And the books actually state this a few times... they just also contradict themselves and give really dumb reasons good creatures can't use poisons.

It is almost as if they had an idea for a book about how to be more than good, and an idea for a book about holy armaments and powers, and decided to bolt these together in a way that doesn't make sense because it was badly edited.

As an aside the Affliction spell is an abomination; a 3rd level spell should not deal 11-13 Constitution damage to a pit fiend and then leave it having to make Con saves every day or repeat the process.

Well that is what is weird about the template. It says you can't apply the template to evil outsiders, but then in the next line it says that outsiders lose the evil subtype as well as baatezu and tanar'ri subtypes. Does the template specifically change their type so you can then apply the template? Maybe the sanctify the wicked spell changes their alignment so that the template can then be applied?

Changing a creature's alignment doesn't remove the alignment subtype and in fact leaves them vulnerable to things targeting either alignment. The spell-template combination is a badly edited/written mess. Actually the whole book is kind of got problems in that regard (feels like they had different people working on each thing and bolted it together under a strict deadline, while the mechanics for the new edition weren't set in stone).

I'm also still mad they gave Good clerics spontaneous Sanctified spell access.

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 04:17 PM

Yes. the "ravages" and "positoxins" and other nonsense (slayer of domiel, etc). right. it doesn't. that's what I've been trying to say the whole time too. glad I'm not alone here.

There's certainly some oddities no doubt though many of them still retain distinction from similar Evil elements. The ravages etc are certainly a notable example of such an oddity. Personally I understand your objections to much of the content, in others it strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bath water or an unfair interpretation. I don't think anyone's claiming the books perfect but I don't think that perfection is a reasonable expectation. Both IRL and in the game there's plenty of disagreement on what's good and the writers taking a broad approach (albeit inconsistent at times) gives them a bit of manueverability in appealing to a broader audience. Simultaneously, it seems like they wanted to provide comparable alternatives to Evil options though with a good twist, potentially to allow players to realize more options within the sphere of Good.

I suppose at the end of the day just do what everyone does and cherrypick what works for your group. Every book has issues and if the rules alone get screwey (hello dysfunction thread!) its hard to expect them to write perfectly regarding moral complexity.

Actually the whole book is kind of got problems in that regard (feels like they had different people working on each thing and bolted it together under a strict deadline, while the mechanics for the new edition weren't set in stone).

That's probably a very accurate speculation I'm guessing with the 3.0/3.5 shift taking place between BoVD and BoED. (and with such an internal team restructure is pretty likely, I've seen that enough in my experience in publishing where the editors that start a project aren't always the editors that finish it).

Scheming Wizard

2015-06-04, 04:18 PM

No. It says you can't apply it to outsiders with the evil subtype. You can't brainwash a bebilith, but you could brainwash an evil-aligned tiefling if you wanted to.

having the evil subtype is not the same thing as having an evil alignment

Ok thanks that makes sense.

Zale

2015-06-04, 04:56 PM

Oh, just saw something relevant to Good forces trapping souls, from page 127 of BoED
bolding mine. Seems like trapping souls isn't unknown if they have a great prison (though admittedly its inconclusive as the prison could house a number of things besides souls).

What's really funny is that according to BoVD destroying a soul is always a vile and evil act (Putting the 'killing outsiders' part of that), and in BoED, there's a creature called an Aleax. It's basically a divine doppleganger that Good gods send to beat people up and/or kill them.

If the aleax kills its intended victim, the
victim’s spirit is instantly transported to the aleax’s deity, who
gives the fallen character one last chance to barter for its life.
The deity can demand a service, a sworn oath, a magic item or
other precious item, or some similar sacrifice. If the character
does not pay, his spirit is destroyed, and the character cannot be
returned to life by any means.

So the Good gods regularly commit Vile acts with their !Goodsassins!?

Or is it ok to destroy relatively evil souls?

Brookshw

2015-06-04, 05:12 PM

So the Good gods regularly commit Vile acts with their !Goodsassins!?

Or is it ok to destroy relatively evil souls?

"can demand" leaves the good deity a loophole, its not an obligation on their part to do so and with some future sight ability I'd think it in their character not to demand something that wouldn't be met.

Keltest

2015-06-04, 05:12 PM

Venger

2015-06-04, 05:16 PM

Its almost like the authors of the BoED had no idea what they were taking about.

Its bad enough that I automatically discount any argument that invokes said book.

but of course that's impossible

yeah, that's a good strategy.

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 05:30 PM

What's really funny is that according to BoVD destroying a soul is always a vile and evil act (Putting the 'killing outsiders' part of that), and in BoED, there's a creature called an Aleax. It's basically a divine doppleganger that Good gods send to beat people up and/or kill them.

So the Good gods regularly commit Vile acts with their !Goodsassins!?

Or is it ok to destroy relatively evil souls?

No it's not, but apparently it is to destroy Powergamer's souls. Seriously Aleax was originally from 2e where they were sent out by the Powers (Good and Evil) to smite... well pretty much power gamers. That's why their stats were in effect "Yours but better" was so that no matter what the PC did they were doomed. Though really they also served to railroad PCs to work for the gods. Or you know you have one duplicating an NPC and have it be about protecting him until you realize why/how he has pissed off a deity and then either convincing him to fix it, mollifying the god yourselves, or going "Dude? You did what to orphans? No wonder Scarlet Feladin wants you dead. I'm just gonna you know..." and hitting him on the head with a sap and handing him to the aleax. Everyone knows scarlet is the most Loyal type of Red.

Also incidentally this conversation has inspired me to make a fixed list caster... which twisted into something other than what I originally intended (which was bonus exalted feats every other level and only Sanctified spells... instead they have a bunch of Healing and Good spells as well as Sanctified spells).

Venger

2015-06-04, 05:58 PM

No it's not, but apparently it is to destroy Powergamer's souls. Seriously Aleax was originally from 2e where they were sent out by the Powers (Good and Evil) to smite... well pretty much power gamers. That's why their stats were in effect "Yours but better" was so that no matter what the PC did they were doomed. Though really they also served to railroad PCs to work for the gods. Or you know you have one duplicating an NPC and have it be about protecting him until you realize why/how he has pissed off a deity and then either convincing him to fix it, mollifying the god yourselves, or going "Dude? You did what to orphans? No wonder Scarlet Feladin wants you dead. I'm just gonna you know..." and hitting him on the head with a sap and handing him to the aleax. Everyone knows scarlet is the most Loyal type of Red.

Also incidentally this conversation has inspired me to make a fixed list caster... which twisted into something other than what I originally intended (which was bonus exalted feats every other level and only Sanctified spells... instead they have a bunch of Healing and Good spells as well as Sanctified spells).

that's still how they work now, but they give you a sweet buff once you kill them (and make great ice assassins for that matter) so I don't know how much it's punishing that boogeyman of tabletop games, the "optimizer/powergamer/rudisplorker/etc" so it's more of a boon than a punishment.

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 06:08 PM

that's still how they work now, but they give you a sweet buff once you kill them (and make great ice assassins for that matter) so I don't know how much it's punishing that boogeyman of tabletop games, the "optimizer/powergamer/rudisplorker/etc" so it's more of a boon than a punishment.

Yeah, checking the 2e version it did give a boon... which came along with a save versus possession whenever you did something similar to your original offense... I'm not sure +1 to initiative was worth that.

Venger

2015-06-04, 06:44 PM

Yeah, checking the 2e version it did give a boon... which came along with a save versus possession whenever you did something similar to your original offense... I'm not sure +1 to initiative was worth that.

sorry, I wasn't clear:

I didn't mean 2e didn't give a boon. I meant that since aleaxes in 3.5 allow ice assassins, they are more of a treat than a punishment by their own existence, even before you kill them and get the little bonuses.

Zaydos

2015-06-04, 06:45 PM

sorry, I wasn't clear:

I didn't mean 2e didn't give a boon. I meant that since aleaxes in 3.5 allow ice assassins, they are more of a treat than a punishment by their own existence, even before you kill them and get the little bonuses.

Ice Assassin makes most everything crazy.

Scheming Wizard

2015-06-05, 01:04 AM

Venger

2015-06-05, 02:06 AM

In regards to some of the more overpowered and devastating things in the book there is a good reason for it. Monte Cook wrote the book of vile darkness before the book of exalted deeds came out. The stuff was mainly for the DM to upgrade villains with and some stuff for the occasional evil party. Some of the stuff was a little more powerful than normal compared to other expansion books at the time. James Wyatt wrote the book of exalted deeds after, but felt that a lot of players were starting to play evil characters to take advantage of the overpowered or cool stuff, so he made even stronger and cooler stuff and put it in the book of exalted to tempt players back to the side of good. At least that is what I gathered from his forward in the book of exalted deeds.

In a weird way the books were dueling over whether the dark side was really stronger.

That doesn't really hold up, though. Everything in BoVD is explicitly an option for PCs. You can level up and take the feats, enroll in the classes, shapeshift into the monsters, etc. while Monte may not know anything about the game, but I do want to give him enough credit to know what is and isn't a PC option. it's not like he didn't know players would play with the new toys he gave them.

the complaints boed's opponents have against it are largely about how the things it says are the ultimate two-shoes behavior are actually terrifying war crimes, they're less about balance issues.

there's no question of who's got better stuff when it comes to alignment in D&D, Evil has a lot more support than Good does.

the other (main) reason boed is so awful is because they just looked at bovd and said "eh, we'll multiply by -1 and it'll be fine" like with [s]ur-priest[/] apostle of peace