A Paladin's Dilemma

[zinycor]

This is really good for your story. Since that sort of God is the most likely person to try to reform somebody who has committed evil and might be a little bit less hard edged on the Justice side of things. Also that sort of God might give powers or boons or have artifacts that can help repair the sort of moral hurt to the soul that could make somebody do evil things like that.

Personally what I would do (and you're free to steal this if you like it and disregard it if you don't), is have the Paladin challenge the war crimes lady to a duel, which he would probably not normally win. But with the power of his God he is able to defeat her handily, but then he refuses to actually kill her. I would have this sort of thing happen two or three times, with the Paladin trying to walk away, but then the lady trying to stab him in the back. And having the power of the God flow through him so that he can defeat her each time. The final time prompts a crises in the lady, she understands strength and power, but this is something different.

So then she tries to figure out how to get some of that sweet strength, and the Paladin manages to get her to pray and work on being more kind and gentle, and that fundamentally changes her to be more Good, and she eventually winds up regretting what she's done and trying to atone, I would probably have her die doing something truly selfless and heroic.

That's how I would write that, but again it's completely up to you if you want to take it or leave it, or take some elements or leave them.

¿? That doesn't make much sense...
1- Why would the lady accept such a duel? she doesn't have anything against the paladin.
2- Why would a god a healing grant you an easy win in a duel?
3- Wouldn't the evil lady just make the equivalent pact with an evil entity or some other entity who was closer to her point of view?
4- What is the lesson? Beating good into people is cool?

[AMFV]

1- Why would the lady accept such a duel? she doesn't have anything against the paladin.

The OP covered that in a previous posting, where they said that in such a situation the lady would be honorbound to accept such a duel.



2- Why would a god a healing grant you an easy win in a duel?

First, because that's the best way to heal the lady in-question. Second, nothing I described involves an "easy win", it was a tough fight, just enough extra given to win over evil. Third, the thing is that the God is a good God, they want Good to prevail, if helping a Paladin win in a fight with somebody helps that, then they would.



3- Wouldn't the evil lady just make the equivalent pact with an evil entity or some other entity who was closer to her point of view?

Possibly, but those entities might not be interested in her, necessarily. And they don't necessarily give out pacts.



4- What is the lesson? Beating good into people is cool?

The lesson is that being evil doesn't necessarily make you stronger. There is an implication that the reason that heinous actions have been tolerated is because strength is presumed to come from that. So somebody being stronger than somebody that ruthless and vicious without having to be that ruthless and vicious is critical.

[RifleAvenger]

¿? That doesn't make much sense...
1- Why would the lady accept such a duel? she doesn't have anything against the paladin.
2- Why would a god a healing grant you an easy win in a duel?
3- Wouldn't the evil lady just make the equivalent pact with an evil entity or some other entity who was closer to her point of view?
4- What is the lesson? Beating good into people is cool?

1. In some honor based cultures, someone challenging you to a duel is a decent enough reason to rise to the occasion.

2. I mean, hasn't it already, if the paladin's powers are anything like a D&D paladin? Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, spells?

3. Plenty of reasons she could, plenty she why she couldn't. Ex. "We regret to inform you that your application on behalf of Daimyo Kubota of Azure City has been rejected due to insufficient projected returns on our initial investment."

4.
https://i.imgur.com/CiCxreN.jpg]

Though I think the point was to display power alongside mercy, as an example and a symbol. "I could defeat and defile you as easily as you've done to others, but I won't. I'm better than that. You still can be too. This nation and its people still can be." I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it too, I'm no writer. Crib something from Sanderson's Stormlight Archive in a pinch.

[JNAProductions]

The lesson is that being evil doesn't necessarily make you stronger. There is an implication that the reason that heinous actions have been tolerated is because strength is presumed to come from that. So somebody being stronger than somebody that ruthless and vicious without having to be that ruthless and vicious is critical.

Goku. Nanoha, to a lesser extent.

[zinycor]

The OP covered that in a previous posting, where they said that in such a situation the lady would be honorbound to accept such a duel.

Really? Missed that.




First, because that's the best way to heal the lady in-question. Second, nothing I described involves an "easy win", it was a tough fight, just enough extra given to win over evil. Third, the thing is that the God is a good God, they want Good to prevail, if helping a Paladin win in a fight with somebody helps that, then they would.

First: I Mean more on why would the healing god be able to provide help in a duel? Isn't he limited to healing? Second: You did say "But with the power of his God he is able to defeat her handily"



Possibly, but those entities might not be interested in her, necessarily. And they don't necessarily give out pacts.

I guess, but that would be weird, Why would an entity deny itself a willing servant?




The lesson is that being evil doesn't necessarily make you stronger. There is an implication that the reason that heinous actions have been tolerated is because strength is presumed to come from that. So somebody being stronger than somebody that ruthless and vicious without having to be that ruthless and vicious is critical.

So... Does being good make you stronger? If Good beats Evil, then why would there even be a celestial conflict? The fact that there is one, indicates that no, Evil and goodness are somewhat similar when it comes to power.

What is more, if being good makes you stronger, isn't the opposite true? Cause she is stronger than others, is she better than her victims?

[AMFV]

Really? Missed that.



It's buried in there, but it is there.



First: I Mean more on why would the healing god be able to provide help in a duel? Isn't he limited to healing? Second: You did say "But with the power of his God he is able to defeat her handily"

Well the healing God has given the Paladin several non-healing abilities already. If he can grant "Smite" then he can presumably grant other martial powers. Also in D&D Gods are very rarely limited to things that their portfolio focuses on, they can still give Clerics Flamestrike even if they are St. Cuthbert. As such we can presume that sort of power granted.



I guess, but that would be weird, Why would an entity deny itself a willing servant?

A servant who is fighting demonic entities and has PTSD and might not necessarily be a good follower. Just because somebody is willing to serve them doesn't mean that they are the best suited servant to your needs. It's not just about being willing or every ill-tempered unpleasant person would be a powerful warlord.



So... Does being good make you stronger? If Good beats Evil, then why would there even be a celestial conflict? The fact that there is one, indicates that no, Evil and goodness are somewhat similar when it comes to power.

The argument isn't that "being Good makes you stronger" it's "being evil and vicious doesn't necessarily make you stronger". If somebody who is as vicious and evil as they can be, can be beaten by a Paladin, who is not.



What is more, if being good makes you stronger, isn't the opposite true? Cause she is stronger than others, is she better than her victims?

Again you're inferring something that isn't present in anything I'm saying. I'm not saying that "being Good makes you stronger". I'm arguing that somebody who is Good can be as powerful as somebody who is Evil, and that their society has agreed to tolerate acts of evil believing that they are necessary to have the strength to defeat the demon lord, this is a big argument against that fact.

[Satinavian]

Again you're inferring something that isn't present in anything I'm saying. I'm not saying that "being Good makes you stronger". I'm arguing that somebody who is Good can be as powerful as somebody who is Evil, and that their society has agreed to tolerate acts of evil believing that they are necessary to have the strength to defeat the demon lord, this is a big argument against that fact.
The society has decided that having evil high level combatants is better and more powerful that not having those combatants and not getting a replacement either.

Not sure how the duel would prove anything relevant. It is not as if this victory would conjure some good aligned alternative ally out of nowhere.

[Frozen_Feet]

In the cosmos described by 1st edition AD&D alignment rules, neither Good nor Evil, Law nor Chaos, is more powerfull than the others. If anything, everything works towards Neutrality in the end. But not because Neutrality is most powerfull either, it's just that there's a Good person for every Evil and a Lawful person for every Chaotic, and vice versa, cancelling each other out.

This was downplayed from 2nd edition onward, because during 2nd edition TSR tried to be "kid friendly", and part of that was downplaying Evil's part in the game. (This lead to a host of fundamentally disingenous changes to appease moral guardians, such as renaming "Thief" class "Rogue", renaming "Devils" and "Demons" as "Baatezu" and "Tanari", removing half-orcs and assassins from core player characters, etc. No-one paid attention to these changes and most of them were undone at latest when 3rd edition came out. The most lasting legacy of this era is the idea that player characters are meant to be "the good guys" and that playing Evil alignments is somehow doubleplusungood.)

[AMFV]

The society has decided that having evil high level combatants is better and more powerful that not having those combatants and not getting a replacement either.

Not sure how the duel would prove anything relevant. It is not as if this victory would conjure some good aligned alternative ally out of nowhere.

The Paladin is the good aligned alternative ally, and possibly the lady becomes a good aligned alternative ally. At least that was how I read OP's intended character arc, he intends for her to be redeemed.

[Satinavian]

The Paladin is the good aligned alternative ally, and possibly the lady becomes a good aligned alternative ally. At least that was how I read OP's intended character arc, he intends for her to be redeemed.
If the paladin was available for the war, he would have already been there anyway. He is no replacement. It is lose a high level evil combatant or not.

Of course a redemption arc would work as well, then the society can keep its high level combatant and her fighting power. It is not like anyone would actually miss the warcrimes beside her. But if that is possible remains uncertain. And i can't really see a duel leading in that direction. Well, at least if the plot does not follow shonen logic.

[zinycor]

Is the lady a fighter? If so, I don't believe the paladin would be able to defeat her if they are of equal level.

And more importantly, the problem is that the lady is evil, I don't see how beating someone turns them good, unless you are writing a shonen manga.

[JNAProductions]

Is the lady a fighter? If so, I don't believe the paladin would be able to defeat her if they are of equal level.

What edition are you referring to?

Because if it's 5th... The Paladin has WAY BETTER nova than a Fighter, and will probably win.
4th? No clue.
3rd? Depends on builds. Could be a curbstomp either way, could be a fair fight.
2nd and older? No clue.
Other games? Really depends on the game.

[zinycor]

What edition are you referring to?

Because if it's 5th... The Paladin has WAY BETTER nova than a Fighter, and will probably win.
4th? No clue.
3rd? Depends on builds. Could be a curbstomp either way, could be a fair fight.
2nd and older? No clue.
Other games? Really depends on the game.

No edition, the op is just writing, not playing a game.

[JNAProductions]

No edition, the op is just writing, not playing a game.

So why should a Paladin (a holy warrior, imbued with power from gods or the very forces of goodness themselves) lose to a generic Fighter (a dude who fights)?

[Satinavian]

So why should a Paladin (a holy warrior, imbued with power from gods or the very forces of goodness themselves) lose to a generic Fighter (a dude who fights)?
Because it is nowhere said that she is actually a fighter, though she is portrayed as some kind of martial and it is also not said if they are of equal experience.
We have basically no information about who would win a fight or why.

[JNAProductions]

Is the lady a fighter? If so, I don't believe the paladin would be able to defeat her if they are of equal level.

And more importantly, the problem is that the lady is evil, I don't see how beating someone turns them good, unless you are writing a shonen manga.


Because it is nowhere said that is is actually a fighter, though she is portrayed as some kind of martial and it is also not said if they are of equal experience.
We have basically no information about who would win a fight or why.

Which makes what Zinycor said rather moot, and that's what I was responding to.

[AMFV]

If the paladin was available for the war, he would have already been there anyway. He is no replacement. It is lose a high level evil combatant or not.

Did you not read the scenario I wrote? He doesn't kill her in it, they don't lose the combatant in that scenario. She's still available just she eventually realizes that being evil isn't making her more powerful and is actually damaging her.



Of course a redemption arc would work as well, then the society can keep its high level combatant and her fighting power. It is not like anyone would actually miss the warcrimes beside her. But if that is possible remains uncertain. And i can't really see a duel leading in that direction. Well, at least if the plot does not follow shonen logic.

Part of the reason why the lady is allowing herself to go as far as she does is because she believes that it's necessary in war. That's the first step in rationalizing war crimes, to believe that they are necessary. The Paladin defeating her shows her that it's not necessary, and not only is it not necessary but it might be making her weaker.

The key part of the scenario as presented is that it's not "Duel and then everything is happy goodyness" it's "duel and now I want to figure out what the secret to the Paladin's power is, which is because of his patronage and his goodness" The duel is the "hitting rock bottom" part, where she realizes that all the nasty things she's been doing haven't been making her stronger, and that she can be beaten by somebody who has taken the moral high ground.


Is the lady a fighter? If so, I don't believe the paladin would be able to defeat her if they are of equal level.

Possibly, but in the scenario I posited the Paladin has explicit divine aid, which counts for a lot. Even if she would have been able to win before.



And more importantly, the problem is that the lady is evil, I don't see how beating someone turns them good, unless you are writing a shonen manga.

It doesn't. That's not what I said. It's the thing that makes her pause, then later reflection and work and discussion and effort turns her good. The duel is the first step in that process, where she goes "if this guy can be so powerful what's his secret" and that makes her start trying to do Good, and trying to do Good even if it starts out being in the pursuit of power, is eventually going to make you a better person.


What edition are you referring to?

Because if it's 5th... The Paladin has WAY BETTER nova than a Fighter, and will probably win.
4th? No clue.
3rd? Depends on builds. Could be a curbstomp either way, could be a fair fight.
2nd and older? No clue.
Other games? Really depends on the game.

2nd and older? The Paladin was one of the classes with most nasty stat-requirements and therefore was typically super powerful, especially in OD&D.

[Satinavian]

Did you not read the scenario I wrote? He doesn't kill her in it, they don't lose the combatant in that scenario. She's still available just she eventually realizes that being evil isn't making her more powerful and is actually damaging her.
Your scenario is full of clichees and not particularly convincing at all.

This stupid backstabbing after losing the fight ? Why include stuff like that ? Why would someone who would only participate in such a duel because of honour constraints and does not even hate the opponent do such a honourless thing ? And several times over ? And why would a duel be assumed to be to the death in the first place ? And the god directly granting a win via powrrup, where is the narrative sense in that ?


Part of the reason why the lady is allowing herself to go as far as she does is because she believes that it's necessary in war. That's the first step in rationalizing war crimes, to believe that they are necessary. The Paladin defeating her shows her that it's not necessary, and not only is it not necessary but it might be making her weaker.No, her problem is that she started to enjoy this stuff according to the opening post. While the country tolerates the warcrimes because it thinks the criminals are necessary to win, she does not do it out of perceived necessity but for the thrill.

She is not actually believing that evil makes her more powerful. She has just become a bloodthirsty psychopath and hat is why she is doing it. Or she is just extremely deep down the road of dehumanizing her enemies considering how she treats her own soldiers extraordinarily well and never has done something against citicens of her country.

[zinycor]

So why should a Paladin (a holy warrior, imbued with power from gods or the very forces of goodness themselves) lose to a generic Fighter (a dude who fights)?

Cause dudes who fight are pretty good at fighting, meanwhile I would imagine a paladin being better at fighting evil creatures.

In the end, when it comes down to a duel, I would expect the fighter to have a better chance of winning.

[AMFV]

Your scenario is full of clichees and not particularly convincing at all.

Sometimes a cliche exists because something works in a narrative sense. Guy meets girl and they fall in love, is an enormous cliche, but there are entire genres of fiction devoted to that.



This stupid backstabbing after losing the fight ? Why include stuff like that ?

To show the kind of person the evil lady is and to illustrate how much she is outclassed in this particular instance. Also in her mind the fight wasn't over, it was to the death.


Why would someone who would only participate in such a duel because of honour constraints and does not even hate the opponent do such a honourless thing ?

The fight wasn't over, stabbing somebody after they turn their back isn't generally against the rules in a fight to the death, it might be considered a little bit tasteless, but certainly not against honor, at least not in a lot of different takes on honor.


And several times over ?

Because that is a common trope. St. Peter denies three times, Balaam refuses to go to Ninevah three times, Jonah refuses there times (note I'm using these as narrative examples devoid of their religious significance). Somebody needing multiple demonstrations before they are willing to start reforming is extremely common in literature.


And why would a duel be assumed to be to the death in the first place ?

Because the OP stated that duels such as this were considered to be so. Ergo it is assumed to be so. Maybe there is no mechanism in the system for duels "to the blood" or whatever.


And the god directly granting a win via powrrup, where is the narrative sense in that ?


Because the Paladin gets his power from his God, the more right and moral his cause, theoretically the more powerful he might become.



No, her problem is that she started to enjoy this stuff according to the opening post. While the country tolerates the warcrimes because it thinks the criminals are necessary to win, she does not do it out of perceived necessity but for the thrill.


Right, but I would argue that because the cultural reasoning deals with necessity, that proving it wasn't necessary would be somewhat significant for her. Certainly not enough to cause her to repent her evil ways right on the spot, but certainly enough to cause her a certain crisis, particularly if she realizes that they might actually be weakening herself.

My idea is that when she is beaten physically in that moment she has a revelation about how damaged her soul is. That without the physical monster she is, she is pretty much nothing.



She is not actually believing that evil makes her more powerful. She has just become a bloodthirsty psychopath and hat is why she is doing it. Or she is just extremely deep down the road of dehumanizing her enemies considering how she treats her own soldiers extraordinarily well and never has done something against citicens of her country.

Yes, which is why I recommended having things happen after the duel. The thing is that for the kind of intense behavioral change the OP is looking for, there needs to be a jarring experience, the person has to "hit rock bottom" or have a "dark night of the soul". It can't just be, "Oh I want to be good now". It has to be something like, "wow I'm beaten by this guy and he basically says that it isn't even worth killing me because of how broken I am, maybe there's something to what he says". That's the thing, you have to have a significant event spark any kind of quest for redemption or it isn't believable, she's not going to be shocked out of this by the heinousness of her crimes.


Cause dudes who fight are pretty good at fighting, meanwhile I would imagine a paladin being better at fighting evil creatures.

Humans ARE creatures. This human is an "evil creature". Also a Paladin is likewise a "dude who fights"



In the end, when it comes down to a duel, I would expect the fighter to have a better chance of winning.

Against a neutral fighter you might even be right (in some editions), but Paladins have special tools for fighting evil, and she is evil. In most editions that gives the Paladin a substantial advantage in a single combat fight against an equal leveled opponent (without divine intervention). With divine intervention, it's pretty much a done deal.

[JNAProductions]

Cause dudes who fight are pretty good at fighting, meanwhile I would imagine a paladin being better at fighting evil creatures.

In the end, when it comes down to a duel, I would expect the fighter to have a better chance of winning.

So what do you mean when you say "Fighter"?

Because as was pointed out, in 5th edition, advantage Paladin.
In 2nd edition and earlier, advantage Paladin.
In 3rd edition, advantage whoever optimizes more.

And narratively, you've got a horrendous and evil Fighter versus a champion of goodness Paladin. Even if you argue that Paladins are ONLY good against evil foes, and suck against everything else... They're dealing with evil right here.

[zinycor]

Humans ARE creatures. This human is an "evil creature". Also a Paladin is likewise a "dude who fights"



Against a neutral fighter you might even be right (in some editions), but Paladins have special tools for fighting evil, and she is evil. In most editions that gives the Paladin a substantial advantage in a single combat fight against an equal leveled opponent (without divine intervention). With divine intervention, it's pretty much a done deal.

Am not completely sure about this, but I think most features that damage evil creatures do not include humanoids, no matter how evil they are (Unless they are animated by evil). But I could be wrong in that, after all before 5e neither me or anyone at my group never even considered playing a Paladin.

[zinycor]

So what do you mean when you say "Fighter"?

Because as was pointed out, in 5th edition, advantage Paladin.
In 2nd edition and earlier, advantage Paladin.
In 3rd edition, advantage whoever optimizes more.



Sorry, but that assertion is only something you did, didn't see anyone being like: "Yeah that makes sense..."


And narratively, you've got a horrendous and evil Fighter versus a champion of goodness Paladin. Even if you argue that Paladins are ONLY good against evil foes, and suck against everything else... They're dealing with evil right here.

Do paladin features that dmage evil creatures work on evil people? Honestly, given my very limited experience with paladins previous to 5th edition I can't remember.

[AMFV]

Do paladin features that dmage evil creatures work on evil people? Honestly, given my very limited experience with paladins previous to 5th edition I can't remember.

Yes, in every edition prior in fact. I wasn't even aware that they didn't work that way in 5th. I know that in some editions they do EVEN MOAR extra damage to characters who are evil demons and the like, but they still do extra damage to evil people.

[zinycor]

Yes, in every edition prior in fact. I wasn't even aware that they didn't work that way in 5th. I know that in some editions they do EVEN MOAR extra damage to characters who are evil demons and the like, but they still do extra damage to evil people.

In 5th you can smite whoever you want, is great.

[JNAProductions]

Sorry, but that assertion is only something you did, didn't see anyone being like: "Yeah that makes sense..."

Do paladin features that dmage evil creatures work on evil people? Honestly, given my very limited experience with paladins previous to 5th edition I can't remember.

In 5th edition, Paladins do extra damage against Fiends with their smites.

However, starting at 2nd level, they have Smites, which let them ramp up their damage to massive levels (relative to their level, that is) at the cost of their slots. This is not usually sustainable over the course of the day-slots are precious, after all!-but in a one-on-one fight, they will cream anyone vulnerable to radiant damage (read: basically everyone) pretty hard if they can go all-out.

At 5th level, a Battlemaster Fighter has 4d8 worth of Superiority Dice that they can use to inflict damage and status conditions.
At 5th level, a Paladin has two 2nd and four 1st level slots, which can be used to deal 3d8 and 2d8 extra radiant damage respectively.

A fight between the two would likely go something like this. I'll give the Fighter Initiative, just to give them an edge.
Fighter goes first, swings twice at +7 to-hit (against AC 18, which Full Plate gives, that's a 50% chance of hitting). One hit, for 2d6+4 (rerolling 1s and 2s for damage) for an average of 12.33 damage. But, they also get Menacing Strike, which adds 4.5 damage and forces a Wisdom save at DC 15 (which the Paladin has anywhere from +2 to +6 to) or become Frightened until the end of the Fighter's next turn. They then repeat with Action Surge
If the Paladin makes the save, they swing back with the same attack bonus against the same AC, but dealing 2d6+4+3d8+1d6 on their one hit. (The extra 1d6 is from Wrathful Smite-DC 14 Wisdom save or become Frightened for ONE MINUTE, so long as Concentration lasts on the Paladin. It takes an entire action to try to break free, and the Fighter has anywhere from -1 to +3 Wisdom saves, generally.)

End of round one? Fighter has dealt about 37-38 of the Paladin's 44 or so HP, and possibly Frightened them for one turn. The Paladin has 25 HP extra thanks to Lay On Hands, healing perfectly exact amounts as an action, and will likely heal when Frightened instead of bothering to swing with Disadvantage.
The Paladin, assuming they made their save, deals an average of 33-34 damage of the Fighter's 44, and forced a much harder save or become Frightened for up to a minute. The Fighter CAN heal 1d10+5 as a bonus action, though.

Now, they look about equal. But the Paladin has:
-Better healing (25, healed in perfect amounts, instead of 10.5 on average)
-More resources left (three 1st level slots and one 2nd level slot, as compared to 2d8 Sup Dice)
-A much, MUCH lower chance of being Frightened for the entire dang fight, which will absolutely screw the Fighter over

I will admit, at level 5, it's not QUITE as lopsided as I thought it'd be. But still pretty in the Paladin's favor.

[zinycor]

In 5th edition, Paladins do extra damage against Fiends with their smites.

However, starting at 2nd level, they have Smites, which let them ramp up their damage to massive levels (relative to their level, that is) at the cost of their slots. This is not usually sustainable over the course of the day-slots are precious, after all!-but in a one-on-one fight, they will cream anyone vulnerable to radiant damage (read: basically everyone) pretty hard if they can go all-out.

At 5th level, a Battlemaster Fighter has 4d8 worth of Superiority Dice that they can use to inflict damage and status conditions.
At 5th level, a Paladin has two 2nd and four 1st level slots, which can be used to deal 3d8 and 2d8 extra radiant damage respectively.

A fight between the two would likely go something like this. I'll give the Fighter Initiative, just to give them an edge.
Fighter goes first, swings twice at +7 to-hit (against AC 18, which Full Plate gives, that's a 50% chance of hitting). One hit, for 2d6+4 (rerolling 1s and 2s for damage) for an average of 12.33 damage. But, they also get Menacing Strike, which adds 4.5 damage and forces a Wisdom save at DC 15 (which the Paladin has anywhere from +2 to +6 to) or become Frightened until the end of the Fighter's next turn. They then repeat with Action Surge
If the Paladin makes the save, they swing back with the same attack bonus against the same AC, but dealing 2d6+4+3d8+1d6 on their one hit. (The extra 1d6 is from Wrathful Smite-DC 14 Wisdom save or become Frightened for ONE MINUTE, so long as Concentration lasts on the Paladin. It takes an entire action to try to break free, and the Fighter has anywhere from -1 to +3 Wisdom saves, generally.)

End of round one? Fighter has dealt about 37-38 of the Paladin's 44 or so HP, and possibly Frightened them for one turn. The Paladin has 25 HP extra thanks to Lay On Hands, healing perfectly exact amounts as an action, and will likely heal when Frightened instead of bothering to swing with Disadvantage.
The Paladin, assuming they made their save, deals an average of 33-34 damage of the Fighter's 44, and forced a much harder save or become Frightened for up to a minute. The Fighter CAN heal 1d10+5 as a bonus action, though.

Now, they look about equal. But the Paladin has:
-Better healing (25, healed in perfect amounts, instead of 10.5 on average)
-More resources left (three 1st level slots and one 2nd level slot, as compared to 2d8 Sup Dice)
-A much, MUCH lower chance of being Frightened for the entire dang fight, which will absolutely screw the Fighter over

I will admit, at level 5, it's not QUITE as lopsided as I thought it'd be. But still pretty in the Paladin's favor.

If we going with battle master, the fighter can also use other maneuvers that would up his chances to hit and give him more defenses, So I would still give the fighter the advantage.

[Talakeal]

So what do you mean when you say "Fighter"?

Because as was pointed out, in 5th edition, advantage Paladin.
In 2nd edition and earlier, advantage Paladin.
In 3rd edition, advantage whoever optimizes more.

And narratively, you've got a horrendous and evil Fighter versus a champion of goodness Paladin. Even if you argue that Paladins are ONLY good against evil foes, and suck against everything else... They're dealing with evil right here.

What exactly gives a 2E paladin an edge over a 2e fighter now?

[kyoryu]

What exactly gives a 2E paladin an edge over a 2e fighter now?

Spells, Lay on Hands, and basically having access to 99% of what a Fighter has besides. Prior to 3e, Paladins are almost strictly Fighter+.

[zinycor]

Spells, Lay on Hands, and basically having access to 99% of what a Fighter has besides. Prior to 3e, Paladins are almost strictly Fighter+.

I don't have the AD&D Book at hand (Probably one of my friends has it) But I remember as a fighter reading the paladin entry and laughing at how much it sucked with my friends. Now, most likely we completely misunderstood it, but at our table we agreed that it was a crappy version of a fighter xD.

[JNAProductions]

If we going with battle master, the fighter can also use other maneuvers that would up his chances to hit and give him more defenses, So I would still give the fighter the advantage.

But that removes his ability to Frighten (effectively removing the Paladin's offense for a round) and the only one that directly affects defense, Parry, reduces damage by a meager 1d8-1, if we're dealing with a Heavy Armor Fighter.

It is swingier than I expected at level 5-but certainly not in the Fighter's favor. And it gets worse with more levels.

Edit: I should also note a Paladin can, if the duel has a certain time, easily pre-buff with, say, Sacred Weapon, giving them +10 to-hit instead of +7.

[zinycor]

But that removes his ability to Frighten (effectively removing the Paladin's offense for a round) and the only one that directly affects defense, Parry, reduces damage by a meager 1d8-1, if we're dealing with a Heavy Armor Fighter.

It is swingier than I expected at level 5-but certainly not in the Fighter's favor. And it gets worse with more levels.

Edit: I should also note a Paladin can, if the duel has a certain time, easily pre-buff with, say, Sacred Weapon, giving them +10 to-hit instead of +7.

I believe in the end Comes down to whoever has the greatest initiative, which could be any of the 2. Still, a coin toss at best.

[Talakeal]

Spells, Lay on Hands, and basically having access to 99% of what a Fighter has besides. Prior to 3e, Paladins are almost strictly Fighter+.

The fighter has weapon specialization and doesn't have to sink a 17 into Charisma and a 13 into wisdom.

No, they are pretty similar, and this will probably come down to whoever has better magic items and luck dice rolls; but in a cage match weapon specialization is, imo, so much better than LoH once a day for 2x level HP and casting spells as a cleric eight levels lower than himself with access to only 3 spheres and no bonuses for wisdom. Especially in AD&D where casting spells requires that you stand stationary, losing AC, and lose the spell and your turn if you are hit by any attacks at all.

[zinycor]

Spells, Lay on Hands, and basically having access to 99% of what a Fighter has besides. Prior to 3e, Paladins are almost strictly Fighter+.

I just got my AD&D book at hand now... And I must say... paladin looks as lame as I remember it, That 17 going into charisma nearly guarantees that he would lose to a fighter in a duel.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Do people even play 2e with stat arrays? :smallconfused:

If you're rolling straight order (like God intended) then 17 cha has no effect whatsoever on the rest of your stats.

[zinycor]

Another thing, the fighter will have more attacks than the paladin with the weapons he specialized in, which is most certainly huge.

[Malifice]

The OP asserts that in his campaign 'objective cosmic good (and evil) exists'

Yet (hillariously) the OP has yet to define this objective cosmic good (and evil).

This makes the argument moot.

In my games (for example) 'objective cosmic good' is defined as 'altruism, mercy, compassion and kindness, and refraining from evil'

Objective cosmic evil is defined as 'harming, killing and opressing others, and refraining from good'

The only time a deliberate action that harms or kills another living creature is 'not evil' is when such harming or killing is reasonably necessary as an act of self defence (collective or otherwise) and the force or harm used is proportionate the the harm threatened.

If some doofus pulls a sword on you, you can retaliate with force (including lethal force). If a dragon is terrorising a villiage, you can ride out to that villiage and put the beast down. If an enemy force invades your lands, you can engage in military operations to stop them. If a bank robber draws a gun on you, you can shoot him dead. And so forth.

As long as the force used is propoprtionate to the threat, and reasonably needed to protect yourself (or others) from harm, it's fair game ('not evil').

This is the same moral standard for the use of force and violence that is currently enshrined in Legal codes around the World and throughout history (including the rules of War).

If in the OP's world 'cosmic good' is defined as 'the ends justifies the means' then Genocidal monsters can be LG and get into heaven as long as they are working towards Noble ends or 'the greater good' in their genocide.

That might be fine for the OP, but I would probably refuse to play in such a game for many self evident reasons.

OP: Define 'cosmic objective good' and 'cosmic objective evil' for me please.

[zinycor]

The OP asserts that in his campaign 'objective cosmic good (and evil) exists'

Yet (hillariously) the OP has yet to define this objective cosmic good (and evil).

This makes the argument moot.

In my games (for example) 'objective cosmic good' is defined as 'altruism, mercy, compassion and kindness, and refraining from evil'

Objective cosmic evil is defined as 'harming, killing and opressing others, and refraining from good'

The only time a deliberate action that harms or kills another living creature is 'not evil' is when such harming or killing is reasonably necessary as an act of self defence (collective or otherwise) and the force or harm used is proportionate the the harm threatened.

If some doofus pulls a sword on you, you can retaliate with force (including lethal force). If a dragon is terrorising a villiage, you can ride out to that villiage and put the beast down. If an enemy force invades your lands, you can engage in military operations to stop them. If a bank robber draws a gun on you, you can shoot him dead. And so forth.

As long as the force used is propoprtionate to the threat, and reasonably needed to protect yourself (or others) from harm, it's fair game ('not evil').

This is the same moral standard for the use of force and violence that is currently enshrined in Legal codes around the World and throughout history (including the rules of War).

If in the OP's world 'cosmic good' is defined as 'the ends justifies the means' then Genocidal monsters can be LG and get into heaven as long as they are working towards Noble ends or 'the greater good' in their genocide.

That might be fine for the OP, but I would probably refuse to play in such a game for many self evident reasons.

OP: Define 'cosmic objective good' and 'cosmic objective evil' for me please.

Just a detail; The op isn't actually asking for a game but a book related to DnD but not actually based on DnD cosmology.

[Malifice]

Just a detail; The op isn't actually asking for a game but a book related to DnD but not actually based on DnD cosmology.

I dont care about any of that. I want to know what the 'cosmic objective' definition of 'evil' is.

Does the OP's 'supreme God of Good' allow people into heaven if they're genocidal rape monsters 'for the greater good'?

Or are such actions (genocide and rape) acts of cosmic evil, that regardless of the 'good reason' you did those acts, or regardless of your own justifcations for them, they send you to Hell.

It's one thing to say 'cosmic good and evil exist'. You need to go one step further and define those terms.

[OldTrees1]

I dont care about any of that. I want to know what the 'cosmic objective' definition of 'evil' is.

Does the OP's 'supreme God of Good' allow people into heaven if they're genocidal rape monsters 'for the greater good'?

Or are such actions (genocide and rape) acts of cosmic evil, that regardless of the 'good reason' you did those acts, or regardless of your own justifcations for them, they send you to Hell.

It's one thing to say 'cosmic good and evil exist'. You need to go one step further and define those terms.

Your initial question about "What is the book's universe's definition of what makes an intent/action/consequence moral/immoral/amoral?" is quite relevant.

I would assume that the afterlife policy would be even more irrelevant than any other policy an NPC has. Although I understand your usage of such as a verbal flair to drive home the point of your quite relevant question.

For example: I could spin a tale where the book is set in a universe where maximizing suffering is moral and minimizing pleasure is immoral. I doubt that would be a good book, but perhaps it drives home the point that the answer to the ultimate question (not 6x9=42) is very important for discussing moral dilemmas for Paladins.

Although I guess the OP could just have been presuming the book would follow the same definition as our reality. In which case I have lost my paddle.

[Malifice]

Although I guess the OP could just have been presuming the book would follow the same definition as our reality. In which case I have lost my paddle.

I dont know if he intends on trying to publish such book, but I would be very wary of writing a book where the protagonist is complicit in mass genocide and abhorrent evil yet still somehow painted in a positive light (unless done to highlight similar contradictions in Human history where genocidal monsters and terrorists get praised for their actions), or (worse) where such complicity is attempted to be narrated as being 'morally good'.

If you're the kind of person who greenlights genocide or mass murder as being 'for the greater good' or is willfully complicit in such behaviour, you're not a good person.

Take a Fantasy world for example. A 'CG' Elven Crusader of Corellion who raids the Underdark with an Army to end the Drow menace once and for all, takes no prisoners, putting everyone to the sword including children, or tossing them into the Pyre, taking the Drow women as comfort slaves for his own soldiers or granting his men liberty to sack Menzoberanzzan and take the women for themselves, etc is not 'Chaotic Good'.

He's evil. He's just as evil as the Drow he's fighting.

I can get the trope of such a person genuinely thinking they are good, and rationalising those actions as being necessary for 'the greater good' of Peace and ending the Drow menace and ending the Schism between the Elves etc.

I just refute that those actions can be considered 'objectively cosmically good' and that Corellion would allow that dude in Arvandor on death. He's an evil genocidal monster who is using evil actions on a grand scale in pursuit of (ostensibly at least) noble ends.

He's (objectively) evil regardless of his subjective justifications or goals.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, I can clearly see why you did/are/continue to be asking the OP about the definitions of moral/immoral/amoral they are having their book use.

I was in error. The OP is describing a world with people expecting less than people would expect in the modern day.*


The paladin finds her actions distasteful, but rape and murder are just part of war in this world. This is a dark ages style world with a much lower standard of morality. As a result, he doesn't have the same horror at her actions that we in the modern day have, though he does want them to stop.

*Although it is unclear if the OP has made a differentiation between commonly held moral beliefs and moral truth in this statement. Does the world actually have looser moral restrictions in its definitions of moral/immoral/amoral, or is it merely the populace that has looser moral restrictions?

or am I completely off base and the populace has looser morals but the world has stricter morals (like the world defining immoral in a way as to include chocolate icecream)?

[kyoryu]

I just got my AD&D book at hand now... And I must say... paladin looks as lame as I remember it, That 17 going into charisma nearly guarantees that he would lose to a fighter in a duel.

Not necessarily.

If you're rolling stats, you might get the stats high enough. A paladin with 18 str and 17 cha (or vice versa if you're playing stats in order) is better than a fighter with the same stats.

If you're assuming stat arrays or point buy, sure. But especially in 1e, Paladins were a choice if you rolled high enough stats to warrant it.

[zinycor]

Not necessarily.

If you're rolling stats, you might get the stats high enough. A paladin with 18 str and 17 cha (or vice versa if you're playing stats in order) is better than a fighter with the same stats.

If you're assuming stat arrays or point buy, sure. But especially in 1e, Paladins were a choice if you rolled high enough stats to warrant it.

Even if that was the case (which I disagree with, since I was looking for some sort of fairness) the fighter still has more attacks per turn and deals more damage on each of those attacks thanks to weapon specialization.

[Constructman]

Take a Fantasy world for example. A 'CG' Elven Crusader of Corellion who raids the Underdark with an Army to end the Drow menace once and for all, takes no prisoners, putting everyone to the sword including children, or tossing them into the Pyre, taking the Drow women as comfort slaves for his own soldiers or granting his men liberty to sack Menzoberanzzan and take the women for themselves, etc is not 'Chaotic Good'.

He's evil. He's just as evil as the Drow he's fighting.

I can get the trope of such a person genuinely thinking they are good, and rationalising those actions as being necessary for 'the greater good' of Peace and ending the Drow menace and ending the Schism between the Elves etc.

I just refute that those actions can be considered 'objectively cosmically good' and that Corellion would allow that dude in Arvandor on death. He's an evil genocidal monster who is using evil actions on a grand scale in pursuit of (ostensibly at least) noble ends.

I'm not so sure about that. That statement downplays just how much bad blood there is between Corellon and Lolth, and how much their rivalry has shaped the Elven peoples.

Corellon Larethian absolutely despises Lolth and the Drow that follow her, so much so that he placed a curse on the entire Elven race for her betrayal.


The reason that elves are seldom frivolous and carefree is rooted in an inborn malaise or sorrow that infused the primal elves when they chose to stop following Corellon’s path. These feelings of regret and sadness grip all elves at various times in their lives and impact every aspect of their society.

Priests among the elves typically believe that the broken link can never be healed unless Corellon has a change of heart. And as changeable as Corellon is, the god has been adamant on one point: as long as Lolth remains in existence, the responsibility for her betrayal falls on all elves. When the primal elves cast aside formlessness and impermanence for the promise of greatness, they forsook the part of their nature that Corellon most cherished — and, worse still, by doing so they somehow compromised Corellon’s mutability as well.

Whether or not Lolth tricked the primal elves, to Corellon’s mind, is beside the point. They chose to follow her lead, which precipitated the schism between Corellon and Lolth, even if many of them ultimately remained loyal to Corellon. Now the elves of the world must forever live and die and live again, suffering the consequences of their ancestors’ poor judgment. In this one regard, Corellon is as inflexible and unchanging as the foundation of the world. And all elves grieve over the memories of the irreparably broken bond between themselves and their creator.

The mortal Elves have no love lost for each other either.


One of the most fervent passions in an elf is the animosity that surface elves and drow hold for one another. This hatred dates back to when the primal elves surrendered their mutable forms in response to Lolth’s promises. They split into two factions: the drow, who believed that Corellon had held them back and that Lolth’s betrayal was justified, and all other elves, who felt bereft of Corellon’s presence and believed Lolth had manipulated them from the very beginning. To the drow, every elf who basks in Corellon’s light is a weakling and a fool. To most other elves, every drow is a traitor.

As far as Corellon is concerned, Lolth and the Drow that follow her teachings are mud. If a chance to deal a permanent blow to Menzoberanzzan, the crown jewel of Lolth's mortal holdings, presented itself, no doubt it would become a divinely sanctioned assault. This hypothetical crusader's lusting is probably a bridge too far, but if he was able to keep it in his pants, no doubt he would be hailed as a champion of the Seldarine, no matter what his alignment was. As long as he was faithful to Corellon in all other aspects of life, no doubt he would be welcomed into Arvandor. He may even be one of the very few who get to stay forever.

[Constructman]

OP: Define 'cosmic objective good' and 'cosmic objective evil' for me please.
This is an important question to know in general, but in the Paladin's specific case, he's not drawing power from the forces of Law and Good. His powers were bestowed on him by the God of Healing, the patron god of his nation, which his serial rapist "friend" is also working for. So in this specific Paladin's case, he has to answer to his god rather than to the Ideal of Good, and this god has a vested interest in keeping his nation strong and powerful.

(Come to think of it, this sounds more like a Cleric than a Paladin.)

Also OP's description of the universe sounds like this takes place in some kind of pocket dimension where the big G-O-D, aka the force of objective good itself, is purposely not interfering, so the angels turned lesser gods are the ones running the show. It's not clear how much power capital G Good has over the world, if any at all.

[zinycor]

This is an important question to know in general, but in the Paladin's specific case, he's not drawing power from the forces of Law and Good. His powers were bestowed on him by the God of Healing, the patron god of his nation, which his serial rapist "friend" is also working for. So in this specific Paladin's case, he has to answer to his god rather than to the Ideal of Good, and this god has a vested interest in keeping his nation strong and powerful.

(Come to think of it, this sounds more like a Cleric than a Paladin.)

Also OP's description of the universe sounds like this takes place in some kind of pocket dimension where the big G-O-D, aka the force of objective good itself, is purposely not interfering, so the angels turned lesser gods are the ones running the show. It's not clear how much power capital G Good has over the world, if any at all.

Maybe the op himself didn't think of the differences between cleric and paladin, or didn't consider those differences as we are doing right now.

[zinycor]

I dont care about any of that. I want to know what the 'cosmic objective' definition of 'evil' is.

Does the OP's 'supreme God of Good' allow people into heaven if they're genocidal rape monsters 'for the greater good'?

Or are such actions (genocide and rape) acts of cosmic evil, that regardless of the 'good reason' you did those acts, or regardless of your own justifcations for them, they send you to Hell.

It's one thing to say 'cosmic good and evil exist'. You need to go one step further and define those terms.

I don't think the op has ever said anything that would lead you to think that rape or whatever are good, just that this particular society tolerates such acts.

[Kish]

(which I disagree with, since I was looking for some sort of fairness)
It will lead you nowhere valid to look at a class that was designed for "if you have exceptionally high rolls, you can go into this special class!" in terms of "assuming everyone has the same number of points for fairness..."

[zinycor]

It will lead you nowhere valid to look at a class that was designed for "if you have exceptionally high rolls, you can go into this special class!" in terms of "assuming everyone has the same number of points for fairness..."

As I said right after, even with the better stats, the fighter still has more attacks per turn and deals more damage with each attack.

[Lord]

Okay, so people are interested in the cosmology.

In regards to what the supreme law of good is in this world. It is exactly the same as the supreme law in our world.

As for the properties, the ultimate deity in this universe is the Judeo Christian God. It is just taking place in a universe which, as part of the challenge thrown down by Satan and accepted by loyal angels who want to try running things on their own, the Judeo Christian God has willingly taken a back seat. He might pull the strings if things got really, really, out of hand, but he would only manifest directly if either A. Evil completely won. Or B. The 'gods' gave up and handed things back over to him.

As for the afterlife, all of the gods have their own afterlife system with their own qualifications. There is a certain amount of overlap. Also, people who go to the afterlife keep all their class levels and abilities. None of this petitioner nonsense. You don't lose your identity when you go to the afterlife, you gain it back as never before. You are more yourself than you ever were as a mortal person.

However heaven and hell aren't the only elements. Rather than going straight to an afterlife on death, people reincarnate when they die. As they reincarnate their deeds naturally attune them to one power or another. Genuinely worshipping, or believing you are worshipping a given power goes a long way to putting you in their graces. Generally after a certain amount of lives someone ends up in heaven or hell.

Even then, however, demons mostly operate on pragmatic evil by this point. If they a level 10 evil fighter, they generally offer him a job as a mid to lesser demon. It might be more evil to torture him, but he's of more use as a soldier. Although the very nature of hell itself ensures that even the demons are generally miserable. Which is why they spend so much time trying to escape into the material plane. They hate it back home. And the transformation into a demon completely rips away your ability to enjoy simple pleasures. Once you 'ascend' so to speak, food tastes like ash. The wind on your face has no meaning. The only thing which gives you any kind of rush is the pursuit of power, the thrill of victory and the suffering of others. Generally demons focus on one of those three.


There is also a portal at the far ends of the cosmos. Its sort of like a black hole in that once you go into it, you can't get out. Where it goes is a huge mystery to the people of the universe, but the long and short is that it leads into universes directly presided over by the ultimate god of good.


Also, souls cannot be destroyed. Period. End of story. If every single entity in the multiverse were to put their full power into destroying the soul of the weakest and insignificant creature it would result in a very frustrated multiverse. Souls can be weakened, twisted, become more powerful, or fade into shadows of themselves. But they cannot be destroyed. If the Lady of Pain and Cthulu teamed up to destroy one, both would fail miserably and have egg on their face at the end of it.

Anyway, that's all that comes to mind for now.

[zinycor]

In regards to what the supreme law of good is in this world. It is exactly the same as the supreme law in our world.



What do you mean by this?

[Kish]

As I said right after, even with the better stats, the fighter still has more attacks per turn and deals more damage with each attack.
All warriors (fighter, paladin, and ranger) have the same number of attacks per round: 1 at level 1-6, 3/2 from levels 7-12, 2 from level 13 up. You could mean that a paladin has a slightly worse XP table (you know, because of being manifestly more powerful than an even-level fighter), but I wouldn't want to be basing as much claimed superiority as you are on "for XP totals 64,000 to 74,999, and again for XP totals 1,250,000 to 1,500,000, this class has one-half more attacks than that one."

Fighter minimum stats: Str 9.
Paladin minimum stats: Str 12, Con 9, Wis 13, Cha 17.

That doesn't mean the point-buy assumptions you apparently brought to it that made you declare it a weakness--that means a paladin needs to have rolled higher stats than a fighter. If you want to make a paladin but you roll Strength 11, that makes you a fighter who wanted to be a paladin.

A fighter has weapon specialization, which might be somewhat beneficial if the fighter correctly predicts which weapon the random treasure tables will dictate drops. It might put the fighter at an advantage compared to the paladin as long as the random treasure tables don't turn up the most powerful weapon in the DMG...also the only +5 non-artifact* weapon in the DMG...the paladin-only Holy Avenger sword.

This is all ignoring spellcasting, better saving throws across the board, healing, curing diseases, immunity to diseases, detect evil at will, constant area-effect protection from evil, and turn undead.

A fighter does have automatic followers, no required tithing or money restrictions**, and in general no requirement to follow the paladin's code, but if you're starting from the position that high Charisma is automatically a joke, that doesn't seem like a good place from which to segue "but followers," hypothetically speaking.

*Non-artifact because in AD&D, if you found and tried to keep an artifact, it would asterisks you up. It was only something you did if you wanted to retire that character soon. And not in a dignified way.
**It occurs to me, not for the first time, that a lot of these arguments make a ton more sense from the perspective of looking at the 2ed book with 3ed or 4ed eyes; "can't keep money" appears as a huge weakness and "extra damage if and only if you're using the particular weapon you chose a long time ago" a huge strength if you can buy your magical gear, but both are trivial to meaningless in the "there are not and should never be magic shops" environment of 2ed.

[Lord]

What do you mean by this?

What I mean by this is that the reader can make whatever interpretation they like about what is ultimately good or evil.

For the purposes of this world, however, all the gods have different ideas about what is good or evil. Just as all the demons have different ideas for how their cause should be advanced. Everyone has different viewpoints, opinions and perspectives in this world. And there is no clear cut lawbook that someone can consult. Certainly there are holy texts created by the gods, but these holy texts often contredict each other.

There is no Eo like in Forgotten Realms who determines that X number of neutral gods is required.

There are domains. And there is usually only one god for the domain. But the domains are neither good or evil by themselves. The goddess of love in this world loves all creatures equally and wants them to stop fighting each other. But her method to do it was to make use of her inherant powers to gradually subvert people's wills so they will act how they want them to act. So she quite possibly qualifies as Lawful Evil, because she was subverting the free will of others to attain her goals.

Imagine a Disney Princess with the lower body of a snake, charming everyone she meets and influencing them to act like good people. And if they don't like it, well, just change their mind. Whether they want it or now. And she makes them sing.

She now works for the Orwellian Demon keeping the populace content and is universally beloved.


Generally speaking people look at the holy texts of the god they worship and that is divine law to them. Whether or not it lines up with actual divine law is left up to the audiences perspective.

[zinycor]

All warriors (fighter, paladin, and ranger) have the same number of attacks per round: 1 at level 1-6, 3/2 from levels 7-12, 2 from level 13 up.

Weapon Specialization grants extra attacks.



You could mean that a paladin has a slightly worse XP table (you know, because of being manifestly more powerful than an even-level fighter), but I wouldn't want to be basing as much claimed superiority as you are on "for XP totals 64,000 to 74,999, and again for XP totals 1,250,000 to 1,500,000, this class has one-half more attacks than that one."

Fighter minimum stats: Str 9.
Paladin minimum stats: Str 12, Con 9, Wis 13, Cha 17.

That doesn't mean the point-buy assumptions you apparently brought to it that made you declare it a weakness--that means a paladin needs to have rolled higher stats than a fighter. If you want to make a paladin but you roll Strength 11, that makes you a fighter who wanted to be a paladin.

I only assumed a similar amount of points in regards to the exercise of comparing both.




A fighter has weapon specialization, which might be somewhat beneficial if the fighter correctly predicts which weapon the random treasure tables will dictate drops. It might put the fighter at an advantage compared to the paladin as long as the random treasure tables don't turn up the most powerful weapon in the DMG...also the only +5 non-artifact* weapon in the DMG...the paladin-only Holy Avenger sword.

He doesn't need to predict, he can gain a new specialization chance whenever he gains Weapon proficiencies.


This is all ignoring spellcasting, better saving throws across the board, healing, curing diseases, immunity to diseases, detect evil at will, constant area-effect protection from evil, and turn undead.

A fighter does have automatic followers, no required tithing or money restrictions**, and in general no requirement to follow the paladin's code, but if you're starting from the position that high Charisma is automatically a joke, that doesn't seem like a good place from which to segue "but followers," hypothetically speaking.

*Non-artifact because in AD&D, if you found and tried to keep an artifact, it would asterisks you up. It was only something you did if you wanted to retire that character soon. And not in a dignified way.
**It occurs to me, not for the first time, that a lot of these arguments make a ton more sense from the perspective of looking at the 2ed book with 3ed or 4ed eyes; "can't keep money" appears as a huge weakness and "extra damage if and only if you're using the particular weapon you chose a long time ago" a huge strength if you can buy your magical gear, but both are trivial to meaningless in the "there are not and should never be magic shops" environment of 2ed.


Mostly irrelevant to the purpose of a duel.

[Kish]

Mostly irrelevant to the purpose of a duel.
Which is mostly irrelevant to the purpose of a game. Did you start off by saying "I looked at the paladin and laughed at how weak he would be in an arena battle against a fighter with identical stats and a non-Holy Avenger weapon, even though that thought doesn't actually matter to any D&D edition"?

(No. You didn't. But at this point, you seem to be stonewalling, so I'm done.)

[zinycor]

Which is mostly irrelevant to the purpose of a game. Did you start off by saying "I looked at the paladin and laughed at how weak he would be in an arena battle against a fighter with identical stats and a non-Holy Avenger weapon, even though that thought doesn't actually matter to any D&D edition"?

(No. You didn't. But at this point, you seem to be stonewalling, so I'm done.)

It matters to the discussion, the whole reason we are talking about this is because it was suggested that a paladin would easily defeat a fighter in a duel.

[OldTrees1]

Okay, so people are interested in the cosmology.
Actually it was interest in the moral character of the world. Aka the definition of moral/immoral/amoral. The cosmology is irrelevant to the dilemma. :D


In regards to what the supreme law of good is in this world. It is exactly the same as the supreme law in our world.

What I mean by this is that the reader can make whatever interpretation they like about what is ultimately good or evil.

For the purposes of this world, however, all the gods have different ideas about what is good or evil. Just as all the demons have different ideas for how their cause should be advanced. Everyone has different viewpoints, opinions and perspectives in this world. And there is no clear cut lawbook that someone can consult. Certainly there are holy texts created by the gods, but these holy texts often contradict each other.
Okay, I have now got the context I need and have read half the thread backlog (so if I missed something I apologize).

The crux of the original question is:
1) The world is a messy place, society accepts atrocities as part of war.
2) A psychotic general (General) is in charge and created a situation that tempted the old friend (Friend) to accept and even enjoy the messy nature of war.
3) The "Paladin" (Paladin) has more anachronistic modern sensibilities.

As was said on page 1, it sounds like the Paladin should start by convincing the Friend to follow the higher path? Sure it is a difficult path and it is flanked by temptations, but it is a possible answer to the dilemma.

Of course there is a larger issue to deal with. The Paladin is a warrior in a memetic war between ideologies. Such a war suggests the Paladin focus on:
1) Recruitment of allies, bystanders, and enemies. The position is relative to the memetic war, so the Friend counts as an enemy to be recruited to the high path side of the memetic war.
2) Using the available forces to reduce the number of losses in the short term. There is evil in this messy world. However the Paladin cannot prevent all the evil even with the recruits they gather. So choices need to be made.
3) Work on winning the war in the long run. Paladins strive for a world where being a Paladin is obsolete.

[Talakeal]

Do people even play 2e with stat arrays? :smallconfused:

If you're rolling straight order (like God intended) then 17 cha has no effect whatsoever on the rest of your stats.

Iirc the default rules for rolling stats in 2e are 4d6 drop the lowest and assign them as you like. There are six variants, some of them rolled down the line, but thatmisnt the default or what we typically used.

[Malifice]

I don't think the op has ever said anything that would lead you to think that rape or whatever are good, just that this particular society tolerates such acts.

Tolerating evil acts is one thing.

Whether those acts are cosmically objectively good or evil is another.

The OP's 'Cosmic Good' could include evil acts, done for noble ends. His heaven could include genocidal monsters who were acting for some kind of 'greater good' or had similar justification. Suicide bombers, genocidal monsters, mass killers and terrorists could find peace in his Heaven as 'Good people'.

Personally, In my games that feature cosmic evil, I run the angle of Evil acts are Evil, regardless of why you do them or for what ends.

Pious crusaders of noble Gods who embark on genocide, torture or murder, dont get into heaven. In my games the ends do not justify the means.


I'm not so sure about that. That statement downplays just how much bad blood there is between Corellon and Lolth, and how much their rivalry has shaped the Elven peoples.

Corellon Larethian absolutely despises Lolth and the Drow that follow her, so much so that he placed a curse on the entire Elven race for her betrayal.



The mortal Elves have no love lost for each other either.



As far as Corellon is concerned, Lolth and the Drow that follow her teachings are mud. If a chance to deal a permanent blow to Menzoberanzzan, the crown jewel of Lolth's mortal holdings, presented itself, no doubt it would become a divinely sanctioned assault. This hypothetical crusader's lusting is probably a bridge too far, but if he was able to keep it in his pants, no doubt he would be hailed as a champion of the Seldarine, no matter what his alignment was. As long as he was faithful to Corellon in all other aspects of life, no doubt he would be welcomed into Arvandor. He may even be one of the very few who get to stay forever.

I wholly reject that argument.

Corellion allowed Elistraee to remain in Arvandor (she can travel freely betwen there and the Demonweb pits) and her central dogma is the redemption and salvation of the Drow.

Corellion doesnt want the Drow genocidally massacred. He (like Elistraee) wants them redeemed, and brought back into the fold.

A Crusader that actively attempted to wipe out Drow in a geoncidal campaign would have Elistraee actively opposing them, and likely her Father as well.

If Corellion wanted the Drow genocidally massacred, he wouldnt be a Good aligned Deity. The only member of the Elven Patheon who comes close to advocating genocide against the Drow is the Black Archer Shevrash (and he's CN, and an outcast). The CE members of his faith would be totally down with Drow Genocide (kill them all, it's for the greater good etc). The CG members of his faith would treat Drow prisoners with respect and kindness. The CN members of his faith would be happy to hunt and kill the Drow, but would stop short at killing children and non-combatants.

When it comes to advocating genocide, infanticide, murder, patricide, matricide, slavery, necromancy and so forth, the Evil aligned Gods are in that camp (including most of the Drow pantheon, again barring Elistraee).

There is a reason no Good god advocates genocide, murder or torture. Because those acts are evil.

[Malifice]

Okay, so people are interested in the cosmology.[
In regards to what the supreme law of good is in this world. It is exactly the same as the supreme law in our world.

No, you dont seem to understand.

Define 'Good' and 'Evil'. Cosmically. From the POV of the Gods.

Different people have different thoughts on what is good and evil in our world. I dont want to get too postmodern for you, but everything is subjective. I want to know what is 'Good' and what is 'Evil' from a cosmic sense. I need those terms defined.

For example, is it true to say that in your world:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Evil characters are prepared to harm and even kill others for their own personal ends, motivations or goals.

Neutral implies a lack of conviction to go out of your way to help other people, but an equal amount of compunction to avoid killing, harming or hurting people.

Because they're the definitions I use.

The only time it is not morally evil to kill or harm another creauture, is when you are responding with reasonably proportionate force to that harm, in an act of self defence or the defence of others (collective or otherwise), and no other option reasonably presents itself in the circumstances.

A police officer shooting an armed bank robber. An army using force to repel an invading army. Adventurers riding off to put an end to a dragon terrorising a villiage. A home owner using force against a home invader or mugger. Adventurers fighting off Orc raiders. And so forth.

When I (as the arbiter of cosmic good and evil) sit there and decide what moral alignment my players (and the NPCs in my world) are, that is the standard I apply.

If you're riding off to genocidally slaughter a neighboring Orc villiage for [reasons], you're not Good aligned. You're Evil. Your soul goes to Hell on death (or the Abyss or Hades or whatever) or, if you follow a Good God, you get judged False by Kelemvor and condemned accordingly (campaign set in Faerun).

[Satinavian]

The OP already ruled the friend doing warcrimes "evil".

I don't think there is any need to reaffirm the evilness of random slaughter here.

The whole morality question doesn't revolve around how to judge the atrocities on a good/evil scale. They are evil. That is done.


The argument is about how to react to them and to the people doing them if you are not a perpetrator. And to make some kind of dilemma out of it, there are other motivations thrown into it like an old friendship, the fact that she is actually a competent leader and her subordinates would have it worse if she were removed and that there is a large war where she is a powerful ally to the own side. A war shich, when being lost, would also have quite evil and unwelcome consequences.

That is nothing where you can look up the answer in a table of good and evil. It is a question about priorities, consequances and your ability to judge results.


Define 'Good' and 'Evil'. Cosmically. From the POV of the Gods.
Important part of the setting is that the 'Gods' don't really have a good grasp about what is good and evil and are no authorities in that matter. They still do have the alignment but only because of their overall actions, not because they are experts in moral philosophy. This is probably done to have the characters explore those concepts instead of starting with an answer.


Think less Forgotten Realms and more Eberron.

[Malifice]

Important part of the setting is that the 'Gods' don't really have a good grasp about what is good and evil and are no authorities in that matter.

Then who defines cosmic evil and good if not the Gods (or some kind of Overgod) or 'force' or 'karma' kind of force.

I run my games were the Gods dont really make their wishes felt that much (stripping powers and such) and are kind of prohibited from direct intervention by an Overgod (Faerun, post Time of Troubles).

They have dogma, but (people being people) that dogma, even when noble, is twisted or used as justification for evil acts.

A devout Cleric of Torm (LG God of noble battle, chivalry and warfare) might feel wholly justified in riding out to an Orc village that has been terrorizing a nearby town, laying siege to it, and then putting the whole village to the sword, while he tosses the mewling Orc children into the pyre, and ordering the female Orcs to dig mass graves before slaughtering them all.

I can tell you right now, his alignment is not 'Good' and he's in for a rude shock when he reaches Kelemvors crystal spire, regardless of his own interpretation of Torms holy texts or other justifications.

[Satinavian]

Then who defines cosmic evil and good if not the Gods (or some kind of Overgod) or 'force' or 'karma' kind of force.
Well, it is not my setting, but there seems to be some Overgod that once did, but does not interact with the world or with the gods in the world at all, can't be contacted and doesn't give explainations.
The gods in that world are active and give advise but have all differing ideas about right and wrong.



Now in my settings i simply don't run with objective good and evil, only with ideals or beliefs of the people in the setting. That way you can have characters have all the morality debates and issues and outlooks you want but you won't ever need a DM making judgements about objective good or evil and argueing that with players. And gods are more forces of nature than moral actors. But that is quite different from what the OP is doing.

[Malifice]

The gods in that world are active and give advise but have all differing ideas about right and wrong.


I know we like to humanise Deities, but wow.

The all-powerful Goodly god of Healing cant decide if genocide is evil or not.

Would have thought that was pretty self evident to a six year old, or anyone that isnt a RPG player.

[Satinavian]

The all-powerful Goodly god of Healing cant decide if genocide is evil or not.
Oh, he probably can decide.

But keep in mind that this "Goodly god of healing" as per described in the opening post fundamentally believes that "revenge is a virtue".

That should give some perspective about how trustworthy the opinions of the gods on moral matters actually are.

[zinycor]

I know we like to humanise Deities, but wow.

The all-powerful Goodly god of Healing cant decide if genocide is evil or not.

Would have thought that was pretty self evident to a six year old, or anyone that isnt a RPG player.

Well, Gods are weird like that, even things like the genocide of an entire civilization may not even make them blink, but a guy claiming to be the coolest make them mad.

As described by the OP, it seems this particular God of healing doesn't like rape and the like, but he is more focused on defeating the devil.

Maybe this healing God will transform into a war God given time.

[Constructman]

The all-powerful Goodly god of Healing cant decide if genocide is evil or not.

Would have thought that was pretty self evident to a six year old, or anyone that isnt a RPG player.

Did you even read his post?

The Supreme God of Good who defines and embodies "Good" has specifically recused himself from this pocket universe that OP's story is taking place in. The "gods" of that world are really just angels who seem to not really know what they're doing. Meanwhile, the Supreme Evil who defines and embodies "Evil" got beat up and deposed by his subordinates, who're know running amok doing whatever they feel like.

It seems clear that this is a world isolated from the normal standards of "Good" and "Evil" of the wider universe.

[Malifice]

Did you even read his post?

The Supreme God of Good who defines and embodies "Good" has specifically recused himself from this pocket universe that OP's story is taking place in. The "gods" of that world are really just angels who seem to not really know what they're doing. Meanwhile, the Supreme Evil who defines and embodies "Evil" got beat up and deposed by his subordinates, who're know running amok doing whatever they feel like.

It seems clear that this is a world isolated from the normal standards of "Good" and "Evil" of the wider universe.

No, it's not isolated from cosmic good and evil. Those things either exist or they dont.

[OldTrees1]

No, it's not isolated from cosmic good and evil. Those things either exist or they dont.

A summary of the universe you are asking about:

Part A: Objective Morality and Definitions of Good/Evil
1) It has Objective Morality. This means the sentence "Genocide is Evil" is a statement and therefore has a truth value. This means Moral/Immoral/Amoral have definitions.
2) There does not need to be an in-universe being with power over these definitions. There is a noninteractive being that has that power (evidence the author has not read Euthyphro).
3) The Author decided to let the Reader import their understanding of the IRL definitions of Moral/Immoral/Amoral as if they were the in-story definitions of Moral/Immoral/Amoral.

Part B: The "Gods" are Fallible
4) The Universe has many divine beings that have beliefs about morality.
5) Beliefs about statements can be true or false.
6) Therefore a "god" can be mistaken about the morality of an intent/action/consequence.

Sources:
301 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23810215&postcount=301)
304 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23810292&postcount=304)

[AMFV]

No, it's not isolated from cosmic good and evil. Those things either exist or they dont.

Well whether those things exist or not isn't really the point, people can be mistaken about things that exist. I am personally of the opinion that there is cosmic good and evil in our own universe, and there are others with the same beliefs. Funny thing is that some of them have beliefs that are diametrically opposed to mine, because once you know those things exist, deciding exactly what they are is the tricky part.

[Malifice]

Well whether those things exist or not isn't really the point, people can be mistaken about things that exist.

Of course they can be mistaken. People cant know objective truth, they can only ever know subjective ones.

If genocide is objectively evil (in a cosmic sense), plenty of people would argue that not to be the case. They would argue genocide CAN be good, if (for example) done for the 'greater good'.

They would be wrong of course. Ultimately.

[zinycor]

Of course they can be mistaken. People cant know objective truth, they can only ever know subjective ones.

If genocide is objectively evil (in a cosmic sense), plenty of people would argue that not to be the case. They would argue genocide CAN be good, if (for example) done for the 'greater good'.

They would be wrong of course. Ultimately.

Well, yeah, but without those people you don't get genocide, without genocide you don't get heroes to stop the evil guys from doing genocide.