Paladin ethics

[Hingra0]

So this has actually became an issue for my 3.5 paladin of Balthazar. Balthazar himself decea!nded to deliver a quest to my brother and I, my brother being a cleric of the same church. His quest was to eradicate a city, his reasoning is that the city has sat by too long without intervening (witch they are capable of) while the big bad has been gaining power. My issue with it is that the city isn't inherently evil anqd there are definitely innocents among them. So I'm not sure what I'm going to do or how this might affect my brother who can be a little more loose alignment wise. Balthazar being a god of crusades this isn't nesicarily out of character.

[AnimeTheCat]

So, at this point I think it would be best to look at your character ethically. Based on the character's history, beliefs, and the code of the deity that it follows, decide what you think the best course of action is.

For instance, you could gather you army. Beseige the city. And have a very spcific portion or portions of your army have the singluar mission of evacuating civilians and innocents while other portions are responsible for taking out enemy combatants. Compose the army of adepts, experts, and warriors. The adepts and some experts go around and evacuate citizens (maybe throw a paladin in with them for at will detect evil) and have the rest of the experts and warriors doing the rest of the fighting.

[hamishspence]

The problem is - the city hasn't specifically done anything evil - it's just "failed to do the good act of Acting Against the Big Bad".

The description also says "eradicate the city" not "eradicate the evil in the city".


This is the "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" ethic taken to extreme lengths -

"if you won't fight the Big Bad alongside us when we demand it, the "Forces of Good" will destroy you utterly."

Which does not sound Good at all.

[Buufreak]

This, I think, falls into the "ask your DM" territory, as he ultimately decides if you fall or not.

[Goaty14]

If this guy is a crusader-type, shouldn't he be using more peaceful ways to get people aligned towards his cause? I.e Diplomacy, speaking with local leaders (bonus points because its lawful). Murdering a whole town because they won't mobilize themselves is pretty Chaotic Evil, especially if we're talking about 1st level commoners, which would also be kinda disturbing because it would be like leading lambs to a slaughter.

Evil: You're killing people

Chaotic: You're expecting them to mobilize themselves, without any regard to what the current law wants them to do. Even if they did, without a leader, they would be a writhing mass of unarmed strikes.

Advise this guy not to be surprised if he falls, or the local LG cleric smites him.


The problem is - the city hasn't specifically done anything evil - it's just "failed to do the good act of Acting Against the Big Bad".

The description also says "eradicate the city" not "eradicate the evil in the city".


This is the "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" ethic taken to extreme lengths -

"if you won't fight the Big Bad alongside us when we demand it, the "Forces of Good" will destroy you utterly."

Which does not sound Good at all.

Aka, the people in the town aren't good or evil, simply True Neutral, sure they'll fight if the BBEG is a threat, but the BBEG probably isn't even close to them right now.
(The BBEG also isn't trying to murder all of them right now, unlike some paladins...)

[Eldonauran]

I replied in the other thread but will do so here.

Your Paladin has taken oaths to help those in need and specifically "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". His deity might be his Patron, but his abilities are not derived from the deity. His powers are drawn from the very source of that which is Good and Law in the universe. Actual, palpable forces. You have those powers because you walk that narrow path, serving to be an example to all.

If you have to make a decision, you must pick up arms and oppose your brother and his deity if they seek to harm the innocents in that city. Doing anything else violates your code of conduct, and unless you are playing 3.5, any violation could revoke your powers. (3.5 had a clause for grossly violating the code, which means you had a bit of wiggle room, except where evil acts are concerned.)

It is an easy decision but a hard act to follow through with. Are you worthy to wield the title of the Paladin? You are being tested.

[BWR]

I replied in the other thread but will do so here.

Your Paladin has taken oaths to help those in need and specifically "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". His deity might be his Patron, but his abilities are not derived from the deity. His powers are drawn from the very source of that which is Good and Law in the universe.


Wrong. So very very many people get this wrong.
The actual text says "the paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough". This does not preclude the paladin from getting powers from a specific god, it merely says that they are not required to worship a god. Just like a cleric. RAW aside (which is often a good idea) there are plenty of settings where they primarily or entirely get their powers from gods. Setting trumps rulebooks, and we don't know how the GM in this case handles things.

[Psyren]

Wrong. So very very many people get this wrong.
The actual text says "the paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough". This does not preclude the paladin from getting powers from a specific god, it merely says that they are not required to worship a god. Just like a cleric. RAW aside (which is often a good idea) there are plenty of settings where they primarily or entirely get their powers from gods. Setting trumps rulebooks, and we don't know how the GM in this case handles things.

However the GM wants to handle it, that god is pretty clearly Evil and therefore he can't be the source of the Paladin's power.

[hamishspence]

They might be an exceptionally nasty strain of LN.

In Deities and Demigods a god needs paladin class levels to grant paladin powers. Thus, Paladins of LN or NG gods are not in fact the source of the powers of the paladin who worships them.

Though they might be intermediary enough to threaten paladins with "falling from the deity's grace" if they disobey.

In Tymora's Luck, NG Lathlander threatens his paladin with falling from his grace for disobeying him. Eventually he is convinced that she was right to do so.

So, even if this was the real "Balthazar" - if they are not LG, then they are not the source of power.

[Psyren]

In Tymora's Luck, NG Lathlander threatens his paladin with falling from his grace for disobeying him. Eventually he is convinced that she was right to do so.

That's FR though - where Paladins do get their powers from deities quite explicitly, as do Druids, and Clerics of an ideal don't exist. This is not the case in other settings.

[hamishspence]

In all 3.0 to 3.5 settings with deities that use Deities & Demigods mechanics (including Faerun), the actual source of power for the paladin needs to be either a LG deity, or "unknown" (possibly the cosmic forces of Law and Good) if the deity the paladin worships is non-LG.

The question is - can a LN or NG deity (besides one in Faerun) interrupt the flow from this mysterious unknown source, to their paladin?

I would suggest that they can - and to reestablish the connection, the paladin would need to either appease the deity, or stop being devoted to that deity specifically.

[Psyren]

Does DaD specify that gods are the only source of paladin (and druid/ranger) powers, however far removed? Where is that stated?

[hamishspence]

Page 29, under Grant Spells:

"Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list".

So - among deities, there's only one possible source (deity with paladin levels) - so, it's either "deity with paladin levels" or other non-deity source, possibly "unknown cosmic forces".


Sage Advice (Dragon Magazine 300, October 2002) brought up the connection between this, and paladins of Helm (LN, no paladin levels) - the answer was basically "Even in Faerun, Paladins don't have to draw power from their own deities. Your paladin of Helm is legal - where their power comes from, is for you and your DM to decide".

Given that Helm lives in the same realm as the much more powerful paladin god Tyr, and sometimes acts as an underling to Tyr - that might be the source of power in this particular case.

[Psyren]

Page 29, under Grant Spells:

"Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list".

So - among deities, there's only one possible source (deity with paladin levels) - so, it's either "deity with paladin levels" or other non-deity source, possibly "unknown cosmic forces".

Sage Advice (Dragon Magazine 300, October 2002) brought up the connection between this, and paladins of Helm (LN, no paladin levels) - the answer was basically "Even in Faerun, Paladins don't have to draw power from their own deities. Your paladin of Helm is legal - where their power comes from, is for you and your DM to decide".


Ah I think I understand you now. So your FR Paladin must have a patron deity, but that might not be the same deity the spells are coming from. So the Paladin worshiping Helm or Sune could actually be getting their spells from Tyr or something.

But I also found the answer to your own question - if you don't have a patron anymore, you get cut off. FRCS 23:

"It is simply impossible for a person to gain divine powers (such as divine spells) without [a patron deity]. You may not have more than one patron deity at a time, although it is possible to change your patron deity if you have a change of heart."

Thus, if your powers are coming from a deity other than your patron, you need to satisfy both - in the Paladin's case, by being LG, and also by upholding the tenets of his patron's faith. This is easy if they are the same entity, less so if they aren't.

[hamishspence]

Ah I think I understand you now. So your FR Paladin must have a patron deity, but that might not be the same deity the spells are coming from. So the Paladin worshiping Helm or Sune could actually be getting their spells from Tyr or something.


The "patron" bit, and maybe even the "source of power" bit, might be stretchable. In Champions of Ruin, the elven lich druid in the human-hating terror organization, has no named patron - they have a method of "drawing on the power of nature itself" and they are teaching it to the other members of the organization - which are unwilling to worship a non-elf deity, and all elf deities won't grant spells to them.

It's possible that the lich druid has been conned by some mysterious evil nature deity though.

In Elder Evils, the adventure with Sertruous, inventor of "patron-less clerics", can exist in Faerun - which suggests that non-deity-worshipping (patron-less) clerics can exist too.

[Sagetim]

Sounds like a good time to check the local church(es) for any paladin power granting deities to cast Atonement on you so you can swap to them. Alternatively, fall hard, go Blackguard, trade in paladin levels for prestige class levels, and proceed to kick the everloving crap out of anyone attacking that city. Well, okay, maybe that's the most ridiculous way to go about things, so let's scale this back a bit and ask some questions:

Is that Balthazar that you saw actually Balthazar? did anyone touch them and have to make a save without being told what it was? Cuz seriously, illusions can be op as crap. As long as someone doesn't interact with it (such as by touching it) they don't get a will save. And as far as I am aware, interacting does not just mean seeing said illusion or hearing sound it makes, but actually touching or shooting or other means of attempting to get physical with it. This is why Illusory Terrain coupled with pungi stick traps is so dangerous, by the time you get a saving throw, you're already making a reflex save not to fall to your death (Or, I suppose, pain, infection, and possible bleed out).

Does this kind of obviously-not-good behavior fit with the deity in question? Is it even Lawful Good?

Something to ask your GM as a rules clarification: If you want to keep your paladin powers, is it more important to uphold the paladin code, or slavishly follow the orders of a patron deity?

and of course, the best question for you to ponder for yourself and your character: Is it worth being a paladin, and keeping the powers, if it means having to slaughter innocents and children and others just because they didn't meet the expectations of your god? Because that is the question that this quest poses to you. It was presented in terms that have lead you to believe there is no wiggle room, and no place for mercy.

So, I suppose this comes back to: do you want to burn your bridges so hard and so fast that it looks like an explosion going off in the shape of a giant middle finger pointed right at your previous god? Then join the Blackguards today! Signing bonus if you have enough paladin levels left over after converting some!

[zlefin]

the best way to protect against DM shenanigans is to get a phylactery of faithfulness, so you get auto-warned before you get in alignment trouble. Then it doesn't matter which way the DM thinks is proper, as you get notice.

[Kelvarius]

Going from a literal interpretation of your quest (Or at least from what you've said, anyways) your mission is to eradicate the city, not the inhabitants of the city. Evict everyone, then burn it to the ground.

[Pleh]

This crusade isn't necessarily evil. It really depends on circumstances.

It was clearly stated that they had every capacity to intervene in the evil growing nearby. The defense of the city is that it's harsh to punish them for failing in its duty. But the OP seemed to specify that they didn't even try. That's better described as negligence, especially if the city had been commissioned or otherwise forewarned of their obligation to intervene in such evils.

If they know they can stop the evil, know that the evil will commit atrocities if they don't, know that it really *is* their job to stop it, and despite it all, fail for lack of effort, this makes them essentially complicit to the evil and accessory to the crimes committed.

[Zanos]

Paladins don't punish other people for not being Good soldiers.

This is immensely Evil. A paladin would absolutely fall if I was DMing if he massacred an entire city for the "crime" of non-intervention. At terminal velocity. I guess you can ask your DM, but if he allows a paladin to not fall for that he has no idea what a paladin is.

[Sagetim]

This crusade isn't necessarily evil. It really depends on circumstances.

It was clearly stated that they had every capacity to intervene in the evil growing nearby. The defense of the city is that it's harsh to punish them for failing in its duty. But the OP seemed to specify that they didn't even try. That's better described as negligence, especially if the city had been commissioned or otherwise forewarned of their obligation to intervene in such evils.

If they know they can stop the evil, know that the evil will commit atrocities if they don't, know that it really *is* their job to stop it, and despite it all, fail for lack of effort, this makes them essentially complicit to the evil and accessory to the crimes committed.

I think you're assuming Balthazar has any authority over the city in question here. If he's a foreign god (or one not worshipped by the people within the city, for example, and not the source of the city's ruler's right to rule) then Balthazar is effectively overreaching jurisdiction by even attempting to punish them. This also depends on if the GM in question even thought of things like 'where does a god's jurisdiction start and end?' and 'what rights do people have in the setting?'.

It IS possible that these people are worthy (in the eyes of Balthazar) to be punished for not adhering to HIS divine mandate. It's even possible that his divine mandate has jurisdiction there. But there's likely more than one god in the setting, and the people in the setting presumably have free will. So they're probably going to pick the god that either gives them the most benefits or the least trouble. So if some other deity's divine mandate instructed them to stay out of it (perhaps by telling them to focus on trade and leave warfare against evil to the professionals so as not to get in their way), then the people within the city aren't really to blame for not listening to Balthazar go on and on about how they totally need to go do his job for him.

Being Neutral is not a crime, and it's certainly not something that a Good deity would punish anyone about. If Neutrality was a problem for paladins, they would have broader detection powers, or even just detect good and smites for days to smite everyone who didn't ping as good.

[JBPuffin]

This definitely is more "1100s Crusades" than "I'm Good from current morality standards" type of "Good," but there's support for both in DnD. The fact that paladins exist at all, for example. Cut the middle man and ask your DM which matters more: keeping your code, or following your deity.

[GrayDeath]

You need to clarify the following:

1:Is that actually Balthazar. If yes, and he is supposed to be LG, it's a classic asshat test of your Morals. Decline.
If he's not supposed to be LG, decline and explain to him that your morals and role as a paladin will mean you will actually oppose him if he persists.
If he still persists, see my words of wisdom in the other thread.

If it's not him, smite the evil impostor and find out why your God did it intervene when someone pretended to be him.

Honestly the situation is simple, as black and white as few "Paladin Conundrums" ever are.
The Consequences are harsh, but the decision is easy.

[Zanos]

This definitely is more "1100s Crusades" than "I'm Good from current morality standards" type of "Good," but there's support for both in DnD. The fact that paladins exist at all, for example. Cut the middle man and ask your DM which matters more: keeping your code, or following your deity.
If following your deity is more important than being Good you aren't a Paladin, you're a Cleric.

[Briton]

You need to clarify the following:

1:Is that actually Balthazar. If yes, and he is supposed to be LG, it's a classic asshat test of your Morals. Decline.
If he's not supposed to be LG, decline and explain to him that your morals and role as a paladin will mean you will actually oppose him if he persists.
If he still persists, see my words of wisdom in the other thread.

If it's not him, smite the evil impostor and find out why your God did it intervene when someone pretended to be him.

Honestly the situation is simple, as black and white as few "Paladin Conundrums" ever are.
The Consequences are harsh, but the decision is easy.

Unless the god is going biblical like God requiring Abraham to kill his son and testing loyalty to himself. Maybe Balthazar plans on last minute intervention? Course, I don't know much about Balthazar so I can't say much on this subject.

[Pleh]

I think you're assuming Balthazar has any authority over the city in question here.

Not at all. I was offering an example where this quest would not be evil because every other response seemed to assume the opposite.

My reply only works on the given (or maybe similar) conditions. Since we have so little setting info, I didn't want the OP to likewise assume the DM intended this to necessarily be a test, trick, or other moral dilemma.

The DM might just mean that the otherwise good city has been enabling evil and needs to receive retribution. Not trying to argue whether or not this is the case, but to keep in mind that it could be.

[KillianHawkeye]

When I hear something like "My God, who is supposed to be Lawful Good (or at least close enough to LG to have Paladins), appeared to me and told me to kill a bunch of people (or do something else that is obviously Evil)", my first thought is that you're clearly being tricked by a devil or some other Evil creature who gets their rocks off by screwing around with Paladins. Anybody who was serious about pulling this kind of prank could easily shield themselves from a Paladin's ability to detect evil, and a disguise via illusions or shapechanging is incredibly easy. Alternatively, I suppose it could be a test from your deity like some others have said.

Either way, my response would be to question my deity's commands. A Paladin is not required to have blind obedience. In fact, they're the ones who most need to be sure that what they're doing is right. So you ask your deity's avatar for clarification. Make it known that this does not feel like it fits with your God's normal teachings. Perhaps this will trip up the imposter or make their deceit more clear, or it may be enough to pass the test by merely expressing your doubts and thinking for yourself. Otherwise, pray to your God for guidance and understanding. Find a higher level member of your church, like a high priest or the local equivalent, to confer with. Get somebody to cast contact other plane or find some other way to talk to your God or one of their representatives directly.

If it comes down to it, and you think the orders are genuine (and not a perverse test), you have a choice. You can either commit the evil actions your God demands, and fall, or you can refuse and have your God take back the powers he's given you. I remember reading a story on this forum several years ago about a Paladin who made the best Intimidate check of all time, and the gist of it was that he convinced the prisoner that he was willing to fall if it meant saving the city or kingdom (or whatever). He basically said that, as a Paladin, he always knew that falling from grace was an occupational hazard, and that sacrificing his purity to stop a great evil was no different than sacrificing his life for the cause.

So you either die a hero, or live long enough to find something worth giving it all up for. In your situation, you might fall either way. Do you want to do it by slaughtering dozens or hundreds of innocent people, or by refusing the orders of an unreasonable God? Do you do as you're told even though you know it's wrong, or sacrifice yourself for the greater good? I know which one I'd pick.

[Sagetim]

Unless the god is going biblical like God requiring Abraham to kill his son and testing loyalty to himself. Maybe Balthazar plans on last minute intervention? Course, I don't know much about Balthazar so I can't say much on this subject.

As Zanos mentioned, that would be a cleric, not a paladin.

also: Killian- you are thinking of the Powerkeg of Justice story. You can find it on 1d4chan under that name (if I recall correctly).

[Psyren]

The "patron" bit, and maybe even the "source of power" bit, might be stretchable. In Champions of Ruin, the elven lich druid in the human-hating terror organization, has no named patron - they have a method of "drawing on the power of nature itself" and they are teaching it to the other members of the organization - which are unwilling to worship a non-elf deity, and all elf deities won't grant spells to them.

It's possible that the lich druid has been conned by some mysterious evil nature deity though.

In Elder Evils, the adventure with Sertruous, inventor of "patron-less clerics", can exist in Faerun - which suggests that non-deity-worshipping (patron-less) clerics can exist too.

Well of course any rule can be overridden by plot. That doesn't mean those options are available to players, nor even that they should be.


Going from a literal interpretation of your quest (Or at least from what you've said, anyways) your mission is to eradicate the city, not the inhabitants of the city. Evict everyone, then burn it to the ground.

While perhaps less evil than outright mass murder, displacing a city is likely to cause a fair amount of suffering and even death on its own.

[a_flemish_guy]

can you ask for more specifics for the why?

can you instead beg for mercy for the innocents?

can you bargain with him so that you'll only have to overthrow the city's leadership to have them fullfill their duty?

rather then just burning all bridges inmediatly this sounds more like an underling receiving orders which is all part of a big machine and the cog doesn't need to know anymore then it's function so there's more to it then initially seen

if there isn't then well you'll have to have a talk with the DM, since if there isn't more behind this then this just smells of a game of "force the paladin to fall" and not even a subtle one at that

disobey the order: hah, you went against your sworn god, you fall

obey the order: hah, you did an evil thing: you fall

"I'm such a clever DM"

seriously explicitly planning to have the paladin fall is like explicitly planning a TPK, there's no finesse or grace to it and ultimatly it makes you a bad DM (rant over)

[Crake]

can you ask for more specifics for the why?

can you instead beg for mercy for the innocents?

can you bargain with him so that you'll only have to overthrow the city's leadership to have them fullfill their duty?

rather then just burning all bridges inmediatly this sounds more like an underling receiving orders which is all part of a big machine and the cog doesn't need to know anymore then it's function so there's more to it then initially seen

if there isn't then well you'll have to have a talk with the DM, since if there isn't more behind this then this just smells of a game of "force the paladin to fall" and not even a subtle one at that

disobey the order: hah, you went against your sworn god, you fall

obey the order: hah, you did an evil thing: you fall

"I'm such a clever DM"

seriously explicitly planning to have the paladin fall is like explicitly planning a TPK, there's no finesse or grace to it and ultimatly it makes you a bad DM (rant over)

Did it even occur to you that maybe the DM wasn't planning for the paladin to fall? He simply expected the paladin to perform the assigned task and then move on with the game because the paladin did as his diety ordered? It's quite possible that the DM isn't thinking about the paladin at all, and simply acting as the deity would in the given circumstance. Obviously in this case the player and the character are conflicted in how they would act, but without bringing that conundrum up to the DM, he might not even be aware. Don't go jumping to conclusions when you haven't even heard both sides, come on.

[Darth Ultron]

If your god tells you to do something....you do it. It is simple enough.


Balthazar is very old school....even Biblical. So don't judge things by ''modern good and evil''.

[Eldonauran]

Wrong. So very very many people get this wrong.
The actual text says "the paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough". ...
I was using an example that was not setting specific, which is the default assumption when you don't know the setting. Regardless, my advice was sound. Tell your deity to shove it. You have innocents to protect, even if it is from HIM.

[Necroticplague]

What a Good god says is the right thing to do is, by definition, the correct thing to do. They're the ones who get to dictate such things. You, as a mortal, lack the knowledge of Good that the Good gods have, and are not fit fit to pass judgements on what is right and wrong. So, if a Good god commands it, you should do it.

[a_flemish_guy]

Did it even occur to you that maybe the DM wasn't planning for the paladin to fall? He simply expected the paladin to perform the assigned task and then move on with the game because the paladin did as his diety ordered? It's quite possible that the DM isn't thinking about the paladin at all, and simply acting as the deity would in the given circumstance. Obviously in this case the player and the character are conflicted in how they would act, but without bringing that conundrum up to the DM, he might not even be aware. Don't go jumping to conclusions when you haven't even heard both sides, come on.


well yeah, that's what I said in the first part of my post

but indeed it may be that the DM didn't know that the player had problems with the mission and thus I encourage him to ask further questions of his god (and also thus letting the DM know that he doesn't feel like his character would do such a thing, hell the praying for mercy for the innocent gives the DM a chance to bow out with grace if he realised that he might have made a mistake in having the god demand such a thing)

my rant should be entiarly taken seperate from that, I've just heard too many stories of DM's making it their personal mission to make a palladin fall

[BWR]

I was using an example that was not setting specific, which is the default assumption when you don't know the setting. Regardless, my advice was sound. Tell your deity to shove it. You have innocents to protect, even if it is from HIM.
Yes, and? You repeated a misconception about paladins and I corrected you by citing the actual text from the PHB.

[a_flemish_guy]

What a Good god says is the right thing to do is, by definition, the correct thing to do. They're the ones who get to dictate such things. You, as a mortal, lack the knowledge of Good that the Good gods have, and are not fit fit to pass judgements on what is right and wrong. So, if a Good god commands it, you should do it.

yes, but there's no ultimate force of good at the other end of that request, there's a DM who (let's assume that he's reasonable and fair") as we currently know has made a request that goes beyond the morals of the player

I'm all for testing the character's morals, when it's necessary, this seems to me like one of those places where it's absolutely not

hell, I'd say that one of the tennants of lawfull good would be against blind obedience and that idealisticly his servants are obliged to ask further questions if they're conflicted about his orders

[hamishspence]

What a Good god says is the right thing to do is, by definition, the correct thing to do. They're the ones who get to dictate such things.

First - we don't know that Balthazar is Good - he may be LN.

Second - even Good deities can be wrong, and do something immoral. In D&D, deities are fallible - make mistakes, can be deceived (especially by other deities) etc.

[Zanos]

What a Good god says is the right thing to do is, by definition, the correct thing to do. They're the ones who get to dictate such things. You, as a mortal, lack the knowledge of Good that the Good gods have, and are not fit fit to pass judgements on what is right and wrong. So, if a Good god commands it, you should do it.
The cosmos dictates what's Good and Evil. Deities are falliable and corruptable.


If your god tells you to do something....you do it. It is simple enough.
Paladins are not clerics.



Balthazar is very old school....even Biblical. So don't judge things by ''modern good and evil''.
D&D is not biblical. Murdering innocents by the thousands is Evil. Anyone arguing against that is strictly wrong.

[Necroticplague]

The cosmos dictates what's Good and Evil. Deities are falliable and corruptable.

But less so than mortals.

[hamishspence]

Depends on the mortal.

[KillianHawkeye]

also: Killian- you are thinking of the Powerkeg of Justice story. You can find it on 1d4chan under that name (if I recall correctly).

Yes! Thanks for the name, I had been wanting to read it again. It's actually even better than I remembered!

Here is a link (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice) for anyone who is interested.

[ErebusVonMori]

What a Good god says is the right thing to do is, by definition, the correct thing to do. They're the ones who get to dictate such things. You, as a mortal, lack the knowledge of Good that the Good gods have, and are not fit fit to pass judgements on what is right and wrong. So, if a Good god commands it, you should do it.


And this here is why a lot of my good characters, note the small g, start off by burning the setting to the ground.

[Necroticplague]

AMurdering innocents by the thousands is Evil. Anyone arguing against that is strictly wrong.

By what standard? If you can't take the word of a god for the determination of what is right and wrong, how do you have any objective way to say that's evil?

[Psyren]

By what standard? If you can't take the word of a god for the determination of what is right and wrong, how do you have any objective way to say that's evil?

By the standards of the Dungeons & Dragons game, as set forth in Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness and Fiendish Codex. None are perfect, but all three agree on that one point.



But less so than mortals.

Depends on the mortal.

Well said.

[Eldonauran]

By what standard? If you can't take the word of a god for the determination of what is right and wrong, how do you have any objective way to say that's evil?

Also, "right" and "wrong" are not the same thing as "good" and "evil" in the DnD universe. Right and wrong are subjective. Good and Evil are actual forces of nature.

[hamishspence]

By the standards of the Dungeons & Dragons game, as set forth in Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness and Fiendish Codex. None are perfect, but all three agree on that one point.

And even if you restrict yourself to the PHB - the Paladin class demands you "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" - and the city's population is difficult to define as anything but innocent - even if the rulers of the city might be a little shadier.

So, the paladin has an obligation to punish Balthasar for making "innocent-threatening" demands.

[Sagetim]

And even if you restrict yourself to the PHB - the Paladin class demands you "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" - and the city's population is difficult to define as anything but innocent - even if the rulers of the city might be a little shadier.

So, the paladin has an obligation to punish Balthasar for making "innocent-threatening" demands.

It does sound like the kind of situation where, if I were playing that paladin, my character would have listened to the demand, then quick drawn his sword and smite eviled balthazar with a surprise round to the heart. Admittedly, not the most tactful of options, but I think it would leave an indelible impression that paladins take their duty to good seriously.

[GrayDeath]

See my answer here and in the other thread. We agree it seems.

However it would REALLY help if the OP answered some of the questions posed in the thread, especially the ones regarding balthazars Alignment, and general personality, to see if he should actually qualify as authority regarding Good or law, and hzence if this is a test, serious or a classic case of "the GM did not think this through".

[AnimeTheCat]

Regardless of whether the Balthasar the OP's Character saw was the real one or not and regardless of what alignment Balthasar is, what would a LG character do? Any LG character.

Yes, a Paladin has to uphold the tennets of his/her patron deity. He/She is, after all, a faithful follower of said deity. However, in what law is it written that Sammy, the baker of Littletown, is responsible for smiting the evil that plagues West Wall (The town next door). In what world does that baker deserve to die? He has done no wrong, save being incapable of crusading against the forces of evil near his town.

It seems to me that, though the leadership of the city in question may be leaning towards evil by not intervening, the people and even the soldiers making up the population of that city are not. The soldiers, following orders. The people, going about their daily lives surviving. These people don't deserve to be slaughtered. What is the goal of this Balthasar guy? Is it to crush this city? And then what? The next city? Why not try this, infiltrate the city. Get a feel for what's really going on here. Are the townspeople themselves all vile and murderous villans or are they simple people trying to live. Once you have exacted your information, made your decision, you have options.

1) evacuate the innocents, give the lord a chance to give himself up, and put a capable, good, just individual in charge.
2) if the people themselves are all rotten, carry on and purge the city.
3) Create a team of ambassadors, begin with parlay/negotiations, use said time to remove any innocents, bend the will of the lord to yours and don't upset the town's government but keep an ambassador there to advise, and collect intel (Bards or Experts would be great for this).

A LG character should not blindly follow orders. They should always think for themselves and question.

[Pleh]

However, in what law is it written that Sammy, the baker of Littletown, is responsible for smiting the evil that plagues West Wall (The town next door). In what world does that baker deserve to die? He has done no wrong, save being incapable of crusading against the forces of evil near his town.

You assume much about the circumstances.

It could be written in the laws of Littletown, the larger state it belongs to, or the religious tenants which the residents of Littletown adhere to.

Depending on your deity's view of justice, no mortal is necessarily innocent until proven guilty. We don't know that the baker has never committed a crime requiring atonement.

We also don't know that the baker was incapable of doing anything. Maybe he was an adventurer before he took an arrow to the knee.

But even if he'd be more dangerous to himself with a sword than someone else, did he at least encourage his neighbors and governors to action, or was he equally content to allow his town to neglect their duty, despite knowing they collectively had the power to stop the evil?

So many assumptions we were not given in the OP.

[Zanos]

Depending on your deity's view of justice, no mortal is necessarily innocent until proven guilty. We don't know that the baker has never committed a crime requiring atonement.
You're still thinking of clerics. A Paladin's code comes before any deity's code.


We also don't know that the baker was incapable of doing anything. Maybe he was an adventurer before he took an arrow to the knee.

But even if he'd be more dangerous to himself with a sword than someone else, did he at least encourage his neighbors and governors to action, or was he equally content to allow his town to neglect their duty, despite knowing they collectively had the power to stop the evil?

So many assumptions we were not given in the OP.
None of that is relevant. A Paladin that slaughters people for the non-Evil non-crime of being a bystander should be getting ready to trade in their paladin levels for blackguard levels. No character that was even remotely holding up a paladin's ideals would consider mass murder of civilians a legitimate option.

[Drakevarg]

No character that was even remotely holding up a paladin's ideals would consider mass murder of civilians a legitimate option.

What if they had green skin and bad teeth? That makes it okay in D&D land, doesn't it?

[Zanos]

What if they had green skin and bad teeth? That makes it okay in D&D land, doesn't it?
I hope this is facetious. Putting a city of non-Evil orcs to the sword will make you fall if that's what you're asking.

[Drakevarg]

I hope this is facetious. Putting a city of non-Evil orcs to the sword will make you fall if that's what you're asking.

Semi-facetious. You're assuming it's a given that the city is non-Evil and the god is just being a Templaric jerk for demanding its eradication. But if the city was made up of orcs, suddenly D&D says that's not so clear-cut.

[Zanos]

Semi-facetious. You're assuming it's a given that the city is non-Evil and the god is just being a Templaric jerk for demanding its eradication.
First of all pinging on detect Evil isn't instantly punishable by death, otherwise paladins would roam through every village slaughtering 1/3rd of the population. You have to be an active threat.


But if the city was made up of orcs, suddenly D&D says that's not so clear-cut.
Where does it say that, other that Orcs are more likely to be Evil than some of the other races?

[AnimeTheCat]

You assume much about the circumstances.

It could be written in the laws of Littletown, the larger state it belongs to, or the religious tenants which the residents of Littletown adhere to.

Depending on your deity's view of justice, no mortal is necessarily innocent until proven guilty. We don't know that the baker has never committed a crime requiring atonement.

We also don't know that the baker was incapable of doing anything. Maybe he was an adventurer before he took an arrow to the knee.

But even if he'd be more dangerous to himself with a sword than someone else, did he at least encourage his neighbors and governors to action, or was he equally content to allow his town to neglect their duty, despite knowing they collectively had the power to stop the evil?

So many assumptions we were not given in the OP.

I foresaw some of this so I was prepared.

If the law of the land is that people untrained in the ways of combat are to take up arms immediately against some opposition and, as a whole, the city decided not to do this I still can't say that these people are bad nor can I say they are guilty of anything other than being afraid for their own lives and the lives of their families. This may make them criminal, but in pursuit of justice the penalty for breaking this law should not be death. It should rather be mandatory military conscription. The punishment must match the crime.

About the baker having never comitted a crime, true we don't know that and we likely never will. We especially won't if the baker is dead. Now, what if the baker comitted no crime? We still wouldn't know because he is dead, but now we have killed an innocent person who was simply making a living in a place that is suspect of being evil. If you will note, in my post I said infiltrate or send ambassadors to assess the situation and make the most educated decision based on the facts collected.

You are right, we aren't sure that the baker is incapable. Most bakers, however, would be commoners. Commoners have 1d4 HD, are only proficient with a single simple weapon, the have 1/2 BAB and all bad saves. Ok, so he's not incapable I guess, but he's going to be killed by a housecat before he leaves the city.

I fail to see how his death is going to encourage anyone to act. He goes, alone or with a few old adventuring buddies, and they are killed. Why would the people support continuing this? It's a death sentence. Why would the lord/mayor support this? This is a serious waste of resources. What if all the guards are killed? Now who will protect the city? What if someone/something attacks while the majority of the army is away? Who protects the people? Not acting out of fear is not a crime. Is it cowardly, sure thing! But it's not criminal.


Semi-facetious. You're assuming it's a given that the city is non-Evil and the god is just being a Templaric jerk for demanding its eradication. But if the city was made up of orcs, suddenly D&D says that's not so clear-cut.

Even if the city is evil, those who would pursue the epitome of goodness will make every attempt possible to cleanse the city with the least bloodshed possible. Some Zealots would consider any bloodshed a failure (Vow of non-violence/peace) to overcome evil.

[Necroticplague]

But if the city was made up of orcs, suddenly D&D says that's not so clear-cut.

Funny that you should mention a city of Orcs, because BoED uses that exact example to indicate when violence definitely is wrong.

[Drakevarg]

Where does it say that, other that Orcs are more likely to be Evil than some of the other races?

Mostly in the basic conventions of the game. If the party is given an Orcish settlement, or at least one that happens to be the home of orcs that have been violent in the past, the paladin is not usually considered obligated to investigate the settlement first to make sure that the bulk of the population is guilty. The party just rushes in and starts cutting down orcs.

Meanwhile, if this exact same scenario occurred but the thugs who attacked some travelers were from a human settlement, and the party just rode in and burned it to the ground, this would be considered unquestionably an evil act. The uncomfortable truth about D&D morality is that it's childish and hypocritical in the name of being able to have good old-fashioned "them bad, we good" action-adventures.


Funny that you should mention a city of Orcs, because BoED uses that exact example to indicate when violence definitely is wrong.

Only in a "don't strike preemptively" sense. Guilt by association is still in full force if some orcs do bad first even if their neighbors didn't do a thing.

[AnimeTheCat]

Mostly in the basic conventions of the game. If the party is given an Orcish settlement, or at least one that happens to be the home of orcs that have been violent in the past, the paladin is not usually considered obligated to investigate the settlement first to make sure that the bulk of the population is guilty. The party just rushes in and starts cutting down orcs.

Meanwhile, if this exact same scenario occurred but the thugs who attacked some travelers were from a human settlement, and the party just rode in and burned it to the ground, this would be considered unquestionably an evil act. The uncomfortable truth about D&D morality is that it's childish and hypocritical in the name of being able to have good old-fashioned "them bad, we good" action-adventures.

Perhaps its because my group did away with most cannonical things from D&D to make our own world/cannon, but I would treat those who did wrong the same. Regardless of whether they were orc or human most characters I play would treat them the same. If a human band raided a caravan, I would kill them. If an Orcish group did the same, I would kill them. Elves, same. Dwarves, same. Halflings, same. Goblins, same. All that is to say, My groups don't use predetermined racial allignments with the exception of outsiders as they are made of the stuff of that plane. Any organization is capable of being any alignment, regardless of the race. Orcs can make a fine settlement that is ambitious and capable just as well as dwarves can create a scummy backstabbing barbaric settlement that preys on the weak and incapable. Even when playing in other DMs campaigns where they are following the cannon of D&D, I still use this ideology, especially on good characters.


Only in a "don't strike preemptively" sense. Guilt by association is still in full force if some orcs do bad first even if their neighbors didn't do a thing.

How is say, a blacksmith, guilty for what people do with his/her weapons? Guilty by association would be in full force if, for instance, the blacksmith colluded with a sorcerer to create a magic weapon of soul trap for a rogue to kill and capture the soul of a target. That is guilty by association. Making weapons, armor, gear, saddles, clothes, etc that are then used by evil people to do wrong does not make the craftsman evil. When questioned by guards, if the neighbor actively covers up or intentionally fails to mention detail that could assist the investigation (or an Omission), that would constitute a failure to act and would insinuate collusion or guilt by association.

Merely being of the same village as a criminal does not, in fact, make you a criminal yourself. Failure to put yourself in harms way to stand up for the law or for good does not make you a criminal. Failure to go to the guards does not make you a criminal. It may make you suspect, but not criminal. For instance, someone may have witnessed a murder. Either they were or were not supposed to see it. If they were, the individual performing the murder might threaten to kill the individual for going to the guards. That person would not be held criminally accountable for the actions of the murderer. If they were not supposed to see the murder, who's to say that the guards would believe the individual. if they do investigate and turn up no evidence, now they look like the boy who cried wolf. If there is evidence and word gets out that you were the one that went to the guards, you may very well be a dead person walking. There are many reasons not to go to law enforcement when there is a crime.

[Drakevarg]

How is say, a blacksmith, guilty for what people do with his/her weapons? Guilty by association would be in full force if, for instance, the blacksmith colluded with a sorcerer to create a magic weapon of soul trap for a rogue to kill and capture the soul of a target. That is guilty by association. Making weapons, armor, gear, saddles, clothes, etc that are then used by evil people to do wrong does not make the craftsman evil. When questioned by guards, if the neighbor actively covers up or intentionally fails to mention detail that could assist the investigation (or an Omission), that would constitute a failure to act and would insinuate collusion or guilt by association.

Merely being of the same village as a criminal does not, in fact, make you a criminal yourself. Failure to put yourself in harms way to stand up for the law or for good does not make you a criminal. Failure to go to the guards does not make you a criminal. It may make you suspect, but not criminal. For instance, someone may have witnessed a murder. Either they were or were not supposed to see it. If they were, the individual performing the murder might threaten to kill the individual for going to the guards. That person would not be held criminally accountable for the actions of the murderer. If they were not supposed to see the murder, who's to say that the guards would believe the individual. if they do investigate and turn up no evidence, now they look like the boy who cried wolf. If there is evidence and word gets out that you were the one that went to the guards, you may very well be a dead person walking. There are many reasons not to go to law enforcement when there is a crime.

I'm in no way advocating this logic, merely saying it is something of an unstated presumption of D&D.
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/oots/images/6/62/OOTS0975.png/revision/latest?cb=20160830213920

[Dragonexx]

Gods can change alignment too can't they? Perhaps Balthazar became evil.

[Necroticplague]

Only in a "don't strike preemptively" sense. Guilt by association is still in full force if some orcs do bad first even if their neighbors didn't do a thing.

Source for the 'guilt by association'? I'm not seeing anything about it anywhere, except where it says 'a good character must offer mercy and accept surrender.....the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for going to war....revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence' that seem to be saying practically the opposite.

[Drakevarg]

Source for the 'guilt by association'? I'm not seeing anything about it anywhere, except where it says 'a good character must offer mercy and accept surrender.....the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for going to war....revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence' that seem to be saying practically the opposite.


In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.

Relevant clause is "if the orcs have been causing no harm." Except in the case of obvious noncombatants like children (which, D&D being what it is, will only ever come up if the DM is deliberately guilting you on this point), the game does not expect you to cross-reference every orc in a camp with some wanted posters or turn on your party because you used detect evil and noticed that the guy the barbarian is charging at is a neutral cook.

[Zanos]

Mostly in the basic conventions of the game. If the party is given an Orcish settlement, or at least one that happens to be the home of orcs that have been violent in the past, the paladin is not usually considered obligated to investigate the settlement first to make sure that the bulk of the population is guilty. The party just rushes in and starts cutting down orcs.
Probably looks like this, actually:
Paladin: "You orcs have been accused of raiding the farming settlements of [PLACE]. You must come with me to face the justice of [AUTHORITY]."

Then the orc raiders attack, because they are orc raiders. Then the paladin kills them.

If your march through the village and put all the non-combatants to the sword, you're still going to fall.


Meanwhile, if this exact same scenario occurred but the thugs who attacked some travelers were from a human settlement, and the party just rode in and burned it to the ground, this would be considered unquestionably an evil act. The uncomfortable truth about D&D morality is that it's childish and hypocritical in the name of being able to have good old-fashioned "them bad, we good" action-adventures.
I don't actually see that in the books anywhere. If that's how your games are run, that's on you, not the system. Personally I think the scenario plays out similarly to the above, where the paladin demands they turn themselves over to justice and they resist, because they are thugs.

[Drakevarg]

I don't actually see that in the books anywhere. If that's how your games are run, that's on you, not the system. Personally I think the scenario plays out similarly to the above, where the paladin demands they turn themselves over to justice and they resist, because they are thugs.

Or because you're an outsider who has no legal authority over them and are intruding on their lands shouting demands, but since their swords came out they're obviously all guilty.

That's not how I run my games personally, but the game is explicitly written so that people who like "kick in the door"-style play can do so without being guilted over it. In such cases the story is expected to contrive scenarios in which players acting like the kleptomaniac superpowered murderhobos they are is totally okay.

[Zanos]

Or because you're an outsider who has no legal authority over them and are intruding on their lands shouting demands, but since their swords came out they're obviously all guilty.
I'll just come into your house, knock over a bunch of your stuff, then go back to mine, then when the police come to arrest me I'll tell them they have no legal authority in my house.

I'm sure that will play out great for me.

[Drakevarg]

I'll just come into your house, knock over a bunch of your stuff, then go back to mine, then when the police come to arrest me I'll tell them they have no legal authority in my house.

I'm sure that will play out great for me.

False equivalency. The police do have legal authority. This would be like if you travelled to Canada, burgled someone, then went back to America and the mounties showed up at your door without clearing it with local law first.

Regardless of if you were guilty or not, the local police would not be wrong for attempting to expel uninvited foreign law enforcement. But if they were orcs, that point would be conveniently glossed over.

[Zanos]

False equivalency. The police do have legal authority. This would be like if you travelled to Canada, burgled someone, then went back to America and the mounties showed up at your door without clearing it with local law first.
My mistake, we should have leveraged the extensive extradition treaties we have with the barely literate orc raiding parties.

[Drakevarg]

My mistake, we should have leveraged the extensive extradition treaties we have with the barely literate orc raiding parties.

It's more like an act of war, really.

Precisely. Since they're filthy illiterate orcish savages, it's okay to barge into their lands and cut down anyone who tries to make you leave.

[Zanos]

Precisely. Since they're filthy illiterate orcish savages, it's okay to barge into their lands and cut down anyone who tries to make you leave.
No, because they're a foreign army that has invaded your lands and committed crimes on your soil, and has no government to answer for them.

I'd love to see the world you think is "moral" where orcs and bandits can roll over any community they feel like because retaliating against them in their lands is somehow wrong.

[Drakevarg]

No, because they're a foreign army that has invaded your lands and committed crimes on your soil, and has no government to answer for them.

So if the raiders were bandits from an unfriendly neighboring human kingdom, it'd be similarly okay to hold the entire kingdom culpable for the "invasion" and slaughter any guards who tried to throw you out?

[Pleh]

You're still thinking of clerics. A Paladin's code comes before any deity's code.

You misunderstand. The religious codes in this case are applied to the village, not the paladin. If they are devout worshippers, there can be repercussions for disobeying their deity. Such as having clerics and paladins come a decimate the population.


None of that is relevant. A Paladin that slaughters people for the non-Evil non-crime of being a bystander should be getting ready to trade in their paladin levels for blackguard levels. No character that was even remotely holding up a paladin's ideals would consider mass murder of civilians a legitimate option.

My point is that, in particular circumstances, "being a bystander" can also describe someone who maliciously allows evil to be done to another person because you don't like them.

While the RAW might not support ruling it evil all that much, the DM might be interpreting evil differently. The presence of divine condemnation from a traditionally LG deity makes it likely that, by whatever reasoning, the DM has set up the defintions such that being a bystander (at least when you know of the evil and have the power to stop it) can be a willful, evil act.


If the law of the land is that people untrained in the ways of combat are to take up arms immediately against some opposition and, as a whole, the city decided not to do this I still can't say that these people are bad nor can I say they are guilty of anything other than being afraid for their own lives and the lives of their families. This may make them criminal, but in pursuit of justice the penalty for breaking this law should not be death. It should rather be mandatory military conscription. The punishment must match the crime.

About the baker having never comitted a crime, true we don't know that and we likely never will. We especially won't if the baker is dead. Now, what if the baker comitted no crime? We still wouldn't know because he is dead, but now we have killed an innocent person who was simply making a living in a place that is suspect of being evil. If you will note, in my post I said infiltrate or send ambassadors to assess the situation and make the most educated decision based on the facts collected.

You are right, we aren't sure that the baker is incapable. Most bakers, however, would be commoners. Commoners have 1d4 HD, are only proficient with a single simple weapon, the have 1/2 BAB and all bad saves. Ok, so he's not incapable I guess, but he's going to be killed by a housecat before he leaves the city.

I fail to see how his death is going to encourage anyone to act. He goes, alone or with a few old adventuring buddies, and they are killed. Why would the people support continuing this? It's a death sentence. Why would the lord/mayor support this? This is a serious waste of resources. What if all the guards are killed? Now who will protect the city? What if someone/something attacks while the majority of the army is away? Who protects the people? Not acting out of fear is not a crime. Is it cowardly, sure thing! But it's not criminal.

Even if the city is evil, those who would pursue the epitome of goodness will make every attempt possible to cleanse the city with the least bloodshed possible. Some Zealots would consider any bloodshed a failure (Vow of non-violence/peace) to overcome evil.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're making assumptions that are generally reasonable, but we have a few clues that could prove your assumptions illegitimate (particularly the LG deity offering condemnation; this is either a test, or alignment must be defined this way).

[hamishspence]

As far as I can tell, at no point did the OP say that Balthasar is LG - he sounds more LN at best. LN deities can have paladins.

Nor was it stated that the village (actually a city) are worshipers of Balthasar and "disobeying their deity" by not going to war.

[Pleh]

It ultimately doesn't matter. In this instance, it will be an, "ask your DM" scenario. If they play coy and refuse to warn you the consequences of one path or the other, go with what you think is right (minimizing damage to the innocent).

Just don't be surprised if the paladin falls in this particular campaign because of it. RAW only goes so far.

[Psyren]

If my paladin ever fell for REFUSING to be a mass-murderer, that GM would be walking funny on account of where I relocated his DMG to.

[Karl Aegis]

Don't do it. No matter what your deity says, combat with more than a hundred individual combatants is never an option. Keeping track of the turn order is not worth the effort.

[Zanos]

If my paladin ever fell for REFUSING to be a mass-murderer, that GM would be walking funny on account of where I relocated his DMG to.
Are we sure this isn't a paladin of slaughter? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Are we sure this isn't a paladin of slaughter? :smalltongue:

If I don't specify, assume I mean Paladin of Honor.

(Yes, I know you were being facetious :smalltongue: )

[Pleh]

If my paladin ever fell for REFUSING to be a mass-murderer, that GM would be walking funny on account of where I relocated his DMG to.

This brings up again the problem that adventurers already are mass murderers. They're only supposed to mass murder "bad guys".

The deity of crusades said the city was full of bad guys. While understandably questionable, the answer isn't just absolutely certain.

[hamishspence]

The deity of crusades said the city was full of bad guys. While understandably questionable, the answer isn't just absolutely certain.

Nope: They said:


the city has sat by too long without intervening (witch they are capable of) while the big bad has been gaining power.

That might make the ruler of the city a "bad guy" - but it might not. The ruler may be Neutral, or even "Good with different priorities than Balthasar" (spending resources on making the poor of the ruler's city, richer).

[Psyren]

This brings up again the problem that adventurers already are mass murderers. They're only supposed to mass murder "bad guys".

Murder and killing are not the same thing even in the real world, never mind in Dungeons & Dragons. Rather, murder is a very specific subset of killing, and for the purposes of the D&D game the term is defined in BoVD.

[hamishspence]

Rather blurred definition (nefarious reasons) admittedly.

Using BoED as well, plus a little of real world, may sharpen the definition enough for the players to not have too many arguments over it.

[Pleh]

That might make the ruler of the city a "bad guy" - but it might not. The ruler may be Neutral, or even "Good with different priorities than Balthasar" (spending resources on making the poor of the ruler's city, richer).

Good and neutral characters can commit evil acts. Good aligned characters can still become the antagonists and villains of a particular story (even those where the heroes are also good aligned).

Being the Bad Guy of a story has nothing to do with your RAWful alignment.


Murder and killing are not the same thing even in the real world, never mind in Dungeons & Dragons. Rather, murder is a very specific subset of killing, and for the purposes of the D&D game the term is defined in BoVD.


Rather blurred definition (nefarious reasons) admittedly.

Using BoED as well, plus a little of real world, may sharpen the definition enough for the players to not have too many arguments over it.

Obeying the deity you are committed to serving isn't inherently "nefarious". Knowingly serving an evil deity might be, but that's only because you know going into it that most of the deity's motives are already nefarious.

When non-evil deities ask you to do things, you can generally expect their justifications to be valid, negating any seeming nefarity of the task.

BUT, my point was to show that none of this even matters. The OP specified very little of the DM's intent, so the books can say what they will, but we have some substantial evidence to suggest this specific application may make the books irrelevant (BoED and BoVD may not even be canon in this setting).

[Psyren]

Good and neutral characters can commit evil acts. Good aligned characters can still become the antagonists and villains of a particular story (even those where the heroes are also good aligned).

Being the Bad Guy of a story has nothing to do with your RAWful alignment.

There are acts heinous enough to change your alignment in one fell swoop, because they are incompatible. Murder, and especially mass-murder, is explicitly one of them.



Obeying the deity you are committed to serving isn't inherently "nefarious".

That's correct; obedience is just inherently lawful. Whether it is evil or not depends on what specifically they ask you to do.



When non-evil deities ask you to do things, you can generally expect their justifications to be valid, negating any seeming nefarity of the task.

See above - it depends on the thing being asked, not the being doing the asking. If you can even prove that the command is legitimate - this guy wouldn't be the first paladin to be tricked by an impostor or tested.

[Pleh]

There are acts heinous enough to change your alignment in one fell swoop, because they are incompatible. Murder, and especially mass-murder, is explicitly one of them.

Again, it remains to be seen if this would even be correctly identified as murder.


See above - it depends on the thing being asked, not the being doing the asking. If you can even prove that the command is legitimate - this guy wouldn't be the first paladin to be tricked by an impostor or tested.

Yes, but mortals are the ones who can't actually be sure if this is an instance of murder or divine justice. It's supposed to be the deity who knows and sees all and the mortals trust the deity's judgement. Soldiers in war have to follow orders, even if they seem evil in the absence of the commanding officer's knowledge. The idea of following command is trusting the commanding officer to have justified any activity that would normally be evil before issues the command. Responsibility for crime falls on the officer who gave the order.

But I agree entirely that the paladin ought to do everything in their power to verify the authenticity of the command. If there's ever a question about if this is really the deity you are supposed to be obeying, you'd better do the work required to be sure. Seems like something a few Clerical Divination spells could clear up. Someone calls you claiming to be the IRS, but you aren't sure? Call your local IRS office and ask them if anyone from the IRS has been calling you. If its a scam, they won't know what you're talking about. (Or maybe they will have had similar complaints from others).

[Psyren]

Again, it remains to be seen if this would even be correctly identified as murder.

In the scenario as presented, it is. We may be missing key information, certainly, but I can only go off what we've been told.

What I can't do is rely on "some god said it's okay, therefore it must be."



Yes, but mortals are the ones who can't actually be sure if this is an instance of murder or divine justice. It's supposed to be the deity who knows and sees all and the mortals trust the deity's judgement.

Deities have impersonated each other in D&D settings before. And deities can change alignment too. So blindly trusting what you hear is a great route to Fallsville.



Seems like something a few Clerical Divination spells could clear up.

Even if a divination spell told me this was okay, I'd still want to know why it's okay. Even if I weren't going to fall immediately doesn't mean I wouldn't want to at least consider other solutions too.

[Pleh]

In the scenario as presented, it is. We may be missing key information, certainly, but I can only go off what we've been told.

True for us, but less so for the poster in question, which is why I was advocating the mere possibility that this wasn't what it seems to be, so more questions should be asked.

You're 100% right about what it seems.


What I can't do is rely on "some god said it's okay, therefore it must be."

Deities have impersonated each other in D&D settings before. And deities can change alignment too. So blindly trusting what you hear is a great route to Fallsville.

Even falling isn't a permanent thing. There is atonement even if we do screw this up. If we argue that atonement is subject to DM fiat, I'll point out falling is as well.

And when we investigate the veracity of the command, we aren't following blindly. We are literally looking further into the matter.


Even if a divination spell told me this was okay, I'd still want to know why it's okay. Even if I weren't going to fall immediately doesn't mean I wouldn't want to at least consider other solutions too.

Commune is a spell. Just because a god descended to the mortal plane to deliver you a quest doesn't prevent you from setting up a video call later to discuss the proceedings of the given quest.

Since biblical precedence was brought up eaelier, I'll mention that in the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, Abraham (basically a cleric, I'd say) was able to plead for the cities, asking God not destroy the innocents there. God wasn't fighting against the notion, but Abraham whittled him down to promising if there were even 10 innocent people there that he wouldn't destroy the city (in that story, God didn't find even 10 innocent, basically just Lot and his family).

I could see a paladin contacting Balthasar and requesting mercy if only for the few innocents living there.

[Psyren]

I didn't bring up any Biblical references, and we had best give that line of thinking a very wide berth.

For the rest:

1) We are indeed asking more questions. That doesn't change my current judgment (based on the available information) however.

2) Whether Atonement exists or not, I (the player) would still be pissed at falling in the first place, whether for carrying out this asinine order or for refusing to.

3) Paladins don't get Commune.

[Yael]

There was this prince from a kingdom named Lordaeron, it's a fun tale that relates to the OP~

[Pleh]

I didn't bring up any Biblical references, and we had best give that line of thinking a very wide berth.

I didn't say it was you that brought it up. But I agree the classic Greek mythos is probably a better representation of divinity here anyway.


3) Paladins don't get Commune.

The OP said the paladin travels with a cleric of the same deity.