PDA

View Full Version : What would you do if you were the paladin? What would you do if you were the GM?



gadren
2016-07-12, 06:29 PM
So, in the D&D campaign I'm running, the party came to a moral conundrum at the end of the session last week, and decided to think about it and decide what to do next week.
In an earlier adventure, the party unknowingly helped a thief that stole a cultural artifact called the Dagger of Therask from the Kingdom of Bawbak, an item that has been passed down through the Bawbak royal line for generations. When they found out, they promised the emissaries of Bawbak that they would recover the dagger for them.
As of last night, they have succeeded in recovering the dagger, but have discovered its enchantment has the evil subtype and that its main ability is if used to slay a person who has willingly (without magical influence) submitted themself as a sacrifice, the person using the dagger to perform the sacrifice has their age reduced by 10 years.

So the party is not sure what to do. On the one hand they made a promise to right the wrong they accidentally committed. On the other hand, "evil" dagger being used to sacrifice people. On the other other hand, who are they to judge the culture of Bawbak?

I'm particularly curious what the party paladin will do. I have no intention of punishing her for her decision (unless her decision is to keep the dagger for her own use); I think it is more interesting to let a paladin wrestle with the decision of whether or not they've done the right thing than to just make them fall when their player's interpretations of ethics doesn't perfectly align with my own.

This made me curious though. If you were a paladin, what would you do? If you were a GM, how would you respond to the Paladin breaking their oath and destroying the item they promised to recover, and how would you respond to the Paladin returning the evil dagger to the people it rightfully belongs to?

EDIT (July 14th):
WOW, I didn't quite expect this many replies!

A lot of people have been asking for details. I purposely kept it vague because I was just interested in people's thoughts on the core issue instead of the minutiae of the details.

However, here are more relevant details:
1. The game is a homebrew RPG based off of heavily modified Pathfinder and 3.5 rules.
2. When I said it has the evil subtype, I more specifically meant it detects as "necromancy [death, evil]", since its function is similar to the Death Knell spell.
3. The Kingdom of Bawbak is a kingdom of Fey that most humans refer to as "The Cursed". The Cursed are a type of fey they lost their innate connection to magic and nature ages ago and age about 50% faster than humans do. The people of Bawbak are somewhat similar to Klingons from Star Trek, culture-wise. They aren't an evil civilization, but some of the things they consider good most human civilizations would consider evil, and so there is more often than not tension between the two. Bawbak and Burya (the nearest human kingdom) currently are at peace and have limited trade with each other.
4. The Party has thus far only interacted with emissaries from the Kingdom. It would be difficult for them to gain an audience with the king or high-ranking figures of Bawbak.
5. The setting has reduced magic compared to standard Pathfinder and 3.5 settings, with no tier 1 or 2 spellcasters in the world, and while PCs can be tier 3 or lower casters if they desire, finding NPC casters of any real skill is often difficult, and magic items are rarer (the party is level 4 and the dagger is the first actual magic item they've encountered). Thus disenchanting the dagger would prove difficult. Also, divination spells and powers are not 100% reliable in the setting and those who use them know this.
6. The emissaries did not intentionally deceive the party about the nature of the dagger, nor were they ignorant of its ability. It simply didn't come up and the emissaries didn't think it was relevant.

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 06:44 PM
The crux of the matter is, it's willingly sacrificed themselves. Not coerced. Is that evil? There's some wiggle room, but probably yes. But it's a small evil.

Now, if I were the Paladin, I would confront them about it. I would demand to know why they're using it, and point them to less evil ways of extending their lives (such as Clone). Assuming that, barring this indiscretion, they're good folk, I'd work with them to achieve immortality in a moral manner.

If I were the DM... Hrm. That's a toughy. Either way, I would ask them "Are you sure?" just to make them think a little bit. But overall... I don't think a DM need do much here. It's a moral quandary without a clear answer, though I'd err on the side of breaking the promise (made under "false" (well, somewhat false) pretenses). Regardless, I think you're making a good decision to not punish the player.

Sith_Happens
2016-07-12, 06:58 PM
Were I playing the paladin I would destroy that thing so fast. "Willingly" restriction or not that ability is some majorly bad juju, and if the Bawbakies(?) complain then that's their problem for being dishonest about it in the first place.

Draconium
2016-07-12, 07:06 PM
In general, if a Paladin has to choose between Good (destroying the Evil dagger) and Law (keeping their promise to return said dagger), it is best to err on the side of Good. I know that if I were the Paladin, it wouldn't take me more than a few minutes to decide to destroy the dagger, and apologize later, if necessary - but not before I look into the shady organization that wanted it back. Major bad vibes there, and more likely than not, the organization is either Evil themselves, or has been tainted with Evil, meaning it would be my responsibility to bring them back into the light, so to speak.

ExLibrisMortis
2016-07-12, 07:14 PM
You say this is a cultural artifact, does that mean it's not literally an artifact (e.g. it's still mortal magic?). If so, you can re-enchant the dagger into something more [good], in the most extreme case by disjoining it and completely redoing the work, but more easily by simply adding more enchantments, e.g. the dagger now projects a magic circle against evil. This counters any mind-affecting effects within a 10' radius, including any effects that might make a target 'willing', but not willing, if you catch my drift. Another fun combo is to bestow buffs (temporary hit points, damage reduction, Diehard-type effects) on anyone stabbed with the dagger. Make it impossible to sacrifice people with it.

The Great Wyrm
2016-07-12, 07:38 PM
the person using the dagger to perform the sacrifice has their age reduced by 10 years.

What happens if an 8-year-old uses it?

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 07:45 PM
Of course the optimal outcome is that the party persuades the Bawbakians that the dagger is evil and that they should willingly allow it to be destroyed. However, one might expect that to be a DC60+ diplomacy check, even if the Bawbakians are generally good. If an entire society sees this as a cultural artifact then they aren't likely to be easily persuaded that what they have been doing is wrong. In a US context it is like trying to persuade the republican establishment (not just a few individuals) that the democrat policies are best or the democrat establishment that republican policies are best. Quite frankly that's unrealistic, societies don't change their cultural views overnight.

If the GM did want to explore the persuasion aspect, they could make the use of the dagger a controversial issue in Bawbak, with significant support and significant opposition. In that case the party may only have to tip the balance in favour of those opposing its use.

Assuming it cannot influence the Bawbakians the party has to make a choice between destroying the dagger or handing it over. I don't think either choice is clearly good or evil. I wouldn't punish the paladin for either.

There is an inherent good in allowing a society the freedom to choose its own customs and practices, even if you don't approve of those customs and practices - that is not a point on the lawful/chaos axis but on the good/evil axis.

As to whether a willing sacrifice in these circumstances is evil, that depends on your outlook. To me it is more analogous to committing suicide than it is to making a heroic sacrifice to avert disaster. Is suicide evil - to my mind it is probably not (but those with a christian morality may not agree). Is encouraging people to commit suicide so you can benefit evil - to my mind probably yes, but far less evil than sacrificing the unwilling.

Overall, I think the more "good" course of action is to return the dagger. It is also (but independently) clearly the lawful course. There is good in allowing a society freedom to decide for itself what is good and evil, without dictating that to them, and in circumstances where people are not being compelled to be sacrificed, I think that outweighs any evil.

Pex
2016-07-12, 08:02 PM
Giving it back is not an evil act. The paladin keeps his word. The paladin was not tricked. The paladin doesn't have to like it. He now has a better measure of the country and can act accordingly from then on. He can say his protest if he wants upon returning the item. The item might have evil taint, but it's hardly the Rod of Orcus. The paladin gets a major reputation of keeping his word. The would/should mean something. It means if something later does cause the paladin to break his word that something is a Big Deal, a true Great Evil whose destruction forgives the trespass. Something like a wizard asks the party to recover the remains of a loved one, all that's left is a hand, and it's really the Hand Of Vecna the wizard wants to use. Yeah, the paladin can rightly break his word.

ClintACK
2016-07-12, 08:44 PM
Cool question -- and kudos for ending a session on a quandary that will have all your players thinking between sessions.

I agree that the Paladin shouldn't be punished for either decision -- as long as he both takes the dilemma seriously *and* decides on the basis of what seems right to him, rather than from self-serving motives.

Lots of important questions, like:
- What do the Party know about the Kingdom of Bawbak? Is it generally a good place, are the rulers generally benign?
- Is the dagger being routinely used, or is it just part of the ancient and ceremonial regalia, worn when they crown a new monarch but never used in a sacrifice anymore?

I'd lean towards returning the dagger -- but I'd want to investigate a bit.

veti
2016-07-12, 08:51 PM
If I were the paladin... I would try to find a way to either disenchant the dagger entirely (making it a mundane, regular, or possibly masterwork, weapon), or - failing that - to add a second enchantment on top of the one that's already there, to make it impossible for an evil person to wield it (which I presume would effectively prevent it from being used for its "primary" function).

Then return it, as promised. Cultural significance could be preserved, but anyone trying to use it as designed would be in for a severe disappointment and serve them right.

goto124
2016-07-12, 08:53 PM
What happens if an 8-year-old uses it?

Someone's asking the real questions.

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 08:54 PM
Someone's asking the real questions.

Made me laugh out loud. I heartily approve. :)

RazorChain
2016-07-12, 08:55 PM
Well there is always the option of destroying the enchantment and then returning the dagger :) Best of both worlds for the Pally!

OldTrees1
2016-07-12, 09:16 PM
If I were the Paladin I would see nothing mechanically evil in the dagger (Paladins understand voluntary self-sacrifice) and thus question why it was radiating evil (this might prompt the DM to correct any miscommunication). I would demand a statement within a Zone of Truth that the dagger would not be used for evil purposes (unwilling victims or coerced victims) before I would be willing to hand it over. If I do am not confident in the statement then I will keep the dagger and atone for the accidental wrong in another way.


As a DM I see no problem with either answer in this case.
So I would ask the Player:
1) Why did the Paladin do what the Paladin did? (So I know what the Paladin thought)
2) Why did the Player have the Paladin do that? (So I know if the Player wanted the Paladin to be right or wrong)
Then I would run with it from there.


Sidenote: Heh, if my Paladin survives their quests until they can quest no longer, they might even ask to use the dagger on their deathbed to extend the life of another. Trade my last month for 10 years of another Paladin's prime? Sounds tempting.

TheYell
2016-07-12, 09:26 PM
Find a blacksmith.
Thrust the dagger into the molten core of a newly cast anvil.
Deliver the anvil-dagger to the House of Bawbawk
Explain that your word is solid as cast iron and you promised to return the dagger. Explain further that if you learn it is being used in sentient sacrifices you will return and slay the wielder.
Split the anvil.
Roll out like Gary Cooper in High Noon.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 09:27 PM
I think that destroying the enchantment, or putting another enchantment on top that effectivrly denies the first enchantment is essentially the same as destroying the dagger.

An analogy is you recover the emperor's family heirloom sword, but you are a pacifist and don't like weapons, so you irrevocably dull the blade. I think that is worse than not recovering it in the first place.

Is relying on a silly technicality ("oh, i returned the dagger like promised, I didn't promise that I wouldn't destroy its powers though - word kept!") really good or lawful?

Strigon
2016-07-12, 09:27 PM
As far as I'm concerned, there simply isn't enough information here.
Presumably they mean to use it, and even if they don't, the temptation is always there. That's enough justification, in my mind, to say that there's nothing wrong with destroying it. That's not to say it's necessarily the right thing, only that there is justification for it.

However, it isn't a guarantee that they'll use it. It could be a religious or cultural piece, used to make the people feel like they're a part of their heritage. It might even be a reminder of the "Dark Times", when such artifacts are used - a source of eternal shame for the people, and a reminder never to go back to those ways. This is, obviously, not the most likely scenario, but worth considering.

On the other hand, it's possible a tyrant king has tricked the population into thinking a sacrifice is necessary for the survival of their people. They just don't know. What would I do as the paladin? Investigate, and be ready to destroy it if necessary.
What would I do if I were the GM? Well, first off, I wouldn't make him fall, regardless of his choice. Not unless he used it himself. I would show him the consequences - good and bad - of whichever choice he made, but I'd punish him for neither.

LadyFoxfire
2016-07-12, 09:27 PM
I would do some divination magic to nail down the details; are they even using the dagger anymore, or is it just a family heirloom as far as the royal family is concerned? If they are using it, are they coercing victims, or are they only using it on terminally ill/elderly people who are happy to give what little remains of their lives to benefit their monarch? Are any of the royal family evil-aligned? Once I'd figured out exactly what the situation was, it would be easier to decide the wisest course of action.

Mister Loorg
2016-07-12, 09:34 PM
Find a blacksmith.
Thrust the dagger into the molten core of a newly cast anvil.
Deliver the anvil-dagger to the House of Bawbawk
Explain that your word is solid as cast iron and you promised to return the dagger. Explain further that if you learn it is being used in sentient sacrifices you will return and slay the wielder.
Split the anvil.
Roll out like Gary Cooper in High Noon.
-???
-Profit

Winter_Wolf
2016-07-12, 09:41 PM
I guess I don't see the problem. Is there evidence that it's being used to restore youth? Also, if someone is willingly parting with their own life, how's that the paladin's problem? Unless the paladin is trying to go around using that thing, just give it back with an "FYI, this thing is Evil, and you'd be better off destroying it." If it's being used on unwilling participants, it's not exactly much different from any other weapon, and I doubt there'd be much debate over the thing.

goto124
2016-07-12, 09:54 PM
If I were the Paladin I would see nothing mechanically evil in the dagger (Paladins understand voluntary self-sacrifice) and thus question why it was radiating evil (this might prompt the DM to correct any miscommunication)

First, I would ask the GM this. Why does it have the evil subtype, and radiate literal comic evil energy, if it doesn't transfer life unless the subject was willing and not under magic influence? (A few posters here worried about coerced victims missed out this bit.)

Second, I would investigate the society. How are they using it, if they're using it at all? Do they routinely brainwash children from birth, to sacrifice them 2 years later? Or do they sacrifice only those who want to be dead for other unrelated reasons (terminally ill, very old elderly)? What do they think of the dagger, if they even know of its existance? What if they were trying to destroy it safely, and were worried it fell into the wrong hands?

What if the paladin says she wants to hide the fact that she has the dagger, so that she could investigate without harassment?

I wouldn't mess with the dagger without their permission. The point of sticking to my word is to build trust, and technically sticking to my word doesn't help much in that regard. It may not even help anyway - is this the only means of life-giving sacrifice they have? Will they change their ways just because some goody-two-shoes told them? If I actually wanted change, it'll be an all-out rebellion, which would depend on many details not strictly within this moral dilemma.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 10:20 PM
First, I would ask the GM this. Why does it have the evil subtype, and radiate literal comic evil energy, if it doesn't transfer life unless the subject was willing and not under magic influence? (A few posters here worried about coerced victims missed out this bit.).

I mentioned coercion. I guess it depends how you interpret "willingly". I interpreted it to mean that the person was not physically forced to be available for sacrifice.

If the person was tricked, or pressure was placed on the person to sacrifice themself , or the person stood to lose something dear to him if he did not make himself available for sacrifice - I would regard him as being willing, but coerced (or deceived). I regard this as being an evil, although a lessor evil than outright forcing him.

dps
2016-07-12, 10:21 PM
In the absence of any evidence that the royal family of Bawbak is actively using the dagger's evil ability, I think the Paladin is honor-bound to return it to them. After all, even without the enhancement, it's a weapon, intended to kill people, so it's not like he promised them to return a lost puppy or something. If the royal family just views it as a ceremonial heirloom and isn't actively using the enhanced ability, no problem.

The Paladin certainly should confront them about it after returning it, though.

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 10:27 PM
I would assume the dagger was used by priests/chiefs to preserve their youth by asking for "sacrifices to the gods." Unknowing populace would think the priest's perpetual youth was a sign that they were god's chosen, and gladly supply the sacrifices to required to keep him interceding on their behalf.
Even if it wasn't actively used, nothing good can come of it. As a paladin dedicated to preventing evil, I would not hesitate to find a way to destroy an evil artifact. My promise to return it was made before I knew the object was one of malignant magical evil.

Magical evil is the one thing which a paladin should never have a question about. Demons, devils, undead, anything radiating evil magical power: that's the stuff a paladin has been specifically empowered to resist and destroy. This should be done without hesitation.

Benthesquid
2016-07-12, 10:35 PM
The crux of the matter is, it's willingly sacrificed themselves. Not coerced. Is that evil? There's some wiggle room, but probably yes. But it's a small evil.

Willingly and coercion are weird words though. If I tell you "Accept this sacrifice or I'll murder your family," I'm not using any magical influence, and you are still free to make the choice, but I've substantially weighted the odds. Or, say, I kidnap you as an infant and raise you all your life to believe that you're completely worthless except for your purpose in this one ritual. Or I say, "Well, yes, you could keep toiling at the land, knowing that probably at least two of your three children will succumb to illness and malnutrition, or I could ensure that they live in wealth and comfort. All you have to do is lay down on this altar..."

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 10:37 PM
Willingly and coercion are weird words though. If I tell you "Accept this sacrifice or I'll murder your family," I'm not using any magical influence, and you are still free to make the choice, but I've substantially weighted the odds. Or, say, I kidnap you as an infant and raise you all your life to believe that you're completely worthless except for your purpose in this one ritual. Or I say, "Well, yes, you could keep toiling at the land, knowing that probably at least two of your three children will succumb to illness and malnutrition, or I could ensure that they live in wealth and comfort. All you have to do is lay down on this altar..."

Details. That's what we really need.

Because they could be a malicious family, subverting people's will non-magically. Or maybe they're benevolent rulers who have no appropriate heirs, and use it as a last resort to ensure the land stays at peace.

We don't know.

goto124
2016-07-12, 10:38 PM
I mentioned coercion. I guess it depends how you interpret "willingly". I interpreted it to mean that the person was not physically forced to be available for sacrifice.

If the person was tricked, or pressure was placed on the person to sacrifice themself , or the person stood to lose something dear to him if he did not make himself available for sacrifice - I would regard him as being willing, but coerced (or deceived). I regard this as being an evil, although a lessor evil than outright forcing him.

Good argument! I wholeheartedly agree, the only point of disagreement is that it's any less evil than outright forcing them.

Again, I will investigate. What is meant by 'willing'? What sort of people are being sacrificed?

Has the GM (the OP) worked out how exactly the dagger is being (not) used?

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 10:47 PM
Good argument! I wholeheartedly agree, the only point of disagreement is that it's any less evil than outright forcing them.

Again, I will investigate. What is meant by 'willing'? What sort of people are being sacrificed?

Has the GM (the OP) worked out how exactly the dagger is being (not) used?

It doesn't matter how it's being used, or even if it is ever used. It has a blatently evil enchantment. It either needs to be disenchanted or destroyed.

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 10:49 PM
It doesn't matter how it's being used, or even if it is ever used. It has a blatently evil enchantment. It either needs to be disenchanted or destroyed.

Yes, because how dare someone with a terminal illness give up their last two weeks of agony and pain in order to let an elderly wise king live longer!

I don't agree with something being inherently good or evil.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 10:56 PM
I would assume the dagger was used by priests/chiefs to preserve their youth by asking for "sacrifices to the gods." Unknowing populace would think the priest's perpetual youth was a sign that they were god's chosen, and gladly supply the sacrifices to required to keep him interceding on their behalf.
Even if it wasn't actively used, nothing good can come of it. As a paladin dedicated to preventing evil, I would not hesitate to find a way to destroy an evil artifact. My promise to return it was made before I knew the object was one of malignant magical evil.

Magical evil is the one thing which a paladin should never have a question about. Demons, devils, undead, anything radiating evil magical power: that's the stuff a paladin has been specifically empowered to resist and destroy. This should be done without hesitation.

I wouldn't make you fall for that choice. But if a Paladin from Bawbak was to subdue and arrest you for destroying their dagger I wouldn't make them fall either.

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 10:56 PM
Yes, because how dare someone with a terminal illness give up their last two weeks of agony and pain in order to let an elderly wise king live longer!

I don't agree with something being inherently good or evil.

Then you wouldn't be playing the paladin. That also depends on the setting, not our personal beliefs. Also, this is a paladin we're talking about. You might not believe in inherent evil, but I'm sure they do. The thing radiates literal evil. Paladins radiate literal good and exist to remove such things from the world. Unless this game setting uses a much different type of paladin than the traditional D&D lawful good holy smiting protection from evil type paladin.

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 10:57 PM
That's the 3E Paladin (and possibly 1/2E, I don't know).

It's not the 4E Paladin.

It's not the 5E Paladin.

We don't know what edition he's using.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 11:03 PM
Then you wouldn't be playing the paladin. That also depends on the setting, not our personal beliefs. Also, this is a paladin we're talking about. You might not believe in inherent evil, but I'm sure they do. The thing radiates literal evil. Paladins radiate literal good and exist to remove such things from the world. Unless this game setting uses a much different type of paladin than the traditional D&D lawful good holy smiting protection from evil type paladin.

A policeman exists to capture criminals. That doesn't give him carte blanche to take down people he thinks to be criminal whenever he wants.

A paladin may have abilities and a mandate to eradicate those things he regards as evil from the world, but that does not mean that every time he kills person that is evil or destroys evil property it is the right thing to do.

Some people believe that vaccinations are harmful rather than beneficial. Do you think it would be oko for them to destroy someone else's vaccination?

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 11:05 PM
That's the 3E Paladin (and possibly 1/2E, I don't know).

It's not the 4E Paladin.

It's not the 5E Paladin.

We don't know what edition he's using.

True, this could be a neutral or evil 5e or 4e paladin. Based on the implication of the question, however, it seems likely it is a good paladin of the sort I'm describing, otherwise this would not be any real quandary. And yes, the original paladin class was lawful good only, permanent protection from evil, holy powers for fighting evil, etc.

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 11:08 PM
True, this could be a neutral or evil 5e or 4e paladin. Based on the implication of the question, however, it seems likely it is a good paladin of the sort I'm describing, otherwise this would not be any real quandary. And yes, the original paladin class was lawful good only, permanent protection from evil, holy powers for fighting evil, etc.

No, it could easily be a GOOD 4E or 5E Paladin. But, at least for 5E, there's no alignment radiating. Paladins get bonuses against fiends and undead, not evil creatures.

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 11:10 PM
A policeman exists to capture criminals. That doesn't give him carte blanche to take down people he thinks to be criminal whenever he wants.

A paladin may have abilities and a mandate to eradicate those things he regards as evil from the world, but that does not mean that every time he kills person that is evil or destroys evil property it is the right thing to do.

Some people believe that vaccinations are harmful rather than beneficial. Do you think it would be oko for them to destroy someone else's vaccination?

This isn't people we're talking about. It's an evil artifact used for conducting human/sentient sacrifice. There is no good reason for this to exist, it is literally magical evil. Yes, I would say a paladin's mandate/oath includes destroying anything radiating evil magic, or at the very least disenchanting or making sure it can never, ever be used. There are no excuses. This isn't a belief held by the paladin, it is literally and objectively evil. The existence of which is the reason that paladins exist.

It goes without saying that, as the DM, I would not punish the paladin for destroying it. I'd be more apt to punish them for NOT destroying it, or at least not taking safeguards to prevent its use.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 11:24 PM
This isn't people we're talking about. It's an evil artifact used for conducting human/sentient sacrifice. There is no good reason for this to exist, it is literally magical evil. Yes, I would say a paladin's mandate/oath includes destroying anything radiating evil magic, or at the very least disenchanting or making sure it can never, ever be used. There are no excuses. This isn't a belief held by the paladin, it is literally and objectively evil. The existence of which is the reason that paladins exist.
I'm not certain precisely what the rules say about radiating evil - does it necessarily mean that the very existance of the item is evil (as you suggest)? Or might it mean that it was created in an evil way (such as using the blood of virgin archons) or using an evil spell etc? If it is the second then I don't see any good being accomplished by destroying it.

Because the effect itself is not objectively evil. It is only objectively evil if the rules clearly define it as such.

Even if it was objectively evil, what right would the paladin have to destroy it. Some people believe that emission of carbon will destroy our planet in decades , if they are objectively correct (they with are or they are not, although there is currently no consensus on which) would it be a good act for them to sabotage your car?

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 11:34 PM
I'm not certain precisely what the rules say about radiating evil - does it necessarily mean that the very existance of the item is evil (as you suggest)? Or might it mean that it was created in an evil way (such as using the blood of virgin archons) or using an evil spell etc? If it is the second then I don't see any good being accomplished by destroying it.

Because the effect itself is not objectively evil. It is only objectively evil if the rules clearly define it as such.

Even if it was objectively evil, what right would the paladin have to destroy it. Some people believe that emission of carbon will destroy our planet in decades , if they are objectively correct (they with are or they are not, although there is currently no consensus on which) would it be a good act for them to sabotage your car?

A paladin is a divinely empowered warrior sworn to fight evil, in a world with actual objective good and evil. Their whole purpose is to destroy things like that. The post said it had an evil enchantment and that it's purpose was to restore youth to a wielder who sacrfices people. If the enchantment can be removed, go ahead and give it back. Otherwise, it would be a dereliction of a paladin's duty to allow a thing like that back into the world. There is no: "this is just a minor evil enchantment, so it's ok".

The analogy to carbon emissions or vaccines doesn't work. In the real world there is no magical evil. This is a fantasy world with objective magical good and evil. The paladin doesn't just hold beliefs, it us a literal reality.

JNAProductions
2016-07-12, 11:35 PM
A paladin is a divinely empowered warrior sworn to fight evil, in a world with actual objective good and evil. Their whole purpose is to destroy things like that. The post said it had an evil enchantment and that it's purpose was to restore youth to a wielder who sacrfices people. If the enchantment can be removed, go ahead and give it back. Otherwise, it would be a dereliction of a paladin's duty to allow a thing like that back into the world. There is no: "this is just a minor evil enchantment, so it's ok".

So anything that pings as Evil to your Detect spells has to die? Seems like a quick road to falling.

Draconium
2016-07-12, 11:37 PM
I'm not certain precisely what the rules say about radiating evil - does it necessarily mean that the very existance of the item is evil (as you suggest)? Or might it mean that it was created in an evil way (such as using the blood of virgin archons) or using an evil spell etc? If it is the second then I don't see any good being accomplished by destroying it.

Because the effect itself is not objectively evil. It is only objectively evil if the rules clearly define it as such.

Even if it was objectively evil, what right would the paladin have to destroy it. Some people believe that emission of carbon will destroy our planet in decades , if they are objectively correct (they with are or they are not, although there is currently no consensus on which) would it be a good act for them to sabotage your car?

First off, if an item is created in such a vile way as you describe, in the context of D&D, then I'm fairly certain that makes the item itself objectively Evil anyways. Second, if the item is radiating an Evil aura, then the item is objectively Evil, though again, merely in the context of D&D. Third, Paladins exist to seek out and destroy (or convert) Evil, as well as be an exemplar for Good, so if they encounter an Evil item, it is their duty to at least contain it, if not destroy it.

Morals are gray, subjective, and unclear most of the time in the real world, but D&D is not the real world. Good and Evil are objectively defined cosmic powers in the game. Say what you will about this system, but in this particular case, I personally don't believe there's much room for argument when taken in the context of such a world.

Thrudd
2016-07-12, 11:40 PM
So anything that pings as Evil to your Detect spells has to die? Seems like a quick road to falling.

Maybe not "die", not when we're talking about non magical sentient creatures (which in my opinion shouldn't "ping" anything). But magical evil things? Yes. Die, dispel, imprison, banish, removed from the world. That's what paladins exist for.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 11:41 PM
A paladin is a divinely empowered warrior sworn to fight evil, in a world with actual objective good and evil. Their whole purpose is to destroy things like that. The post said it had an evil enchantment and that it's purpose was to restore youth to a wielder who sacrfices people. If the enchantment can be removed, go ahead and give it back. Otherwise, it would be a dereliction of a paladin's duty to allow a thing like that back into the world. There is no: "this is just a minor evil enchantment, so it's ok".

The question was, what does it mean that it radiates evil (I had a quick look at the book of vile darkness since my last post and could not see an answer)? If it means it was created in an evil way, that does not make it objectively evil. If you accepted that the slavery used to create the pyramids was evil, does that mean that it is a good act to destroy the pyramids.

If the evil radiance does not inform the object as evil, does its power? Is willing sacrifice necessarily evil? Clearly not, it can be heroic to sacrifice oneself for a greater good. Is willing sacrifice in these circumstances evil - that is arguable and subjective.

But lets move past those two points and assume you are right - the dagger is objectively evil. I still think there is a disconnect in your logic here. Just because something (or someone) is evil that does not give the paladin the right to destroy it. What the paladin is empowered to do has nothing to do with it. Being sworn to fight evil gives him no more right to destroy an item radiating evil (that belongs to someone else) than it does to strike down a person which detect magic says is evil.

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 11:43 PM
Maybe not "die", not when we're talking about non magical sentient creatures (which in my opinion shouldn't "ping" anything). But magical evil things? Yes. Die, dispel, imprison, banish, removed from the world. That's what paladins exist for.

I thought the main premise for your argument was that the DnD rules do provide for objective evil. The rules also provide for people to ping as evil.

Based on the rules as written, why can a paladin seize someone's property and destroy it for pinging evil, but not destroy a person for pinging evil?

Liquor Box
2016-07-12, 11:47 PM
First off, if an item is created in such a vile way as you describe, in the context of D&D, then I'm fairly certain that makes the item itself objectively Evil anyways. Second, if the item is radiating an Evil aura, then the item is objectively Evil, though again, merely in the context of D&D. Third, Paladins exist to seek out and destroy (or convert) Evil, as well as be an exemplar for Good, so if they encounter an Evil item, it is their duty to at least contain it, if not destroy it.

Morals are gray, subjective, and unclear most of the time in the real world, but D&D is not the real world. Good and Evil are objectively defined cosmic powers in the game. Say what you will about this system, but in this particular case, I personally don't believe there's much room for argument when taken in the context of such a world.

Thanks Draconium, that was my point. If an item was created in an evil way, it will radiate evil. That does not mean it influences people toward evil or that it has an ongoing evil influence on the world (objective or otherwise). It may have ben created objectively (per the rules) in an evil way, but what good is done by destroying it now? No evil is being eliminated by destroying it - the evil done in its creation is not reversed.

I refer back to my pyramid point. Created using slavery - which is objectively evil if anything in the real world is - so would radiate evil by DnD rules, but what good would be done by destroying them?

Sith_Happens
2016-07-12, 11:52 PM
First, I would ask the GM this. Why does it have the evil subtype, and radiate literal comic evil energy, if it doesn't transfer life unless the subject was willing and not under magic influence? (A few posters here worried about coerced victims missed out this bit.)

It's a running theme with magic in D&D (especially evil magic) that "willing" only means "not magically coerced."


I don't agree with something being inherently good or evil.

Good for you, but the scenario in question takes place in a world where lots of things are inherently good or evil and asks what you'd do in the shoes of someone literally so good they get magic powers from it.


I'm not certain precisely what the rules say about radiating evil - does it necessarily mean that the very existance of the item is evil (as you suggest)? Or might it mean that it was created in an evil way (such as using the blood of virgin archons) or using an evil spell etc? If it is the second then I don't see any good being accomplished by destroying it.

At least nine times out of ten it means that the item's purpose is evil in nature. The purpose in this case being to reward you for ritual murder.

Draconium
2016-07-12, 11:57 PM
Thanks Draconium, that was my point. If an item was created in an evil way, it will radiate evil. That does not mean it influences people toward evil or that it has an ongoing evil influence on the world (objective or otherwise). It may have ben created objectively (per the rules) in an evil way, but what good is done by destroying it now? No evil is being eliminated by destroying it - the evil done in its creation is not reversed.

I refer back to my pyramid point. Created using slavery - which is objectively evil if anything in the real world is - so would radiate evil by DnD rules, but what good would be done by destroying them?

I think you misunderstood my point. If an item is created in such a way that it becomes capable of radiating Evil itself, that means the mere existence of such an item corrupts and stains any who would use it. Destroying the item may not undo the Evil related to it in the past, but it can prevent it from corrupting those who seek to use it in the future, preventing further Evil from spreading.

Also, something created by evil methods isn't itself Evil unless it radiates Evil as well. Using slave labor is evil, but using it to build buildings and public structures doesn't cause said structures to radiate Evil, as the intent for the structures is not inherently Evil itself.

Thrudd
2016-07-13, 12:07 AM
I thought the main premise for your argument was that the DnD rules do provide for objective evil. The rules also provide for people to ping as evil.

Based on the rules as written, why can a paladin seize someone's property and destroy it for pinging evil, but not destroy a person for pinging evil?

People aren't magical evil. Even if the rules allow their alignment to be detected, they need to do something evil before the paladin seeks justice. An artifact with an evil enchantment, a magical or extraplanar creature that is magically evil, are the things that paladins don't need to hesitate with. They can be smart about it, they don't need to rush into combat immediately, but there should be no doubt that they would and should be planning to combat and negate the evil.

Enough is known about this particular artifact that I think the paladin can pass judgment on the danger of allowing it to remain enchanted. It is used for human sacrifice. Not created by sacrifice long ago or made by an enchanter who just happened to be evil, but its continuing purpose is sacrificing people. The best option would be disenchant it, then give it back, fulfilling both promise and duty. But if disenchanting isn't possible, then it's more important to keep the evil magic from being used.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-13, 12:20 AM
Stab the ruler, in the face, with the dagger.

OldTrees1
2016-07-13, 12:21 AM
People aren't magical evil. Even if the rules allow their alignment to be detected, they need to do something evil before the paladin seeks justice. An artifact with an evil enchantment, a magical or extraplanar creature that is magically evil, are the things that paladins don't need to hesitate with. They can be smart about it, they don't need to rush into combat immediately, but there should be no doubt that they would and should be planning to combat and negate the evil.

Enough is known about this particular artifact that I think the paladin can pass judgment on the danger of allowing it to remain enchanted. It is used for human sacrifice. Not created by sacrifice long ago or made by an enchanter who just happened to be evil, but its continuing purpose is sacrificing people. The best option would be disenchant it, then give it back, fulfilling both promise and duty. But if disenchanting isn't possible, then it's more important to keep the evil magic from being used.

Interesting. The only information about the present (the weapon only works on someone committing voluntary self sacrifice) is not necessarily evil (ask your DM) so I would not be so hasty as to rule out the creation rather than the effect or use as the culprit for the evil aura.

That said, disenchanting is one of the 3 popular answers.

goto124
2016-07-13, 12:22 AM
I still say the serious answer is 'investigate to see how it's really being used'. Too little information to make any real decision, such as 'how willing is willing?'


Stab the ruler, in the face, with the dagger.

When the paladin isn't looking.

OldTrees1
2016-07-13, 12:25 AM
When the paladin isn't looking.

Wait, what?!? The Paladin should stab the ruler in the face with the dagger when the very same Paladin is not looking? :smallconfused:

Thrudd
2016-07-13, 12:39 AM
Interesting. The only information about the present (the weapon only works on someone committing voluntary self sacrifice) is not necessarily evil (ask your DM) so I would not be so hasty as to rule out the creation rather than the effect or use as the culprit for the evil aura.

That said, disenchanting is one of the 3 popular answers.

Irrelevant, IMO. It has been revealed to have an evil enchantment. The details do not matter. Disenchant, destroy, or make inaccessible forever. No good comes of evil enchantments. I also think, based on the information we have, that the dagger's potential use is clear, and clearly evil: deceiving people into agreeing to be sacrificed in order to preserve the life of the wielder. It doesn't even matter if the dagger will only sit in a display case on an altar and never be touched. It's got an evil enchantment that needs to be removed.

goto124
2016-07-13, 12:40 AM
You blindfold yourself, duh. Or close your eyelids just before stabbing.

Disclaimer: May not hit them in the face.

Traziremus
2016-07-13, 12:59 AM
The promisse was to return it, nothing about not dispelling it's enchantment was said. So I would disenchant it, inform my order about what I did and request them to act against the familly.

As a GM, strip the Paladin of his powers as I have a personal bias against paladins, they are called Zelots at my game table. If he finds a clever way out I would let him do it, but only if he keeps his word. Now it depends on his morale profile if he at all respect his word.

JNAProductions
2016-07-13, 01:00 AM
The promisse was to return it, nothing about not dispelling it's enchantment was said. So I would disenchant it, inform my order about what I did and request them to act against the familly.

As a GM, strip the Paladin of his powers as I have a personal bias against paladins, they are called Zelots at my game table. If he finds a clever way out I would let him do it, but only if he keeps his word. Now it depends on his morale profile if he at all respect his word.

That is a horrible DM move.

GorinichSerpant
2016-07-13, 01:09 AM
I think that whether or not the dagger is destroyed depends on what the Paladin knows/investigates about Bawabak, the dagger and the people he needs to return the dagger to.

It's also important to be careful with it because it's a cultural artifact, messing with the dagger's enchantments is going to tick off the Kingdom especially if it's done be outsiders. Even if the artifact is evil, this may result in just hurting relations with Bawabak more. Ideally the dagger should be disenchanted or enchantment overridden or destroyed with the approval/ by the hand of the rightful authorities(king or priest or however it works in Bawabak) on the matter.

Satinavian
2016-07-13, 01:10 AM
I think you misunderstood my point. If an item is created in such a way that it becomes capable of radiating Evil itself, that means the mere existence of such an item corrupts and stains any who would use it. Destroying the item may not undo the Evil related to it in the past, but it can prevent it from corrupting those who seek to use it in the future, preventing further Evil from spreading.

Also, something created by evil methods isn't itself Evil unless it radiates Evil as well. Using slave labor is evil, but using it to build buildings and public structures doesn't cause said structures to radiate Evil, as the intent for the structures is not inherently Evil itself.
Well, no.

The whole taint philosophy with Evil spreading and corrupting due to being evil is utterly stupid and thankfully only part of some variant rules. It is not how alignment works. Good and evil come from deeds and/or other planes of exististence. Some evil dagger that is not being used for something evil it not harmful in any way.



As for the opening questions :

My paladin would bring the dagger back (well, she promised and it is still an important heirloom or something not only a magical gimmic). Then she would warn the people about the properties and that ruthless persons might want to steal abuse it and suggest to lock it away. She also might look later and secretly what happens to the dagger and if there is any further reason to intervene. But she is a bit on the trusting side and would not automatically assume, that the reason those people want the dagger back is that they want to actually use it in a nefarious way. She would entertain that as remote possibility at best, as she always thinks the best of other people until proven wrong.

As a DM when the paladin destroys the dagger ? Well, they probably have made themself some powerful in-game enemies now and/or lost patrons/stressed relations. So, yes, there would be consequences, no, they would be not any different from those for non-paladins.

Milo v3
2016-07-13, 01:54 AM
Even if the rules allow their alignment to be detected, they need to do something evil before the paladin seeks justice.
Actually, people will only detect as evil if they've previously committed evil. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You are born neutral, so if they detect evil they must either committed enough evil for their alignment to change or possess an aligned aura (such as a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity).


People aren't magical evil.
People is a ridiculously arbitrary word in this case, since demons are people in D&D. And, even creatures that possess an alignment subtype aren't necessarily that alignment, so a creature that is "magically evil" might be lawful good.

Traziremus
2016-07-13, 02:04 AM
That is a horrible DM move.
If they want to play a Zelot they should keep true to that, if being a Zelot does not satisfy them as players they should not play one. Also, Paladins were always chains that bind down the entire group, and make them do insane things.

SethoMarkus
2016-07-13, 02:42 AM
Actually, people will only detect as evil if they've previously committed evil. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You are born neutral, so if they detect evil they must either committed enough evil for their alignment to change or possess an aligned aura (such as a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity).


People is a ridiculously arbitrary word in this case, since demons are people in D&D. And, even creatures that possess an alignment subtype aren't necessarily that alignment, so a creature that is "magically evil" might be lawful good.

I believe "magically Evil" is referring to creatures such as demons, devil, and undead. They ARE Evil (though I suppose they may have a different alignment in some settings, and undead are a grey area a lot of times, their existence relies on Evil, and the former two are physical embodiments of Evil).

Also, in 3.5 at least, I believe that only those people with a powerful enough aura ping as Evil (such as Clerics, the evil Paladin variants, Favored Souls, etc) register as Evil to Detect Evil spells and abilities. It isn't the alignment that is detected, but the strength of their magical (divine) aura.

Milo v3
2016-07-13, 02:46 AM
I believe "magically Evil" is referring to creatures such as demons, devil, and undead.
I know.


They ARE Evil (though I suppose they may have a different alignment in some settings, and undead are a grey area a lot of times, their existence relies on Evil, and the former two are physical embodiments of Evil).
Not necessarily actually. There are good examples of demons, devils, and undead (even paladin ones).


Also, in 3.5 at least, I believe that only those people with a powerful enough aura ping as Evil (such as Clerics, the evil Paladin variants, Favored Souls, etc) register as Evil to Detect Evil spells and abilities. It isn't the alignment that is detected, but the strength of their magical (divine) aura.
Actually every creatures generate an alignment aura simply through HD, though it requires around 5 I think before it is strong enough to be detected (unless you're an outsider/cleric/paladin/favoured soul/undead).

veti
2016-07-13, 02:53 AM
A lot of people seem to be arguing that the dagger isn't evil, because why shouldn't people who want to die anyway sacrifice their lives for something meaningful?

Imagine you're the king of this country. You have the option to live, basically, forever. And you can grant the same thing to as many other people (nobles, trusted henchpeople and political supporters) as you like. All you have to do is ensure a steady supply of willing sacrifices.

That's quite a temptation. Given the reward, it shouldn't be too hard for the king to make sure there are always a decent supply of people who are thoroughly miserable and willing to sell their own lives in exchange for a lottery ticket that has the chance of buying their kids out of that life.

The dagger creates that temptation. It gives the ruling class an incentive to make people's lives miserable. That's not something that usually exists - usually, "people being miserable" is a by-product of evil policies, not an end in itself. For this reason, the dagger itself is evil (defined as "something that encourages evil behaviour", which is as good a definition of "evil", in relation to an inanimate object, as I can think of). It needs to be destroyed.

Frozen_Feet
2016-07-13, 03:25 AM
The first thing to check is if the Bawbakians actually know the dagger is magical.

If they don't, nothing of worth is lost by disenchanting it, then returning it.

If they know but don't care, nothing of worth is lost by disenchanting it, then returning. I'd presume that as a cultural artifact, its symbolic value is greater than and largely detached from any magical utility value it might have.

A conflict for the Paladin only exists if he can be relatively sure the dagger will be used in an evil way. In those cases, his imperatives to protect the innocent and to punish evil would require him to break the spirit of his word by returning the dagger in a non-functional condition. Nothing fall worthy, just the usual awkwardness of telling an associate "I didn't keep my promise because I think you're a bunch of murderers".

If the Paladin hands back the dagger intact, not knowing if it will be used, they won't fall, but this isn't a good act. It's a neutral act that happens to line up with their promise.

If the Paladin hands back the dagger intact, knowing it will be used, they're essentially accomplice to murder. This is the only scenario where the Paladin would fall. Even then, it has to be the person the dagger is handed to who is malicious. Guilt isn't transitive, if the Paladin hands it to Lawful Neutral King yet it's their Lawful Evil granddaughter who actually commits the deed, that's not really the Paladin's fault.

In any case, the Paladin should be upfront about their concerns and actions upon returning the dagger, or whatever's left of it.

hymer
2016-07-13, 04:04 AM
The first thing to check is if the Bawbakians actually know the dagger is magical.

If they don't, nothing of worth is lost by disenchanting it, then returning it.

If they know but don't care, nothing of worth is lost by disenchanting it, then returning. I'd presume that as a cultural artifact, its symbolic value is greater than and largely detached from any magical utility value it might have.

Paladins are apt to do the things the hard way, though. If the dagger is disenchanted, they will be sure to point out that they did it, and ask some searching questions to see if the Bawbakians are bad people. This could lead to conflict. I could even see a paladin go so far as to keep the dagger intact until the matter has been settled to her/his satisfaction, just in case there was a good reason to keep the thing intact. Perhaps it keeps a demon sealed away, or something. The party's been burned by assumption at least once already in this matter.


A conflict for the Paladin only exists if he can be relatively sure the dagger will be used in an evil way.

It's been stolen once already. Someone out there knows about it. I'd say you could be excused for assuming that this thing will be used for its intended purpose sooner or later, if nothing is done to prevent it.

Apart from that, I tend to agree with what you say.

goto124
2016-07-13, 04:49 AM
Another question: does the party have the time to investigate so thoroughly? Is Bawbak the focus of the campaign?


the party unknowingly helped a thief that stole a cultural artifact called the Dagger of Therask from the Kingdom of Bawbak, an item that has been passed down through the Bawbak royal line for generations.

It's existed with the royal family for ages. Whether or not they used it is another matter, but if they did use it, they likely have done so for ages as part of the family ritual, and won't give it up terribly easily.

awa
2016-07-13, 09:33 AM
he's not a devil or a (traditional) fairy bound to a technical truth damaging the relic before returning it because you never said you wouldn't is both a deliberate insult and pointless antagonism if I felt the blade must be wrecked then I would just do it and either skip town or say I couldn't recover the blade rubbing their nose in it is just unnecessary. Personally I would seek more info but I would probably return the blade. 1 person every 10 years it would be trivial for a king to find people on the verge of death willing to give up their last few days in exchange for making sure their family was well cared for.

The fact that it gets passed down indicates it’s probably not used that heavily otherwise there would be no passing down the immortal king would just have it.

You can do evil acts and still be neutral as long as they are balanced by good acts heck a sufficiently good and competent king could be good aligned if he was only performing an evil act once every 10 years and ran the country well in between

As a dm I would probably use something like this to show that the world is a complicated place and someone trying to force their cultural views on other people will cause more problems then it solves. Not a falling paladin problems but worsened relations between your countries an unwillingness to assist the party in the future ect, possibly even war if the party officially represented their people in some manner and was sufficiently obnoxious about it.

Sith_Happens
2016-07-13, 09:43 AM
It's been stolen once already. Someone out there knows about it. I'd say you could be excused for assuming that this thing will be used for its intended purpose sooner or later, if nothing is done to prevent it.

Very good point.


the fact that it gets passed down indicates its probably not used that heavily otherwise there would be no passing down the immortal king would just have it

...Oh, wow, duh. How'd we all miss that?:smallconfused:

That makes things much simpler. Just be all "Hey there, turns out your dagger was tainted with unspeakable evil, so we fixed it" and they're much more likely to be all "Cool, thanks" instead of "YOU IMBECILES WHAT HAVE YOU DONE."

goto124
2016-07-13, 09:45 AM
Maybe the immortal kings/queens passed it down because while extending your life is useful, there's only so long you want to stay alive before you just want to give up.

Or they're just a cover for THE REAL BBEG BEHIND THE THRONE! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

awa
2016-07-13, 09:51 AM
I assume they know its magic and use it occasionally but I just don't buy the need for being evil to use the weapon if your using it to add another couple decade rather then live forever then all the tricks and raising someone to be a sacrifice is just unnecessary.

I could easily see a king whose sons are unfit to rule or in the midst of war taking an extra decade or two to deal with the problem before allowing himself to die naturally

D+1
2016-07-13, 10:04 AM
If you were a paladin, what would you do?I'd assess who I was going to give it back to, deciding if they would actually use it for the evil purpose it is meant for, and what safeguards they could and would provide to prevent it from being used at all. I mean, if they just want it as a cultural artifact to keep on display and will keep it WELL-protected from any use or theft, I'd probably just give it back. As long as they swear an oath of some sort (which I felt I could have faith would be kept) about keeping it safe and unused. Less than that and I'd have a discussion about having no compulsion or obligation to keep agreements based on lies and misinformation. If they'd told me the full truth of what it was I'd never have agreed to return it - though I would have agreed to get it back for purposes of its destruction. If they didn't know its true nature themselves then I would hope they'd agree it needed to be destroyed since that's what I'd do anyway.


If you were a GM, how would you respond to the Paladin breaking their oath and destroying the item they promised to recover, and how would you respond to the Paladin returning the evil dagger to the people it rightfully belongs to?
As noted, a paladin has no obligation to keep an oath that has been obtained by lies or misinformation. Even if everyone was simply ignorant of its true nature, once the nature was known, the oath is rendered moot by the much stronger need to prevent it from ever being used - preferably by just destroying it. This is not a moral conundrum, it's simply that one is a stronger moral imperative than the other. This isn't a decision any paladin would struggle with. AT ALL. They'd only struggle dealing with OTHER PEOPLES disagreement with the decision.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-13, 10:08 AM
Stab the ruler, in the face, with the dagger.

I've put more thought into this and I've decided that the paladin is also obliged to toss out a witty one-liner and then walk away without looking as the palace explodes behind him.

TheYell
2016-07-13, 02:06 PM
-???
-Profit

So you want to know what I think as well as what I do. :P

As a paladin I am the agent of divine violence. I know there is always a right thing to do, I know I am capable of choosing that right thing to do, I know I am totally accountable for doing that right thing and not letting others stop me.

Somebody tried to subvert me with incomplete information. Bad bad bad. And this subversion, if completed, could result in the sacrifice of sentient beings with an evil artifact.

The question of whether we overlook evil we encounter is academic. Here we have evil that directly involves us through deception.

So, we are not going to cooperate with these dishonorable deceptive people. We are going to confront them with their deception. We aren't going to kill them yet, because as has been said they just could be greedy and dishonorable and want their heirloom back as a keepsake. So, we honor the letter of the bargain by returning their item. We make it somewhat difficult for them to use it evilly. We confront their plots and extricate ourselves from collusion with them. We give them an ultimatum against completing the cycle of evil. We leave a broken anvil as a token of our power. And we depart, shaking the dust off our sandals, with the House of Babawk on our watchlist.

Of course they might fall on us immediately, which ends the debate as to what to do with them.

awa
2016-07-13, 02:59 PM
certainly a good thing for you that humility is not part of the code and arrogance isn't evil

I suspect if a player in one of my games tried that the rest of the party would be desperately trying to convince the king that they just met that guy and please don't execute us alongside him. The paladin would be dead of course very dead.

Segev
2016-07-13, 03:10 PM
It really depends on a lot more context. How much does the party trust the royal owners of this dagger? "This cultural heritage artifact is kept by our family to preserve it from those who would use it for evil" is a possibility, after all.



Of course, the powergamer's solution is to simply make sure that the users know to keep a 9th level cleric and a supply of diamonds on hand for the willing "sacrifices'" benefit. Heck, two people could exchange the youthenization. Bob lets Alice kill him. Clark raises Bob. Alice lets Bob kill her. Clark raises Alice. And, if Clark wants in, it's just one more diamond and either Alice or Bob volunteering to let Clark kill then raise the volunteer a second time.

Even with the lost level, a bit of adventuring will fix that long before another decade passes. If you're really worried about it, get a higher-level life-restoring spell. (Of course, you could also just reincarnate serially...)

OldTrees1
2016-07-13, 03:23 PM
Of course, the powergamer's solution is to simply make sure that the users know to keep a 9th level cleric and a supply of diamonds on hand for the willing "sacrifices'" benefit. Heck, two people could exchange the youthenization. Bob lets Alice kill him. Clark raises Bob. Alice lets Bob kill her. Clark raises Alice. And, if Clark wants in, it's just one more diamond and either Alice or Bob volunteering to let Clark kill then raise the volunteer a second time.

Even with the lost level, a bit of adventuring will fix that long before another decade passes. If you're really worried about it, get a higher-level life-restoring spell. (Of course, you could also just reincarnate serially...)

Heh heh heh!

And here I was worried about Paladins on their deathbeds being tempted to voluntary self sacrifice their last month to give someone 10 more years. Your point about transmuting 5K gp and half a level into 10 years is so much more of a temptation. Quick, why is the dagger's enchantment evil again? I need a reason to not initiate indefinite lifespans for all.

Sith_Happens
2016-07-13, 03:40 PM
And here I was worried about Paladins on their deathbeds being tempted to voluntary self sacrifice their last month to give someone 10 more years. Your point about transmuting 5K gp and half a level into 10 years is so much more of a temptation. Quick, why is the dagger's enchantment evil again? I need a reason to not initiate indefinite lifespans for all.

Because the metrics used by the world of D&D to categorize such things don't care much about after-the-fact mitigating factors. As far as the tangible forces of Good and Evil are concerned, ritual murder is still ritual murder even you don't plan on it being permanent.

OldTrees1
2016-07-13, 03:58 PM
Because the metrics used by the world of D&D to categorize such things don't care much about after-the-fact mitigating factors. As far as the tangible forces of Good and Evil are concerned, ritual murder is still ritual murder even you don't plan on it being permanent.

Good point but...
What murder? Paladins usually understand that voluntary non coerced self sacrifice, as is the final fate of many a Paladin, is not the same as immoral killing (the meaning of murder I presume you were using).

Strigon
2016-07-13, 04:10 PM
Good point but...
What murder? Paladins usually understand that voluntary non coerced self sacrifice, as is the final fate of many a Paladin, is not the same as immoral killing (the meaning of murder I presume you were using).

Sacrificing yourself for someone else isn't Evil, but allowing someone else to sacrifice themselves so you can use their life energy to renew your youth? That's pretty clearly Evil, at least in a vacuum.

LadyFoxfire
2016-07-13, 04:10 PM
I've done a bit more thinking on the matter, and I realized that there is a win/win scenario for the paladin: if the royal family wasn't planning on using the dagger (or didn't even know what it did), it would be possible, through tact and diplomacy, to convince them that the dagger should be disenchanted to keep it out of evil hands (it had already been stolen once, it's possible for it to be stolen again). The paladin can sleep well knowing that an evil artifact has been destroyed, and the royal family gets the physical dagger back, just like the paladin promised.

OldTrees1
2016-07-13, 04:25 PM
Sacrificing yourself for someone else isn't Evil, but allowing someone else to sacrifice themselves so you can use their life energy to renew your youth? That's pretty clearly Evil, at least in a vacuum.

Good point. I'll put a pin in the "everyone now has indefinite lifespans" plan.

Frozen_Feet
2016-07-13, 05:47 PM
Another question is, where do all those gold pieces and experience points come from?

Like one above poster explained, these kinds of plans are good breeding grounds for moral decay and twisted incentives.

TheYell
2016-07-13, 05:48 PM
I suspect if a player in one of my games tried that the rest of the party would be desperately trying to convince the king that they just met that guy and please don't execute us alongside him. The paladin would be dead of course very dead.

If you think John Wayne going after the boss and his whole gang is out of the question, then, start out by banning paladins.

awa
2016-07-13, 06:12 PM
slight difference between a king of a nominal friendly nation and a gang the inability to tell the difference is why our "hero" gets slaughtered by the royal guard

you can be a paladin with out being an arrogant blowhard.

going into a fight with a king with no plan other then make him as angry as possible and then try and walk away is the kind of stupid arrogance that I just couldn't leave unpunished. Not because I would twist the world against him just because I would let him suffer the consequences of his own actions.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-13, 06:36 PM
There's a 0% chance the family would be okay with it being disenchanted if they were keeping it in the first place. In the absolute best case scenario and it's just a ceremonial piece and they'd all be horrified at the idea of it being used, they still wouldn't want it disenchanted.

The enchantment is what makes it valuable as a cultural artifact in the first place. Without that it's just a hunk of metal. There's a reason that people who collect cars collect working cars.

Strigon
2016-07-13, 06:56 PM
There's a 0% chance the family would be okay with it being disenchanted if they were keeping it in the first place. In the absolute best case scenario and it's just a ceremonial piece and they'd all be horrified at the idea of it being used, they still wouldn't want it disenchanted.

The enchantment is what makes it valuable as a cultural artifact in the first place. Without that it's just a hunk of metal. There's a reason that people who collect cars collect working cars.

Not necessarily; it's still the same object that has killed untold numbers of people, but now with 60% less Evil!
Sure, they might want to keep the enchantment intact for cultural reasons, but they might also be fine with it being gone. It could go either way, really.

GorinichSerpant
2016-07-13, 06:57 PM
Of course, the powergamer's solution is to simply make sure that the users know to keep a 9th level cleric and a supply of diamonds on hand for the willing "sacrifices'" benefit. Heck, two people could exchange the youthenization. Bob lets Alice kill him. Clark raises Bob. Alice lets Bob kill her. Clark raises Alice. And, if Clark wants in, it's just one more diamond and either Alice or Bob volunteering to let Clark kill then raise the volunteer a second time.

Even with the lost level, a bit of adventuring will fix that long before another decade passes. If you're really worried about it, get a higher-level life-restoring spell. (Of course, you could also just reincarnate serially...)

I think the implication is that the 10 additional years of life come from the soul energy of the stabbed person. So at best this would result in wasting perfectly good diamonds both Alice and Bob exchanging 10 years and at worst Clark's spell fails because Bob's soul has been destroyed in the process.

So this is the kind of cheese that would be completely reasonable if the BBEG's orc armies are fed on an infinite supply of troll meat and hydra heads, a analog skeleton based computer is built into the lich's crypt and gnomes go around selling perpetual motion engines made with water wheels and bags of holding.

On a similar note, maybe the dagger radiates Evil because it rips the sacrifice's immortal soul into spiritual components that extend someone's life by 10 years. In which case the dagger should definitely be destroyed.

TheYell
2016-07-13, 07:02 PM
"nominally" friendly is right; real friends don't mislead paladins to recover evil artifacts.

Put on the spot and called to come up with a plan with no idea of resources or teammates, that's the plan to singlehandedly solve the problem.

Now if I have a team, and they agree with the moral premise that the House of Bawbak should not be permitted to harvest people with that dagger, then I should be flexible about the tactics employed. A paladin must be assertive morally. He does not have to eschew cooperation towards a common good.


There's a 0% chance the family would be okay with it being disenchanted if they were keeping it in the first place. In the absolute best case scenario and it's just a ceremonial piece and they'd all be horrified at the idea of it being used, they still wouldn't want it disenchanted.

The enchantment is what makes it valuable as a cultural artifact in the first place. Without that it's just a hunk of metal. There's a reason that people who collect cars collect working cars.

There's a possibility they just want to wear it or have it in a museum.

Thrudd
2016-07-13, 07:36 PM
There's a 0% chance the family would be okay with it being disenchanted if they were keeping it in the first place. In the absolute best case scenario and it's just a ceremonial piece and they'd all be horrified at the idea of it being used, they still wouldn't want it disenchanted.

The enchantment is what makes it valuable as a cultural artifact in the first place. Without that it's just a hunk of metal. There's a reason that people who collect cars collect working cars.

I'm sure that vampire is 0% okay being smitten to (re)death with a holy avenger, also. But them's the breaks. That's what happens when vampire meets holy warrior divinely empowered specifically to destroy the undead (among other things). it doesn't matter that he only fed on willing victims who are cared for in perfect comfort on the vampire's estate. If a strong enough paladin becomes aware of him, he's going down. Artifact powered by an evil enchantment? It's gone. Maybe we can be diplomatic in how it is handled with the kingdom it came from, get emissaries involved or something, but that artifact isn't going back where it could ever possibly be used by anyone. Maybe if there was no paladin involved, the artifact would be returned in the name of diplomacy and prudence. But a paladin is involved, which means they are going to do what is right (destroy evil) first and foremost, and then do their best to mitigate any fallout that might result.

If this is a world where undead aren't always evil, and demons and devils are just extraplanar creatures that happen to often do bad stuff, and "evil" magic isn't really evil, then there probably shouldn't be paladins with divinely granted evil detecting and smiting powers (or those "good" undead and demons and devils should not "ping" evil, and negative energy spells shouldn't automatically ping "evil" so as not to confuse the poor paladins).

I don't think it's that kind of setting, because this artifact pinged as "evil", which means there is objective magical evil. Which means a paladin would not be mistaken in wanting to get rid of the magical evil. If your setting has evil spells, and magical beings like undead and demons and devils that radiate supernatural evil, and it also has a paladin class that is granted powers specifically for finding and destroying those things, it would be really crappy to then tell the paladin that they can't actually rely on those divinely granted powers because things that appear to be evil might not really be evil, and you might get in trouble if you pick the wrong apparently evil thing to destroy. Either paladins are created to destroy evil wherever they find it and they should be expected to do so, or they are something else entirely and something having an "evil" subtype shouldn't necessarily mean anything to them.

dps
2016-07-13, 08:14 PM
It's been stolen once already. Someone out there knows about it. I'd say you could be excused for assuming that this thing will be used for its intended purpose sooner or later, if nothing is done to prevent it.



That just means that someone knows that it's a valuable cultural artifact that's been passed down in the royal family for generations. It doesn't mean that anyone knows about the evil enchantment.

TheYell
2016-07-13, 08:24 PM
I think we're getting somewhere....so you guys hang on to the dagger and send The Yell in alone to tell the King he can't have the dagger back unless he either takes the curse off it or joins a monastery or both, and then, if I get crucified and hung from the ramparts, you know they know about the dagger and don't care it's evil :smallcool:

goto124
2016-07-13, 08:50 PM
The royal family likely hid it from the PCs precisely to avoid the wrath of Miko-style paladins who cut them down as soon as they hear the dagger's nature, without so much as an attempt to hear out why the family had the dagger. (Also, it's more interesting for the story that unfolds itself during the game :smalltongue:)

What if the royalty had been trying to disenchant or destroy it, but the dagger's protective magic is really strong? This could become a plot point for the PCs - their job now is to disenchant/destroy the dagger, this time with full help and support from the royal family.

And the dagger was stolen right? What if the curse was placed on the dagger after it was stolen? Maybe even to implicate the royal family!

Madokar
2016-07-13, 09:13 PM
This is one of the great paladin conundrums that make the class fun to play. I'm personally playing a paladin for a Pathfinder Homebrew campaign, and given my experiences with paladins in that setting, part of what makes or breaks paladins is the religion they serve and any oaths they have made.

Now my paladin sees himself as a Knight-Errant of Iomedae and is working to establish a temple of the faith in a city that is predominately protected by the Church of Abadar. Now, this is where the oaths and faiths start to clash. While on paper, the Abadarans would be just fine in keeping the city safe. But in the campaign, it's become clear that my paladin is more focused on being Good than Lawful. So much so that he's willing to commit a Chaotic act if the Law is hindering the ability to do the right thing. Whereas the Abadarans in the city are more focused on the Law than the Good.

I could give an example, but that would detract from the thread's purpose. In the end, I personally feel that paladins should see the Law not as something concrete that binds them, but as a means to guide and discipline themselves. In effect, give them guidelines on how to act. A standard in which to aspire to. Because Law isn't absolute. The Law can be abused. Law can be used to oppress and hurt people. In such cases, Law should be disregarded and Good should be the concern.

In such a case, it comes down to evaluating WHICH promise means more to the paladin: To protect the innocent, or to enable an evil ritual to continue just because you made a promise to someone without full knowledge of the circumstances?

Now, I don't know what kind of society this dagger comes from, but if the ruling family is using live sacrifices to maintain their youth, then that's an evil act. Regardless if the sacrifice consents or not. If this is how the society as a whole works, then it's Lawful Evil and the paladin should subvert (or outright ignore the laws if the system is too broken) their laws in order to bring justice to the region.

However, if it's just the family in question that is evil, then I would say try to find a way to use the regions laws to get the ruling family out of power and establish a more just and fair means of government.


The royal family likely hid it from the PCs precisely to avoid the wrath of Miko-style paladins who cut them down as soon as they hear the dagger's nature, without so much as an attempt to hear out why the family had the dagger. (Also, it's more interesting for the story that unfolds itself during the game :smalltongue:)

What if the royalty had been trying to disenchant or destroy it, but the dagger's protective magic is really strong? This could become a plot point for the PCs - their job now is to disenchant/destroy the dagger, this time with full help and support from the royal family.

And the dagger was stolen right? What if the curse was placed on the dagger after it was stolen? Maybe even to implicate the royal family!

In such a case, then it's most likely that the paladin will not be able to destroy the dagger either. That gives credence to the Royal family not being involved in the sacrifices. But the second part brings up another conundrum: If someone stole that dagger and enchanted it to have such an evil ability, then we have to be concerned about who would be willing to frame the family. Now chances are, that just makes the royal family even more likely to be good, but it's not a guarantee. Evil fights evil all the time.

If the dagger can't be destroyed, then the party should keep it safe until such a time that the truth can be discerned. But it does make them a target. Either way, I feel the party has gotten wrapped up in noble politics.

AMFV
2016-07-13, 09:26 PM
Honestly the answer depends entirely on the Paladin in question. This is a judgement call, and one that a person could make arguments for in several different directions, so the correct answer and the reasoning is going to depend on what the particular Paladin feels and believes. It's important to recognize that the Paladin may believe that they aren't going to use the artifact, he may alternatively believe, that the artifact's very existence is a problem. How he reasons it out is going to be the principle thing that determines his actions.

Spacewolf
2016-07-13, 09:39 PM
Reminds me of one of the stories from Greek mythology involving Hercules.

There was a good king called Admetus, who was loved so much by his people that death offered to extend his life in exchange for the life of one his subjects given willingly by the subject. Even though the king was loved noone was willing to sacrifice themselves for him even his own parents, eventually Admetus returned to the palace to find it empty. While he was gone his wife Alcestis had gone with death to preserve his life, with his wife gone and with the weight of someone giving up there life for him hanging over his head Admetus became depressed and the whole kingdom was kept in mourning. (At this point Hercules shows up a beats death up to get back Alcestis and everyone is happy but you can probably see the similarities, and yes I know I've paraphrased some of the story)

So assuming the rulers are practising the ritual and that they arn't evil since the Paladin has had no issues with working with them up to now I'd emphasise how hard it would be to find someone to willingly die for you and what the weight of that would do to the person. (At least if the party decides to give the dagger back or talk to the rulers, hell you could even improvise that the current ruler after however many years was kind of hoping that the paladin would find out and destroy the dagger.) Heavy is the head that wears the crown after all.

Segev
2016-07-14, 12:04 AM
I think the implication is that the 10 additional years of life come from the soul energy of the stabbed person. So at best this would result in wasting perfectly good diamonds both Alice and Bob exchanging 10 years and at worst Clark's spell fails because Bob's soul has been destroyed in the process.

So this is the kind of cheese that would be completely reasonable if the BBEG's orc armies are fed on an infinite supply of troll meat and hydra heads, a analog skeleton based computer is built into the lich's crypt and gnomes go around selling perpetual motion engines made with water wheels and bags of holding.

On a similar note, maybe the dagger radiates Evil because it rips the sacrifice's immortal soul into spiritual components that extend someone's life by 10 years. In which case the dagger should definitely be destroyed.

Such things would be valid counters to that plan, but should be something discoverable. (And, frankly, if the plan DOES work, then theoretically a system which takes out the middle man of "killing somebody" should be feasible: sacrifice the diamond and the 5th level spell slot and the XP/level directly for the benefit. The energies involved must be equivalent, if you assume this operates on something which the mechanics MODEL, rather than the mechanics being the literal physics of the setting.)



Though really, if the knife is used at the discretion of the royals, the best way for a small, elite group to get volunteers would be to offer a hefty payment to their next of kin. They have the wealth and power.

Still evil, in my book, but probably not an evil which is going to drive too many adventurers to seek to stop it. ...sadly, I cannot go into more detail as to why I think it evil without violating forum policy about real-world politics and religion.

gadren
2016-07-14, 02:13 AM
WOW, I didn't quite expect this many replies!

A lot of people have been asking for details. I purposely kept it vague because I was just interested in people's thoughts on the core issue instead of the minutiae of the details.

However, here are more relevant details:
1. The game is a homebrew RPG based off of heavily modified Pathfinder and 3.5 rules.
2. When I said it has the evil subtype, I more specifically meant it detects as "necromancy [death, evil]", since its function is similar to the Death Knell spell.
3. The Kingdom of Bawbak is a kingdom of Fey that most humans refer to as "The Cursed". The Cursed are a type of fey they lost their innate connection to magic and nature ages ago and age about 50% faster than humans do. The people of Bawbak are somewhat similar to Klingons from Star Trek, culture-wise. They aren't an evil civilization, but some of the things they consider good most human civilizations would consider evil, and so there is more often than not tension between the two. Bawbak and Burya (the nearest human kingdom) currently are at peace and have limited trade with each other.
4. The Party has thus far only interacted with emissaries from the Kingdom. It would be difficult for them to gain an audience with the king or high-ranking figures of Bawbak.
5. The setting has reduced magic compared to standard Pathfinder and 3.5 settings, with no tier 1 or 2 spellcasters in the world, and while PCs can be tier 3 or lower casters if they desire, finding NPC casters of any real skill is often difficult, and magic items are rarer (the party is level 4 and the dagger is the first actual magic item they've encountered). Thus disenchanting the dagger would prove difficult. Also, divination spells and powers are not 100% reliable in the setting and those who use them know this.
6. The emissaries did not intentionally deceive the party about the nature of the dagger, nor were they ignorant of its ability. It simply didn't come up and the emissaries didn't think it was relevant.

Herobizkit
2016-07-14, 04:26 AM
I have some questions:

* What deity does the Paladin serve/associate with?
* Is your player's Paladin Lawful Good, and if so, did he have to be?

Were I a Paladin in your would, I would want to know more about the dagger itself - who created it and how. Given magic is unreliable in the OP's world, I would turn to my faith for guidance. All in all, I would probably find a way to champion their race and reconnect them to the Fey-whatever if possible; that way, they wouldn't need the dagger any more.

On the one hand, mechanically, Necromancy always detects as Evil in 3/Pe. Logically, it's not the power itself but how people wield it that usually determines its moralistic bent. In a D&D world, however, capital-E 'Evil' is always bad/detrimental and must always be destroyed/rendered powerless by the Lawful Good types. I guess it depends how strictly the OP views Good v. Evil. If he is a proponent of the classic capital-E paradigm, I wouldn't likely even roll a Paladin in his game. :)

I find it bizarre that a race of people are murdering their own to save themselves a handful of years, even if they are dying "faster than normal". Reminds me of the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Half A Life", wherein a 60-year old scientist on the verge of a big discovery is forced to 'retire' via ritual suicide by his people's custom and decides to rebel against it for the greater good.

awa
2016-07-14, 07:29 AM
there not murdering their own it sounds like you can sacrifice someone about to die to preserve someone else that's a net gain in years.

With a Klingon like culture I cold readily see crippled warriors fighting for the honor of allowing one of their legendary heroes an extra 10 years a hero. particularly if the society honor those who gave their life this way perhaps even tying their family and name to the legend of the great warrior and that's assuming a human like life span if they really age twice as fast then its even more dramatic because their great warriors don't have long to be heroes an extra 10 years might be doubling their effective adventuring life.

Heck depending on the nature of their deity and the system such a sacrifice for the greater good may be a short cut to the best afterlife.

I feel like this pushes the needle in favor of giving them the dagger their not humans they don't act like humans and the potential benefits of destroying the dagger aren't worth the worsened relations between humans and the fey if their like Klingons then a deliberate insult like some suggest could very well mean war and win or lose that's going to kill far more people then the dagger. I know some paladins are short sighted and would rather the world burn then they have to admit the worlds complicated with shades of grey but the fact you asked this question imply your worlds not black and white.

TheYell
2016-07-14, 07:40 PM
I know some paladins are short sighted and would rather the world burn then they have to admit the worlds complicated with shades of grey but the fact you asked this question imply your worlds not black and white.

I know there are gaming systems that preach that and still have paladins.

They shouldn't.

Sith_Happens
2016-07-14, 09:10 PM
The Kingdom of Bawbak is a kingdom of Fey that most humans refer to as "The Cursed". The Cursed are a type of fey they lost their innate connection to magic and nature ages ago and age about 50% faster than humans do. The people of Bawbak are somewhat similar to Klingons from Star Trek, culture-wise. They aren't an evil civilization, but some of the things they consider good most human civilizations would consider evil, and so there is more often than not tension between the two.

So what you're saying is they have every reason to use the dagger regularly and probably not much inclination to only use it in "nice" ways? Yeah, they're not getting it back.

gadren
2016-07-14, 09:28 PM
With a Klingon-like culture I cold readily see crippled warriors fighting for the honor of allowing one of their legendary heroes an extra 10 years a hero. particularly if the society honor those who gave their life this way perhaps even tying their family and name to the legend of the great warrior and that's assuming a human like life span if they really age twice as fast then its even more dramatic because their great warriors don't have long to be heroes an extra 10 years might be doubling their effective adventuring life.

Hah, that is precisely what's happening. The players haven't even figured that one out yet.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-14, 09:35 PM
This would be more of a question if the dagger didn't have the [evil] descriptor on it. As it is, it's an evil artifact. And evil artifacts get smashed with a hammer.

goto124
2016-07-14, 11:13 PM
OP already clarified, it's 'evil' as in 'necromantic'.


1. The game is a homebrew RPG based off of heavily modified Pathfinder and 3.5 rules.
2. When I said it has the evil subtype, I more specifically meant it detects as "necromancy [death, evil]", since its function is similar to the Death Knell spell.

DnD 3.5e/PF and its alignment-based rules...


Apart from the moral conundrum, how does the party plan to deal with the diplomantic fallout should they destroy the dagger/disenchant it?

Sith_Happens
2016-07-14, 11:17 PM
OP already clarified, it's 'evil' as in 'necromantic'.

Not all necromancy spells are evil, in fact most aren't.

Thrudd
2016-07-14, 11:20 PM
OP already clarified, it's 'evil' as in 'necromantic'.



DnD 3.5e/PF and its alignment-based rules...

Not all necromantic spells have the evil subtype, only a small subset of them. The fact that the "evil" subtype exists is what keeps paladins employed. If the universe sees fit to label something "evil" in such a way that a paladin's holy powers are triggered by it, there is no reason to doubt that it is something the paladin is supposed to get rid of. Whether or not the paladin's activity is prudent in a diplomatic or long-term strategic sense is another matter. But a traditional order of paladins isn't usually in the business of compromising with things labeled "evil", whatever the repercussions might be.

awa
2016-07-14, 11:40 PM
its evil becuase its based off the death knell spell, which while evil is not that evil and can easily be balanced out by good acts.

So you can destroy the artifact and possibly risk a war or you can give it up where the only thing evil about it really is the fact an evil spell was used in its creation.

at this point unless theirs something else you can do with it we don't know about, returning it seems the clearly correct choice the possibility of starting a war by destroying it is a far bigger evil then the dagger could accomplish. Because at the end of the day even if this weapon is abused in the most horrible way (which we explicitly know its rightful owners are not) a war is going to be far worse.

actually multiple neutral creatures can ping evil becuase of a fiendish ancestor so just using your detect evil to determine who to murder is evil. Not to mention even if something is evil sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which is worse allowing people what they consider a great honor to objectively benefit their race or possibly starting a war.

Blue Duke
2016-07-14, 11:48 PM
I can see where the 'DESTROY IT NAO' camp is coming from but that's looking at it from our own and likely the paladins own moral code, not the code of the people the artifact belongs to. the fact that it's from a different culture also should be pointed out again......crippled warriors giving a great hero or general another 10 years to defend the nation would i think be a great and noble thing to this culture. It may only ping evil because its origin culture is counter to the paladins.....blue and orange where the paladin can only see black and white......like a dog.


Also let me just say i dislike hard coded alignment systems because it allows the miko's to try and force their views of morality on other people and depressingly be mechanically correct according to the rules.

Thrudd
2016-07-15, 12:45 AM
I can see where the 'DESTROY IT NAO' camp is coming from but that's looking at it from our own and likely the paladins own moral code, not the code of the people the artifact belongs to. the fact that it's from a different culture also should be pointed out again......crippled warriors giving a great hero or general another 10 years to defend the nation would i think be a great and noble thing to this culture. It may only ping evil because its origin culture is counter to the paladins.....blue and orange where the paladin can only see black and white......like a dog.


Also let me just say i dislike hard coded alignment systems because it allows the miko's to try and force their views of morality on other people and depressingly be mechanically correct according to the rules.

Well, the question was what the paladin would/should do. Right or wrong in a universal sense, the paladin will uphold their sworn duty and oath according to the beliefs of their order. If the things paladins (and divination spells) believe to be evil aren't really evil, well that's another matter and doesn't really impact the question at hand.

GorinichSerpant
2016-07-15, 01:55 AM
With the additional information gained, I think it would be better to give back the dagger because the evil from the suffering of war outweighs that of willing sacrifices that happen every so often.

TheFurith
2016-07-15, 04:56 AM
I'd want to know more about how the dagger is used. I mean the sacrifice is willing. For all I know people are sacrificed on their deathbeds to give lasting life to their family. Or on the other hand the rich offer money to poor people's family for their sacrifice. I don't see myself just handing it over, but I don't see myself destroying it either. I'd need to know more.

Hell, depending on how that paladin thing was working out maybe I'd be tempted to pocket the thing myself. Never know.

erikun
2016-07-15, 06:36 AM
I haven't read all the responses in the thread, so my apologies if some of these points have already been addressed.

The most obvious solution is to simply remove the enhancement from the dagger and then return it to the people involved. After all, they were tasked to recover a cultural artifact. There wasn't an understanding of retrieving a magical weapon or tool, necessarily. And, if we want to be fair, there isn't necessarily a reason to assume the Bawbakians were the ones running around sacrificing people, as opposed to the thieves doing something with the dagger to give it those abilities - unless the PCs caught the thief on their way out of town, before they could reasonably do anything with it.

On the one hand, I could see how such an item could be used in non-evil ways. Especially if it requires willing targets, it could be used not for gathering power but for individuals to choose what individual to give their support through an extended lifetime. It could be a cultural thing, especially if older or otherwise unable to continue living people were the ones to do so. Ritual suicide is a thing, after all, and the people who were involved were doing so under the assumption that it improved people's lives. On the other hand, it is fairly easy to see how such a system could be manipulated. "Willing" does not necessarily mean idealistically. A person can willingly become a sacrifice if they think their children will be horribly murdered if they don't. A person can willing become a sacrifice if they believe that they will go through a much more painful death if they don't. So, even with the restrictions on the dagger, there isn't anything preventing the Bawbakians from just gathering up a number of slaves and sacrificing them anyways.

As a Paladin player, I would be inclined to destroy the dagger. Disenhancement preferably, although destruction if the first option isn't available. In general, a DM giving a "Detects As Evil" note is a certain red flag to the good-aligned party members. Combined with the questions of its use, I would not be inclined to think that it would be used kindly. If questioned I would admit to what I did, probably it the method of "destroy it because it had an aura that consumed the souls of innocent" or something similar, since that sounds pretty much like what the dagger actually does.

As a DM, I would be disinclined to use such an item, in part because the opacity of the system's mechanics are getting in the way of the moral quandry. It is much like the "Raise Undead For Manual Labor" situation: If you can raise undead and just use them for farming, then why is the spell Evil? Does it do something to the person's soul? Is it labeled as such by some council of deities? I, as a DM, would need to be able to answer that question in order to interpret the moral angles of the situation properly. To not do so would mean leaving the interpretation up to the players, which means that different characters could come up with wildly different conclusions due to entirely reasonable asumptions. If just creating and keeping the undead creates considerable pain to something, thus why it is Evil, then destroy it to end such suffering is certainly a good thing? If the Evil tag is just a presumption based on how it might be used, but somebody could use it for good, then surely it would be better to keep it around than destroy it needlessly?

In short, D&D is a poor system for handling such situations. As a GM I would prefer to have full control over such mechanics, so that I can either intentionally set up a conflict of morals (creating an undead makes the person suffer, but each individual can feed and prevent starvation in thousands) or intentionally create just backdrop setting details of interest (the soul already leaves the body, creating undead is just magic, it's cultural to be for/against it).

Sith_Happens
2016-07-15, 09:41 AM
I can see where the 'DESTROY IT NAO' camp is coming from but that's looking at it from our own and likely the paladins own moral code, not the code of the people the artifact belongs to.

Duh? The thread is asking what we'd do playing a Paladin, i.e.- someone sworn to uphold all things Good and Lawful (in that order) in a universe where morality is not only objective but tangible. You try to say "When in Rome" in that context and the answer is "Well sometimes the Romans are wrong."

gadren
2016-07-15, 09:58 PM
I haven't read all the responses in the thread, so my apologies if some of these points have already been addressed.

The most obvious solution is to simply remove the enhancement from the dagger and then return it to the people involved. After all, they were tasked to recover a cultural artifact. There wasn't an understanding of retrieving a magical weapon or tool, necessarily. And, if we want to be fair, there isn't necessarily a reason to assume the Bawbakians were the ones running around sacrificing people, as opposed to the thieves doing something with the dagger to give it those abilities - unless the PCs caught the thief on their way out of town, before they could reasonably do anything with it.

On the one hand, I could see how such an item could be used in non-evil ways. Especially if it requires willing targets, it could be used not for gathering power but for individuals to choose what individual to give their support through an extended lifetime. It could be a cultural thing, especially if older or otherwise unable to continue living people were the ones to do so. Ritual suicide is a thing, after all, and the people who were involved were doing so under the assumption that it improved people's lives. On the other hand, it is fairly easy to see how such a system could be manipulated. "Willing" does not necessarily mean idealistically. A person can willingly become a sacrifice if they think their children will be horribly murdered if they don't. A person can willing become a sacrifice if they believe that they will go through a much more painful death if they don't. So, even with the restrictions on the dagger, there isn't anything preventing the Bawbakians from just gathering up a number of slaves and sacrificing them anyways.

As a Paladin player, I would be inclined to destroy the dagger. Disenhancement preferably, although destruction if the first option isn't available. In general, a DM giving a "Detects As Evil" note is a certain red flag to the good-aligned party members. Combined with the questions of its use, I would not be inclined to think that it would be used kindly. If questioned I would admit to what I did, probably it the method of "destroy it because it had an aura that consumed the souls of innocent" or something similar, since that sounds pretty much like what the dagger actually does.

As a DM, I would be disinclined to use such an item, in part because the opacity of the system's mechanics are getting in the way of the moral quandry. It is much like the "Raise Undead For Manual Labor" situation: If you can raise undead and just use them for farming, then why is the spell Evil? Does it do something to the person's soul? Is it labeled as such by some council of deities? I, as a DM, would need to be able to answer that question in order to interpret the moral angles of the situation properly. To not do so would mean leaving the interpretation up to the players, which means that different characters could come up with wildly different conclusions due to entirely reasonable asumptions. If just creating and keeping the undead creates considerable pain to something, thus why it is Evil, then destroy it to end such suffering is certainly a good thing? If the Evil tag is just a presumption based on how it might be used, but somebody could use it for good, then surely it would be better to keep it around than destroy it needlessly?

In short, D&D is a poor system for handling such situations. As a GM I would prefer to have full control over such mechanics, so that I can either intentionally set up a conflict of morals (creating an undead makes the person suffer, but each individual can feed and prevent starvation in thousands) or intentionally create just backdrop setting details of interest (the soul already leaves the body, creating undead is just magic, it's cultural to be for/against it).

I understand not wanting to read all the replies in this thread, but most of your questions are addressed in the original post.

Friv
2016-07-15, 11:03 PM
I can see where the 'DESTROY IT NAO' camp is coming from but that's looking at it from our own and likely the paladins own moral code, not the code of the people the artifact belongs to. the fact that it's from a different culture also should be pointed out again......crippled warriors giving a great hero or general another 10 years to defend the nation would i think be a great and noble thing to this culture. It may only ping evil because its origin culture is counter to the paladins.....blue and orange where the paladin can only see black and white......like a dog.


Also let me just say i dislike hard coded alignment systems because it allows the miko's to try and force their views of morality on other people and depressingly be mechanically correct according to the rules.

Ah, but who decides who the heroes are?

The thing about the dagger that makes it most evil, I think, is the tremendous ability of the thing to make a culture start thinking about people as disposable, and start rating a small group of people as inherently better than everyone else. This is not that uncommon an attitude, but it never goes anywhere well. At some point, people start looking at other people who are 'inferior' in various ways, especially (as noted) physically or mentally disabled people. They start looking like resources instead of like people. Guarding against this tendency is possible! It is very difficult, and it doesn't sound much like this culture has pulled it off. And it doesn't take magical coercion, either, just all sorts of nasty cultural coercion telling people that they can't contribute at all if they can't contribute in specific ways.

At the same time, the level of evil here is relatively minor, and the damage caused by taking away the hope of an entire people could well prove far more harmful than the damage being caused by this dagger. As a paladin, I would never use the dagger, but I think I'd be willing to return it. The nature of the dagger is just one point of a lot of cultural negotiation that can take place afterward.

goto124
2016-07-16, 12:59 AM
With a Klingon like culture I cold readily see crippled warriors fighting for the honor of allowing one of their legendary heroes an extra 10 years a hero. particularly if the society honor those who gave their life this way perhaps even tying their family and name to the legend of the great warrior and that's assuming a human like life span if they really age twice as fast then its even more dramatic because their great warriors don't have long to be heroes an extra 10 years might be doubling their effective adventuring life.


Hah, that is precisely what's happening. The players haven't even figured that one out yet.

OP already clarified how and what the culture is using the dagger for. We should go from here.


WOW, I didn't quite expect this many replies!

A lot of people have been asking for details. I purposely kept it vague because I was just interested in people's thoughts on the core issue instead of the minutiae of the details.

However, here are more relevant details:
1. The game is a homebrew RPG based off of heavily modified Pathfinder and 3.5 rules.
2. When I said it has the evil subtype, I more specifically meant it detects as "necromancy [death, evil]", since its function is similar to the Death Knell spell.
3. The Kingdom of Bawbak is a kingdom of Fey that most humans refer to as "The Cursed". The Cursed are a type of fey they lost their innate connection to magic and nature ages ago and age about 50% faster than humans do. The people of Bawbak are somewhat similar to Klingons from Star Trek, culture-wise. They aren't an evil civilization, but some of the things they consider good most human civilizations would consider evil, and so there is more often than not tension between the two. Bawbak and Burya (the nearest human kingdom) currently are at peace and have limited trade with each other.
4. The Party has thus far only interacted with emissaries from the Kingdom. It would be difficult for them to gain an audience with the king or high-ranking figures of Bawbak.
5. The setting has reduced magic compared to standard Pathfinder and 3.5 settings, with no tier 1 or 2 spellcasters in the world, and while PCs can be tier 3 or lower casters if they desire, finding NPC casters of any real skill is often difficult, and magic items are rarer (the party is level 4 and the dagger is the first actual magic item they've encountered). Thus disenchanting the dagger would prove difficult. Also, divination spells and powers are not 100% reliable in the setting and those who use them know this.
6. The emissaries did not intentionally deceive the party about the nature of the dagger, nor were they ignorant of its ability. It simply didn't come up and the emissaries didn't think it was relevant.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 02:08 AM
OP already clarified how and what the culture is using the dagger for. We should go from here.

2. When I said it has the evil subtype, I more specifically meant it detects as "necromancy [death, evil]", since its function is similar to the Death Knell spell.

This is really all that needs to be said. It has the evil descriptor, full stop. A paladin's job isn't to be a reasonable person who carefully weighs cultural factors and performs a cost/benefit analysis. A paladin shouldn't even be hanging around a person who makes a habit of casting Protection from Good.

This would be a more interesting question if the dagger had its effects but didn't have the [evil] tag on it, or if it was a regular old good aligned party without a paladin in it. As it is, how/if the dagger is used frankly doesn't even matter at all. It doesn't make a difference if it's being used to prolong the life of a wise and just king with sacrifices taken from adoring subjects. It doesn't make a difference if the dagger is being used to decorate a fireplace and hasn't been used in five hundred years. It has the [evil] tag and, as such, from the point of view of a paladin, it has no business existing in the world.

gadren
2016-07-16, 03:27 AM
This is really all that needs to be said. It has the evil descriptor, full stop. A paladin's job isn't to be a reasonable person who carefully weighs cultural factors and performs a cost/benefit analysis. A paladin shouldn't even be hanging around a person who makes a habit of casting Protection from Good.

This would be a more interesting question if the dagger had its effects but didn't have the [evil] tag on it, or if it was a regular old good aligned party without a paladin in it. As it is, how/if the dagger is used frankly doesn't even matter at all. It doesn't make a difference if it's being used to prolong the life of a wise and just king with sacrifices taken from adoring subjects. It doesn't make a difference if the dagger is being used to decorate a fireplace and hasn't been used in five hundred years. It has the [evil] tag and, as such, from the point of view of a paladin, it has no business existing in the world.

A couple people have made the assertion that this is not an "interesting question" because it is so "obvious" what the paladin would do.
But honestly, this is just your interpretation of the Paladin, not the only interpretation. Nowhere in the class description does it say "a Paladin must go to any length to destroy and object or creature that detects as evil, regardless of the consequences to others". In fact, if I were the type of DM to pull the "your Paladin has fallen" crap, I feel like that over-zealous path is actually the quickest and easiest road for a paladin to fall from grace.

Thrudd
2016-07-16, 11:07 AM
A couple people have made the assertion that this is not an "interesting question" because it is so "obvious" what the paladin would do.
But honestly, this is just your interpretation of the Paladin, not the only interpretation. Nowhere in the class description does it say "a Paladin must go to any length to destroy and object or creature that detects as evil, regardless of the consequences to others". In fact, if I were the type of DM to pull the "your Paladin has fallen" crap, I feel like that over-zealous path is actually the quickest and easiest road for a paladin to fall from grace.

The important question is what is the interpretation of paladins in your world? Since you didn't specify, we assumed the old standard. What is the oath of the paladin in your game, what are the duties and behaviors expected of their order?

If I ran a game with standard, evil-detecting paladins, I would never directly punish them for destroying something evil that came into their possession. The fall doesn't come from zealously destroying evil things, that's exactly what is expected of them. A fall comes if their zealousness overflows to incorrectly destroying something non-evil. A fall also comes if they break their oath and reneg on their duty to fight and destroy evil often enough. Letting a few evil artifacts get back into circulation because "they aren't that bad" is not going to go over well.

I also wouldn't trick them (character or player) by labelling anything officially "evil" that wasn't evil enough to be justifiably destroyed according to their order and whatever god or force they serve. What is Evil according to the order and god is the only thing that matters, because that's where their powers come from.

If you want to give them a moral quandary, describe something that sounds and looks evil, but doesn't "ping" as evil to their abilities. Then they will have to deliberate over what to do.

In other words, if you don't think a paladin should be automatically smiting something, don't label it as mechanically evil.

awa
2016-07-16, 12:51 PM
A world where paladins never have to worry about the consequences of their actions and can just kill / destroy anything that detects evil like some kinda of holy construct with no negative repercussions is not the standard game setting. Its not a trick, its a choice the party knows enough about the culture to extrapolate the consequences of their actions and have to decide if the harm out weighs the benefit.

there is a thing called the lesser of two evils that does not mean that one isn't evil, it means that one action is worse then the other. it means you have to use your brain to decide which is a worse outcome. Don't pretend he has some bizarre nonstandard setting just becuase actions have consequences and stabbing is sometimes not the best solution.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 03:04 PM
there is a thing called the lesser of two evils that does not mean that one isn't evil, it means that one action is worse then the other. it means you have to use your brain to decide which is a worse outcome.

This isn't a choice between the lesser of two evils. There's one evil, allowing an evil artifact to remain in the world.

Going back on your promise to return it might be considered non-lawful but that really depends on the details. If the paladin didn't do due diligence in making certain that it was a promise he could keep before making it then it might be worth a chaotic slap on the wrist. But if he was outright deceived and made the promise on being fed misinformation then he's blameless.

awa
2016-07-16, 03:25 PM
except from what we know about the culture the dagger belongs (limited as it may be) a war being started is not an unreasonable outcome and that is vastly worse then the daggers very minimal evil.
So its not about the paladins saying he was going to something or at least not just that but the consequences of his actions.

we also know the paladin was not deliberately deceived

but personally as a player even if a war was definitely off the table i probably would return it. The dagger is evil but it seems to be used in a non evil manner. For the most part it seems that destroying it does not help anyone and might hurt some people. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 03:32 PM
except from what we know about the culture the dagger belongs (limited as it may be) a war being started is not an unreasonable outcome and that is vastly worse then the daggers very minimal evil.
So its not about the paladins saying he was going to something or at least not just that but the consequences of his actions.

Paladin is not morally responsible for the actions of others. If they start a war over it then the blame is on their head.

ClintACK
2016-07-16, 04:29 PM
I think it's more important how the Paladin approaches the dilemma than which option he chooses. Using the "evil" descriptor in the ID of the dagger to condemn a whole kingdom and its royal family as monsters -- not cool. Similarly, handing it over just because its easier or because he values his word of honor over any question of right and wrong -- also not behavior worthy of a Paladin.




This isn't a choice between the lesser of two evils. There's one evil, allowing an evil artifact to remain in the world.


Paladin is not morally responsible for the actions of others. If they start a war over it then the blame is on their head.

First: A Paladin is *not* morally responsible for the easily foreseeable consequences of his actions? Really??


Second: You've completely forgotten the setup. This whole situation began when the Paladin helped some people steal the dagger from the Kingdom in question. Confronted with his *crimes* -- actual crimes -- the Paladin swore to make amends by getting back the stolen goods.


If the Kingdom in question goes to war as a result of the Paladin first stealing and then destroying one of their national treasures, I would expect LG paladins to hunt him down as the criminal he is.

And if he did that in the manner you suggest -- blithely shrugging off any possible consequences of his actions -- I'd expect him to Fall so hard he'd bounce.


Paladins are supposed to wrestle with moral issues, they're not supposed to be murder hoboes in white hats.

OldTrees1
2016-07-16, 04:33 PM
Paladin is not morally responsible for the actions of others. If they start a war over it then the blame is on their head.

So the Paladin is not morally responsible for what others do or not do with the dagger. They are only responsible for if they smash it or hand it to someone? Fair enough, in that case you have 2 neutral actions UNLESS Koo Rehtorb is DMing*

*you expanded the Neutral section of the alignment grid with your relabeling. So detecting as [Evil] in the OP's campaign is not the same as detecting as such in your campaign.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 05:31 PM
First: A Paladin is *not* morally responsible for the easily foreseeable consequences of his actions? Really??

Not when the consequences are the decision of a sovereign power. A paladin is responsible if he destroys a dam in a fight and floods a city, because a flood is a force of nature. Other people aren't.


Second: You've completely forgotten the setup. This whole situation began when the Paladin helped some people steal the dagger from the Kingdom in question. Confronted with his *crimes* -- actual crimes -- the Paladin swore to make amends by getting back the stolen goods.

It's obviously preferable to follow the law wherever possible. The place for the sensible paladin to shine would be before the dagger was stolen in the first place. It is well within a paladin's rights to look at the situation and go "this is a low priority and high risk, I have other good I could be doing instead". He could have walked away with a clean conscience before he helped steal the dagger. Once he has an evil artifact in his possession, though, it's too late. It has to be destroyed. Divine law outweighs mortal law at that point.


So the Paladin is not morally responsible for what others do or not do with the dagger. They are only responsible for if they smash it or hand it to someone?
The paladin was under no moral obligation to steal the dagger in the first place, if that's what you're saying. A paladin is allowed to prioritize. And this certainly seems like a case where he should have prioritized something else. At this point it's too late, though.

-------------------------------------

I think where the confusion is coming from is that people are looking at this from a consequentalist perspective. It's a reasonable thing to do because, you know, it makes sense. But D&D morality in general and especially paladins in particular don't work on consequentialist morality. It a paladin committed a minor evil act to literally save the entire universe from being destroyed he'd still fall for it. That doesn't mean he made the wrong choice or that he shouldn't have done it, it means that the entire point of paladins is that they're held to an unreasonable and often unhelpful standard.

OldTrees1
2016-07-16, 05:59 PM
The paladin was under no moral obligation to steal the dagger in the first place, if that's what you're saying. A paladin is allowed to prioritize. And this certainly seems like a case where he should have prioritized something else. At this point it's too late, though.
I was implying that the paladin was under no moral obligation to do any of destroy, not destroy, return, or not return the dagger. The OP had it have the [Evil] tag and you are more conservative with the [Evil] tag (you give it only to things that there is a moral obligation to destroy). Thus we do not have the trivial answer we would have if it was your [Evil] tag.

Then comes your stance that the Paladin is responsible IFF they are the actor, then we know that returning the dagger is not affected by how it might or might not be used (as per destroying the dagger not being affected by the possibility of war).

Combined you end up with all 4 (2 mutually exclusive pairs) options being merely Neutral.

Sure it would be different if we were dealing with:
P1) Koo Rehtorb only uses the [Evil] tag if there is a moral obligation to destroy
P2) Koo Rehtorb is DMing
C) The [Evil] tag means it must be destroyed

But not everyone here is replying under the assumption of P2 or an equivalent P1+P2 pair.


I think where the confusion is coming from is that people are looking at this from a consequentalist perspective. It's a reasonable thing to do because, you know, it makes sense. But D&D morality in general and especially paladins in particular don't work on consequentialist morality. It a paladin committed a minor evil act to literally save the entire universe from being destroyed he'd still fall for it. That doesn't mean he made the wrong choice or that he shouldn't have done it, it means that the entire point of paladins is that they're held to an unreasonable and often unhelpful standard.

1) Your reading of Paladins is consistent with Deontology. I have been arguing from such a perspective. So this "confusion" is not merely a clash between fields of ethics.
2) D&D as played is also consistent with a variety of other moral theories. Only in RAW would there be a monopoly (Off topic: and even that gets debated).

Thrudd
2016-07-16, 06:08 PM
A world where paladins never have to worry about the consequences of their actions and can just kill / destroy anything that detects evil like some kinda of holy construct with no negative repercussions is not the standard game setting. Its not a trick, its a choice the party knows enough about the culture to extrapolate the consequences of their actions and have to decide if the harm out weighs the benefit.

there is a thing called the lesser of two evils that does not mean that one isn't evil, it means that one action is worse then the other. it means you have to use your brain to decide which is a worse outcome. Don't pretend he has some bizarre nonstandard setting just becuase actions have consequences and stabbing is sometimes not the best solution.

No one said there were never consequences. I would just expect paladins to choose to destroy evil in spite of most consequences, and try to deal with them afterwards. In this case, there is only one known evil thing in question, so the choice should be easy. The consequences of failing to return the artifact have not been laid out explicitly. Nobody has threatened to kill anyone, or go to war (yet). Nobody
As a paladin, I would always ask "what would Captain America do?" Captain America would take out Red Skull, no matter what. No compromise. If there was an antimatter bomb, he would have it disarmed and destroyed, it doesn't matter who it belonged to or what use it was intended for. If he had to choose between one evil thing and another evil thing, he would choose neither. He'd find a way to defeat both evil things and save as many people as possible while doing it. That's what a paladin does. He doesn't choose the lesser of two evils. He chooses no evil. Whether that's a realistic expectation is up to the DM and the dice, but a paladin is bound to try, or die in the process. If his party doesn't like that, they probably shouldn't include the paladin. Or they'd have a "civil war" maybe. "No, YOU move." That should be the paladin's motto.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 06:10 PM
Sure it would be different if we were dealing with:
P1) Koo Rehtorb only uses the [Evil] tag if there is a moral obligation to destroy
P2) Koo Rehtorb is DMing
C) The [Evil] tag means it must be destroyed

But not everyone here is replying under the assumption of P2 or an equivalent P1+P2 pair.

Sure, obviously you could change things around by having it not be evil, or by saying that it being evil isn't a big deal. I think it would be kind of silly to do so because what else is the [evil] tag for if not denoting something as something quite evil? But sure, it's a thing that someone could do.


1) Your reading of Paladins is consistent with Deontology. I have been arguing from such a perspective. So this "confusion" is not merely a clash between fields of ethics.

Okay. There's also the fact that an object having a morality descriptor attached to it that some people can inherently sense is nonsensical in the real world. Makes it hard to wrap your head around it.

awa
2016-07-16, 06:21 PM
(thrud) so your saying that paladin are really stupid and short sighted? I disagree. I think paladins good paladins should consider their actions and try to do the best they can not be lazy and say well their isn't a perfect action so I wont even try to make the best of a bad situation.

sure I directly caused actions I knew would cause mass death but saving lives would require me to compromise my oath and clearly my oath is more important then the lives of innocents. That is the philosophy of lawful neutral (or even lawful evil) not lawful good. Its that kind of arrogant self righteousness that cause miko to fall.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 06:30 PM
sure I directly caused actions I knew would cause mass death but saving lives would require me to compromise my oath and clearly my oath is more important then the lives of innocents. That is the philosophy of lawful neutral (or even lawful evil) not lawful good. Its that kind of arrogant self righteousness that cause miko to fall.


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

It's literally in the class description.

However, I do think that falling shouldn't necessarily be a sign that a paladin screwed up. I think if a paladin falls for the right reasons, such as being confronted with a choice between doing evil and letting something worse happen, atonement should be pretty easy. I think both the paladins and the gods that empower paladins understand that sometimes the realities of life in the mortal world don't mesh well with an ideal code of conduct.

awa
2016-07-16, 06:39 PM
that's my point sometimes the paladin encounters situations where they need to make complex choices that's what atonement is for. But killing every evil creature and destroying every evil object just because it detects evil is a worse evil particularly when those actions hurt innocents.

OldTrees1
2016-07-16, 06:54 PM
Sure, obviously you could change things around by having it not be evil, or by saying that it being evil isn't a big deal. I think it would be kind of silly to do so because what else is the [evil] tag for if not denoting something as something quite evil? But sure, it's a thing that someone could do.
Consider this taxonomy:
Morally Supererogatory, Morally Obligatory, Morally Permissible (Amoral is a sub category here), Morally Prohibited, Vile enough to warrant Destruction (technically a subcategory of Morally Prohibited)

Would you not classify the Morally Prohibited (aka that which under no conditions is permissible to use) as evil? I can see some DMs using the [Evil] tag to denote spells and items that are Morally Prohibited to use but not Vile enough that their mere potential is a warrant for destruction. Obviously you are not one of those DMs. But in the light that your position is not the only one to consider, this can help explain why people are asking questions and giving qualified or otherwise nuanced answers to the question.


Okay. There's also the fact that an object having a morality descriptor attached to it that some people can inherently sense is nonsensical in the real world. Makes it hard to wrap your head around it.

Eh. Frequently you will find someone in real life who holds at least 1 of their moral intuitions in higher confidence than a D&D Paladin would have confidence in their Detect Evil ability. In some ways we already act as if we lived with that power in contrast to rational behavior without that power.

Thrudd
2016-07-16, 07:08 PM
(thrud) so your saying that paladin are really stupid and short sighted? I disagree. I think paladins good paladins should consider their actions and try to do the best they can not be lazy and say well their isn't a perfect action so I wont even try to make the best of a bad situation.

sure I directly caused actions I knew would cause mass death but saving lives would require me to compromise my oath and clearly my oath is more important then the lives of innocents. That is the philosophy of lawful neutral (or even lawful evil) not lawful good. Its that kind of arrogant self righteousness that cause miko to fall.

No, there's no requirement to be short sighted and stupid. They should consider the best way to defeat the evil and mitigate as much collateral damage as possible. But there are some things they can't/shouldn't compromise on, and that includes allowing evil to persist. If the paladin gave that artifact back, they better have a foolproof plan to make sure it can't ever be used again, otherwise they would be breaking their oath and reneging on their duty to the world. This paladin doesn't know that destroying the artifact will cause mass death of innocents. We don't know that, either. They do know, 100%, that it is enchanted with evil magic.

awa
2016-07-16, 07:17 PM
I think were just going to have to disagree you clearly are running a very different game then the op.

ShaneMRoth
2016-07-16, 07:32 PM
As a player, I wouldn’t feel railroaded.

As presented, this conflict feels organic. Over the course of a series of game sessions, the players found themselves in a conflict that doesn’t seem like it was a set-up to “trip up” the Paladin. This conflict would work even if there were no Paladin in the party. It would just be considerably less awkward.

So, if I were playing the Paladin, I’d return the dagger to the original owner. But, I’d also preface the return with an exchange of words with the emissaries that might sound something like this:


“Your nation is going to get its property back, but first I’d like to thank you.

“You made this decision very easy for me.

“It didn’t occur to you to warn me about the true nature of the dagger. It didn’t occur to you that it was relevant to tell a Paladin that he was retrieving a vessel of evil necromantic magic. Well, with the full benefit of hindsight, I hope you realize that it was relevant. Because if you had told me, I would have been compelled to return it to you in tact.

“First, I agreed to return it to its rightful owner. My code calls for me to act with honor. Keeping my word is honorable.

“Second, the rightful owner is a head of state and therefore qualifies as ‘legitimate authority’. My code calls for me to respect legitimate authority.

“There are a number of other things but I won’t go into them. The point is, you didn’t tell me that the artifact was a vessel of necromantic evil. And because of that? We didn’t have a meeting of the minds. You breached your end of the social contract.

“You knew I was a Paladin when you set me on this path. And you set me on this path in the dark. And that’s the social contract you entered into.

“By exercising your discretion, you gave me the option to exercise my own discretion. Because when a Paladin is acting in the dark, he is bound only by his conscience.

“I was within my rights, and my discretion, to destroy the dagger on sight, once I discovered its true nature. And that’s thanks to you.

“I was within my rights, and my discretion, to seek to disenchant the dagger and then return it to you as an inert piece of metal. And that also is thanks to you.

“I could have dropped it to the bottom of the sea... or sealed it in stone... or officially confiscated it and placed in the custody of my Order. And all because you didn’t think I needed to know the true nature of what I was looking for.

“I could have done any of those things and I would be just fine. Instead, I am choosing to return the dagger, in tact.

“There are a number of reasons for this. But really, I’m choosing to refrain from provoking a diplomatic incident that could easily be used as a pretext for a war. I’m choosing to do so because I believe that your sovereign, and those who came before him, has proven over the course of history a responsible custodian of this dagger.

“I’m choosing to give you, and your sovereign, the benefit of the doubt that you chose not to give to me.

“Furthermore, my order is willing to offer whatever advice or support you need to keep this ‘cultural artifact’ safe and secure. This is a standing offer that your sovereign can accept at any time.

“Pleasure doing business with you.”



If I were the GM resolving this scenario, a Paladin would have to work very hard to fall from grace due to this conflict.

The most obvious way to fall from grace, based on what I’ve read in this thread, would be to stab the sovereign with the dagger. In part because knowingly using an evil weapon against any opponent is likely a gross violation of the code, even if the necromantic effect never comes into play. (Seriously, how hard is it to refrain from using a weapon you know Detects for Evil?) But more to the point, killing a sovereign outside of the context of declared war would tend to destabilize a government and provoke excessive and avoidable loss of life, and I would rule that to be a gross violation of the code.

And it bears mention here that if a player announced an intention to stab the sovereign with this dagger I would tell the player that the Paladin PC would likely fall from grace, and I would give the player the option to chose otherwise even after he rolled a d20. If the player insisted on his Paladin stabbing the sovereign, knowing the risk as described by the GM... that Paladin would fall.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-16, 08:47 PM
Consider this taxonomy:
Morally Supererogatory, Morally Obligatory, Morally Permissible (Amoral is a sub category here), Morally Prohibited, Vile enough to warrant Destruction (technically a subcategory of Morally Prohibited)

Would you not classify the Morally Prohibited (aka that which under no conditions is permissible to use) as evil? I can see some DMs using the [Evil] tag to denote spells and items that are Morally Prohibited to use but not Vile enough that their mere potential is a warrant for destruction. Obviously you are not one of those DMs. But in the light that your position is not the only one to consider, this can help explain why people are asking questions and giving qualified or otherwise nuanced answers to the question.

Sure, fair enough. It's a perfectly coherent way of looking at things.

Acanous
2016-07-17, 02:54 AM
Hey it's the guy from Twice Blessed! I've been wondering when they're going to finish up at the opera house.

If I were the Paladin, I'd break the dagger and return the pieces. "Sorry, we couldn't return this to you whole, but here's the remnants and we punished the thieves."

goto124
2016-07-17, 11:14 AM
The paladin was under no moral obligation to steal the dagger in the first place

The party ACCIDENTALLY helped to steal the dagger. It's in the very first post of this thread, easy to miss after a while.

I'm tempted to say whether or not to return the dagger depends on how much trouble the party wants to stir up :smallbiggrin:, since both returning and not returning (in their various ways) can be explained as good and paladiny (the GM mentioned being open to the players' interpretations), but returning with the magic intact causes the least trouble.

Do I have a very weird sense of morality?

TheYell
2016-07-19, 02:24 PM
that's my point sometimes the paladin encounters situations where they need to make complex choices that's what atonement is for.

To me this is railroading the paladin. The paladin should always have the choice to say A is better than B and act accordingly. The GM should not say "Well A leads to L and L leads to Z, so you chose Z over B and you fall."


That's what a paladin does. He doesn't choose the lesser of two evils. He chooses no evil. Whether that's a realistic expectation is up to the DM and the dice, but a paladin is bound to try, or die in the process. If his party doesn't like that, they probably shouldn't include the paladin. Or they'd have a "civil war" maybe. "No, YOU move." That should be the paladin's motto.

This is always an option for a paladin. I don't say its the only way to play a paladin. But IF you are going to have paladins you have to allow for the zealot who slogs through the desert for two weeks and beholds the cannibal pyramids in their flowery glory, and decides to pwn them in the name of god. IF you don't want that in your games, say "no paladins". Have lawful good martials.


This isn't a choice between the lesser of two evils. There's one evil, allowing an evil artifact to remain in the world.

I gently disagree and point out that you swore to return the artifact. It's leaving the people who might use it alive, that wasn't covered in the deal.

Harhoult
2016-07-20, 05:16 PM
If I were a paladin in this predicament, I would destroy the dagger then turn myself in to the authorities for the crime destroying a cultural artifact. Hopefully bearing the brunt of their wrath rather than the innocents that would suffer in a resulting war.

awa
2016-07-20, 06:51 PM
see that's a good act it might not be the one i would choose but it acknowledges the worst case scenario and instead of just saying well i cant be held accountable for the obvious consequences of my actions you man up and take the punishment yourself.

As a dm in that situation assuming the kingdom in question is the right kind of honorable i would probably let the paladin off with a really hard quest for the kingdom.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-20, 06:57 PM
I gently disagree and point out that you swore to return the artifact. It's leaving the people who might use it alive, that wasn't covered in the deal.

Breaking your word isn't evil, it's chaotic. And the occasional chaotic act isn't enough to shift you off LG so long as you don't make a habit of it.