Hypothetical Paladin Problem.

[RickDaily12]

So I've been playing this situation in my head for a bit, and I've searched Google for almost a half hour now, with no real good answer. The most relevant encounter I've crossed were "fighting (Good) Evil-typed Outsiders".

What fights, if any, will a Paladin be absolutely prohibited from engaging in?

For example, say the Paladin is investigating an issue on behalf of their Lord, or their patron deity. Their journey takes them to the Outer Planes (Good). They're there looking to bring some evil villain to justice, and are there for clues. Or, they're there to defend some important point, or save an innocent from certain death, or to keep their word that they would do so- you get the picture.

Then, let's suppose an Angel, probably an Astral Deva or some sort, encounters the Paladin, suspecting them of malice. The Paladin will certainly try to avoid combat via whatever means necessary, try to explain the situation in a reasonable way, use their divine authority and their class as evidence of no wrongdoing... but what if that's not enough for what the Angel requires? What if the Angel is sworn to attack anyone in a prohibited area? Or just doesn't believe the Paladin is innocent for some crime or other?

Or, perhaps more realistic: Wizard believes Paladin murdered their evil parent (not fully well knowing their parent was evil) and Gates an Angel to fight the Paladin in a surprise attack. The Angel accepts the XP cost from the Wizard because they believe the request reasonable... etc.

Anyway, whatever the reason, Angel has reason to attack Paladin.

What can the Paladin do? Surely, if this Angel is trying to kill them, they can defend themselves with lethal force if required to? And even if it bothers them so much to attack such a holy creature, they can't abandon whatever cause they were attending to before the Angel attacked?

So are Paladins ever allowed to attack truly Good outsiders if they feel forced to- without falling? Likewise, can an Angel ever attack a truly legitimate Paladin without falling either?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Self defense is never an evil act. If the angel is the aggressor then the paladin is in the clear until and unless the angel yields.

The answer to your question is a simple one; if engaging in battle would be evil and/or grossly dishonorable, the paladin falls. Otherwise, no -individual- fight is prohibited.

Do remember that alignment can shift as a result of a pattern of behavior, so a paladin that regularly engages in unnecessary fights might find him self in trouble after a while.

[Thaneus]

When the Paladin, with an obvious positive Aura is standing before a good Outsider they wont fight, at least not without an explicit warning before.
When he is trespassing unknowingly into a protected domain, he will be asked to leave and the paladin follows suit, no fighting.
Why?
Because of the absolute rule for all good does not fight each other (Outsiders). The Paladin might state that there might be clues of a conspiracy in the protected area, but as Lawful and Good he will certainly not attack the guard, even when far superior in strength.
They might haggle out an agreement, that after the Paladin contacted the guards superior (who gave the order) to get permission or something. No sane good outsider will order "Kill all on sight", that is what fallen (or want to be) angels do.

[Pleh]

As people have mentioned, it would be very difficult to actually produce a scenario where the paladin code prevents him from fighting or defending himself, even from a holy, celestial creature.

But assuming you SOMEHOW got both individuals to fight despite neither of them defying their alignment, I believe the paladin would not be required to surrender. He might be compelled to make sure he doesn't kill the angel, choosing to use nonlethal for the last attacks.

[Stealth Marmot]

Technically speaking, no attacks against the angel would be lethal unless they were on the angel's home plane, sine defeat would just end in them being dismissed back to their home plane.

That said, The paladin could "fall" any time the deity he worships or whoever grants the power decides to stop granting it to him. Such a decision need not even be because of an action that is actually unlawful or evil, the deity could just be in a bad mood.

[Geddy2112]

Under no circumstances is a paladin, or any good aligned character, forced to sit there are take a beating from an outsider because it is "good". Self defense is not evil.

The only fight a paladin (or really any good character)should not be engaging in is the kind where they initiate senseless or unneeded violence. Using force as self defense or defense of others is really the only time good characters should draw weapons.

That said, a "good" outsider that is attacking good people for no reason is likely not good.
Having an angel (an actual one, not something pretending to be one or a fallen angel) attack a paladin or any good aligned character for no reason seems fishy, the type of catch 22 fallbait that bad DM's force against paladins.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That said, The paladin could "fall" any time the deity he worships or whoever grants the power decides to stop granting it to him. Such a decision need not even be because of an action that is actually unlawful or evil, the deity could just be in a bad mood.
False; a Paladin's oath is not a religious one. A paladin only falls fall if they "ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct"-- which, in turn, requires that they "respect legitimate authority, act with honor..., help those in need..., and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Self-defense is not an evil act, and "respect" does not mean "blind obedience." Not every Good being will have the same agenda or goals; sometimes conflict is inevitable. I'd expect such a fight to end in honorable surrender, either offered by the losing party or requested by the winning one, but this is D&D; they are in no way, shape, or form obliged to use nonlethal methods. And... in my mind, the most important quality of a Paladin is that, well... Neil Gaiman says it better than me:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yBKI3g5htaU/UHf9o9N1eRI/AAAAAAAALUE/OCb6OVwdi6M/s1600/batman5.jpg
A Paladin is the guy who will not, ever, give up. Whatever the cost, come hell or high water, he will do the right thing, even if it means dying himself. So no, you're trying to save (anything from the world to a single child) and an angel stands in their way saying "this path is closed," the Paladin is the one who looks it in the eye and says "no."

[OldTrees1]

There is no fight a Paladin is barred from participating in. The only thing that changes is how they participate.

Their moral duty obligated them to travel into a place where an innocent guard (angelic or otherwise) objected? Then the fight, if inevitable, will be non lethal. The Paladin might even spare some time to guard the place until near when the guard recovers to guard again.


Angel is trying to kill them? Defend themselves but keep the fight non lethal. Continue to try to talk about the situation. The Paladin might need to carry on the Angel's purpose.


Worst case scenario, the Paladin might be in the wrong, if they are then they could submit to the similarly good centric mindset of the Angel or church as a step in their path to atonement.

[RickDaily12]

The situation I was more relevantly drawn to was a summoning.

In SoD, Dorukan uses Gate and calls forth something like 20 Astral Devas. Of course, that many of them were probably treated as willing, uncontrolled passerbys who wanted to take the fight to Xykon and end him there.

But assuming an Epic Wizard maybe Gates in one or two Devas, the angels would be under the Wizard's control. Or, again, suppose something like the Wizard not knowing/not believing that the Paladin murdered their evil parent, because certainly their parent was not engaging in acts which endangered innocents... Perhaps the Wizard could even Gate in more angels if he doesn't control them, as long as he explains why the Paladin should be attacked in a way that makes sense.

Anyway, the way I was imagining this situation: Paladin also has a very close friend in the Angels, as an Epic Paladin- his response to several summoned Devas would be breaking a talisman to summon his good friend and fellow follower to his patron deity: a Solar. He would hope that the Solar could help him talk down the Angels, and see if he could keep the fight's objective to only be to neutralize the heartbroken Wizard, rather than fight on all these clearly Good-aligned folks just to only do that.

So I was imagining the situation both ways: The Solar being able to dismiss the summoned Angels via Hierarchy/Diplomacy, OR, the Angels refusing to stand down due to their summoned status, even if that meant having to attack the Solar to get to the Paladin.

It had me curious what the Paladin could do, or even the Solar in this case. :smalltongue:

[Pleh]

Batman is a good example.

In fact, you should look up the original batman vs superman story (not the crappy movie they made recently).

If batman is a paladin, superman is definitely an angel.

[Deadline]

Angel vs. Paladin, Angel insists on fighting:

Paladin: "Very well, I regret that it has come to this, and I will do my best to ensure you do not suffer." *closes visor* "Have at you!"

Angel vs. Paladin, Wizard controlling it:

Paladin: *Wipes bloody sword on the wizard corpse and looks mournfully at the remains of the angel. Says silent prayer to his deity for the loss of the angel.*

Maybe, maybe the Paladin might, if he's feeling bad enough about it, see about restoring the Angel to life. But more likely it's a "That was an unfortunate but unavoidable situation" type of thing and they move on. There's no real moral dilemma there at all in my opinion. Heck, I find more of a moral dilemma in a Paladin slaying goblin children than I do with your scenarios. Is this a thing that came up in your games? If so, I'm kinda curious how it got resolved?

[Ruslan]

Slay the angel, then pay for a Limited Wish spell to bring it back to life. It works.

[Sayt]

Okay, so PF paladins, by default are required to LG, respect legit authority, act with honour, help those in need and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. (Some deistic codes being more or less lenient)

Obviously these can clash, but instantaneous and irreversible falling only comes about from Evil actions, not from Chaotic ones. Honour and disrespect for legitimate authority* would seem to me more L and G. So as a general rule, when there's a clash, a Paladin should strive to do what is Right, as far as he can see it.

If a fight against a Celestial is unavoidable and necessary, the Paladin should endeavour to use non-lethal damage an banishment effects.

This is avoiding the whole "Is the GM playing lol autofall trap" issue in order to say: Paladins are required to live up to a code which requires interpretation.

Angels are not, but then, angels are part of the set dressing, and, IMO, the game master should not use them inappropriately, or if they are, alter them (For instance Wrath of the Righteous, the Pathfinder AP, has a Risen (CN) Succubus which kept the demon subtype but lost the evil subtype, the profane gift became anarchic gift, etc (She still has energy drain, which is called out as evil if used). That said, I think 3.5 handles it differently?.

*You can often play definition games with "legitimate authority", but probably not against freewilled literal servants of Cosmic Good

[P.F.]

irreversible falling

You know, I really thought this was a thing, but looking at the rules again I'm not seeing it. It appears to me that a paladin who commits an evil act may still be restored to paladinhood with an atonement, albeit with an expensive XP/GP cost if the act was intentional.


the absolute rule for all good does not fight each other (Outsiders).

[citation needed] :smalltongue:

Now on to the more serious matter of

Wizard ... Gates an Angel to fight the Paladin in a surprise attack

The paladin is still obliged to fight honorably, but if the angel is trying to kill her, she would rightly defend herself with the most effective means at her disposal, including lethal force. Furthermore, in this case, the angel is being controlled by magic and possibly acting against its will. Should the paladin successfully kill the angel, she will have freed its spirit from bondage. The paladin has honored her oath and suffers no ill effects.

Imagine for a moment the reverse: a paladin under the effect of a geas is compelled to fight an angel. In this case, the angel may have to kill the paladin if that were the most effective means of defense. Win or lose, the paladin will require an atonement before she can regain her special status.

The same applies to a paladin who is deceived into attacking an angel.


What if the Angel is sworn to attack anyone in a prohibited area?

Given that the paladin is a mere mortal capable of sin and error, a reasonable paladin would leave the forbidden area, and work to complete her mission within the restrictions of legitimate authority.


*You can often play definition games with "legitimate authority", but probably not against freewilled literal servants of Cosmic Good

Amen, brother! Perhaps, however, the paladin believes that the angel is acting under false orders, or that her need to investigate the forbidden zone supersedes the angel's authority. In this case, if the paladin were right, no atonement would be necessary. However, if she were wrong ... entering a restricted area without authorization, and killing the security guard when he tries to stop you ... that isn't self-defense, no matter what your intentions ... those actions constitute trespass and murder.

The paladin should carefully consider the dire consequences of wrongly contradicting (and subsequently killing) an actual being of pure good. A paladin who intentionally commits an evil act, even just one, even with the best of intentions, is fallen.

[Deadline]

The paladin should carefully consider the dire consequences of wrongly contradicting (and subsequently killing) an actual being of pure good. A paladin who intentionally commits an evil act, even just one, even with the best of intentions, is fallen.

I don't know if Pathfinder is different in this regard, but the bolded isn't accurate. The Paladin has to knowingly commit an evil act. There's a difference. The paladin who doesn't know that killing the "security guard" angel and entering the restricted area is an evil act is all clear (perhaps he's got good intel, orders, or other reasons). He's still intentionally doing it, but he doesn't know for sure that it's an evil act (certainly a regrettable one). If he knows it's an evil act and does it anyway, then yeah, he's probably got some atonement to do.

[Segev]

PF and 3.5 both are pretty clear that the intent of the rule is both "knowingly" and "intentionally." A paladin who is tricked into committing an evil act because he honestly believes it is good isn't going to fall. A paladin who is forced into committing an evil act against his will (e.g. via dominate person) isn't going to fall. In the first case, he is sinless because he didn't know. In the second, he is sinless because it wasn't his act (he was a tool of another's will with no volition of his own).

Paladins only fall if they have what modern US legal terms refer to as mens rea. Literally "a guilty mind," it refers to a state which means you intended to do wrong. Many of the US's laws require mens rea for the accused to be considered legally culpable. Not all, however. This means that some laws allow ignorance of the law to be an excuse; others do not.

[hamishspence]

I don't know if Pathfinder is different in this regard, but the bolded isn't accurate. The Paladin has to knowingly commit an evil act. There's a difference. The paladin who doesn't know that killing the "security guard" angel and entering the restricted area is an evil act is all clear (perhaps he's got good intel, orders, or other reasons). He's still intentionally doing it, but he doesn't know for sure that it's an evil act (certainly a regrettable one). If he knows it's an evil act and does it anyway, then yeah, he's probably got some atonement to do.

It says "willfully" not "knowingly":

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin


Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

And from the context of the atonement spell - there's such a thing as "unwitting evil deeds" and the spell is still relevant there:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/atonement
You know, I really thought this was a thing, but looking at the rules again I'm not seeing it. It appears to me that a paladin who commits an evil act may still be restored to paladinhood with an atonement, albeit with an expensive XP/GP cost if the act was intentional.
It was a thing in 3.0 and earlier - it stops being a thing in 3.5.

[RickDaily12]

If the Paladin summons a Solar with the hope that Angel Hierarchy resolves the issue, under what circumstances might a Solar's plea/order to let the Paladin be, not work? Should it go to that, the Solar would aid the Paladin in battle... but would it even go there? Would spells force that outcome?


Is this a thing that came up in your games? If so, I'm kinda curious how it got resolved?

Nah, not a DM thing. I'm a creative writer and I was simply imagining such an encounter between my protagonist (an epic sorcerer paladin) and an Archmage he encounters trying to kill him for reasons he doesn't understand. Paladin is doing everything he can to neutralize Archmage without killing him (to figure out why he was being attacked), but once I imagined the spell Gate calling in Angels, I wondered the realism of the situation.

Due to the Mage's sheer personal anger, and the ability/choice to summon Angels against the Paladin, my character realizes there's something very wrong about why he's being attacked. He would break a talisman to call his good friend Solar to help... But would he even land in such a situation to do so?

Based on these responses, there seems to be no moral issue with it. :)