Can a Paladin kill an innocent to save lives if...?

[Conradine]

... if the innocent explicitly asks for it?

Hypotetical situation: the paladin, his monk friend and many innocents are locked in a dungeons by an evil wizard.
The only way to escape is to sacrifice an human life by a machinery that must be activated by someone else - and no, the paladin's life would not be accepted.
So the monk enter the machine and says to the paladin:

"Hurry up, take my life, save the others."

Can the paladin activate the machine?

[HouseRules]

By rule, they must fall, and then go through an Atonement quest.

[Vizzerdrix]

Hmm... Yes. And I hope this either drives the pally all the way to the dark side, or they go full on Judge Dredd.

Alternatively, the monk can prevent this by punching some babies first.

Alternative answer: Putting a monk out of their misery is ALWAYS a good act.

[Reversefigure4]

The only way to escape is to sacrifice an human life by a machinery that must be activated by someone else - and no, the paladin's life would not be accepted.

And the Paladin's life wouldn't be accepted because... ??? Why can't the Paladin self-sacrifice and have the Monk pull the lever?

[Conradine]

And the Paladin's life wouldn't be accepted because... ??? Why can't the Paladin self-sacrifice and have the Monk pull the lever?

Because the Wizard who built the machine is a sadistic jerk who loves to psychologically hurt paladins.


Another situation could be: the mighty fighter is holding the bridge against orcs while the wounded and exausted paladin is left behind. The fighter scream "Blew the charges paladin, destroy the bridge!", fully knowing that will take his life too.

[illyahr]

Nope, not an evil act. He is actually assisting in the performance of a Good act (a person sacrificing themselves to save others).

[HouseRules]

Now this is an argument for

Greater Good

or

Lesser of Two Evils

[Kantaki]

I mean, if it's the only way to save those people and the other guy explicitly asks for it...
Yeah, no. Not fall-worthy.
Otherwise you would fall every time a teammate bites it while protecting innocents/fighting at your side*.

Also, the average adventurer usually has enough blood on their hands that their innocence is at least questionable.:smalltongue:

I know how I would solve that dilemma though.
Just deck the hypothetical DM in the face.
Cause that's what you get for setting up fail or fall scenarios.:smallmad:
(Note, please don't take that as advise for dealing with a real one.
Or at least don't point at me when it gets you in trouble.:smallbiggrin:

*Because paladins are party-leaders by default.:smallwink:

[ezekielraiden]

Let's put a different spin on it, so it feels a little less arbitrary. Have a paladin, call her Honesty. She's with some innocent people, barricaded in a church while an evil necromancer waits outside. That necromancer wants just one man inside, dead or alive; call him Joe. Joe is innocent of any crime, he simply angered the necromancer while the latter was alive and now the necromancer seeks revenge. Necromancer cares not for anyone or anything else, but that also means he doesn't care if he hurts or kills anyone else. Honesty is not strong enough to fight this necromancer. Joe finally volunteers to go face the necromancer, so that no one else will get hurt. Thing is, his leg is broken--he can't walk, he needs Honesty to heal him so he can walk out. Should Honesty try to stop JOe, and go out to a needless death, possibly resulting in the deaths of other innocents too? Or should she support Joe, providing the healing he needs in order to go die so that everyone else (including Honesty) can live?

Thing is, we need to know more about her code than just the piss-poor description of a "code" in the PHB. So I'm going to spell out her code exactly (it has a lot of extra commentary, but this is the Oath itself):

I solemnly swear, before my god and my brothers and sisters:
To never speak a word that is not true;
To never harm anyone except to protect others;
To always seek justice, whether in repentance or restitution;
To always give respect to friend or foe;
To walk the world, righting wrongs wherever I find them;
To save and nurture life wherever it may grow.

Now. This code is in some ways more specific, and in other ways not. But it does allow for this kind of situation. Even if you take a very metaphorical meaning of "harm" (e.g. assisting someone else to sacrifice their life in order to save others), this is still allowed, because she's doing it to protect others. She's also not forcing anyone to do anything; her help has been requested. Furthermore, if their positions were reversed, e.g. Honesty were the one targeted and Joe (say) had a potion in his pack that would restore her and allow her to go out and save the group, we would generally see Joe as the wrong/evil/etc. one for refusing to provide the requested aid.

So yeah. I can't see any code that both (a) says it's wrong to do this and (b) is actually self-consistent and meaningfully "good."

[RNightstalker]

Alternative answer: Putting a monk out of their misery is ALWAYS a good act.

Quote of the day!

[legomaster00156]

I rather like the way Iomedae's paladin code handles this in Pathfinder. If a sacrifice is needed to save lives, the paladin should be the first to volunteer, and their requirement to be "first into battle, and last out" indicates the same in case of retreat from battle. However, there is another tenet: "I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given."

[ericgrau]

I don't see anything against it in the SRD, so I think the paladin is totally fine with the code. Killing an innocent as an evil act would make him fall, but this is not an evil act.

[King of Nowhere]

Also, as a general rule of thumb, what one is forced to do because he's put on a sadistic choice by a third party is entirely the responsibility of the third party

[Lord Vukodlak]

The monk is willfully offering to sacrifice his own life so there's no issue here. The right question would be,

How does a Paladin handle a monster that has bound its life phylactery style to an innocent being.

[Reversefigure4]

Because the Wizard who built the machine is a sadistic jerk who loves to psychologically hurt paladins.

Then the Paladin falls whichever action he takes, either failing to protect the other innocents, or killing the innocent monk. You can't out-reason a GM Paladin trap. Any NPC whose purpose and function in the game is to cause a Paladin to fall will pretty much succeed, because the GM can declare any condition he chooses to be in violation of the code - and if you run into a setup where a wizard has a magic machine that only accepts non-paladins, you can bet that the scroll of Teleport the Paladin happens to have in his back pocket will fail as well.

[Vizzerdrix]

Then the Paladin falls whichever action he takes, either failing to protect the other innocents, or killing the innocent monk. You can't out-reason a GM Paladin trap. Any NPC whose purpose and function in the game is to cause a Paladin to fall will pretty much succeed, because the GM can declare any condition he chooses to be in violation of the code - and if you run into a setup where a wizard has a magic machine that only accepts non-paladins, you can bet that the scroll of Teleport the Paladin happens to have in his back pocket will fail as well.

Ooooh, but its such good story(tm)! I will never understand why DMs feel the need to mess with paladins, but not with anyone else. You never hear about druids being put in cursed metal armor, or wizards losing books, or clerics missing prayer time. Always with the paladins though!

[Winthur]

The winning move is to kill the innocent, hear the DM's verdict, and if you fall because of it, you get up and leave the table. Zero tolerance towards power-hungry, subversive DMs who persist on cheap drama that specifically is aimed at crippling you and steering your development to a preferred, edgy path; leave that to bad Polish Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay DMs. Not to mention that the victim in this case is also the Monk. No matter what happens, someone gets murdered. Call the DM an edgelord, too.

It'd be a far better story if the sadistic machination was a stopgap for a player who has to go on hiatus for a few sessions / permanently. Let the Paladin not fall, but do everything in their power to bring the Monk back or at least honor their memory once they're out. Let him pour that single-minded Paladin zeal into this one goal, while still letting him uphold his values. Hopefully the DM will refrain from exclusively placing golems with plating made from live babies on their way to exacting retribution, but if they already drank the John Wick* koolaid, they likely are too far gone.

*no relation to Keanu Reeves this time

[TheYell]

How does a Paladin handle a monster that has bound its life phylactery style to an innocent being.

Get a wizard to bind it into a gem.

[King of Nowhere]

Ooooh, but its such good story(tm)! I will never understand why DMs feel the need to mess with paladins, but not with anyone else. You never hear about druids being put in cursed metal armor, or wizards losing books, or clerics missing prayer time. Always with the paladins though!

Well, i like to put my players through complex moral decisions, as those make for a good story and also good discussions, if all involved are mature.

I would never actively try to make a paladin fall, though. While i'd like to test their beliefs and their applications in a grey world, i maintain that a paladin who sincerely tries his best will never fall, unless he does some really crazy miko-style crap.
Similarly, when i give a complex decision to my players, i never punish them for a choice. If it's complex there are pros and cons, and i try to have consequences for both.

That said, not every case of paladin blackmailed by a sadistic wizard needs be a dm trap to make a paladin fall. Maybe the dm knew the paladin had the scroll of teleport, and wanted the player to feel rewarded for getting it. Maybe he was trusting the player to find a way to weasel out of the predicament. Maybe he was expecting the players to fight their way out.
But if the player reacts angrily with "oh, you already set me up to fail and nothing i do will matter", it won't help.
The dm challenges the players all the time. If you expect him to just be there to screw you up, you should not play.

I don't think the example comes from an actual game, though.

[Kyberwulf]

I don't know why you guys are bringing the hate on DM's. No one said this had anything to do with a D&D game. This is just a question someone asked. Shows how biased you are,

I would say that the Paladin wouldn't fall. It has to do with once someone makes a choice to take an active role, other then sitting there being all innocent of choice, they are no longer innocent. The Monk would go out like a boss, Paladin would swear to avenge this maliciousness. Same with the fighter on the bridge. If the Paladin can help it he would be the one to die go out. If there is no other choice, if one of his friends can make that sacrifice, they would honor it.

The whole thing of an "innocent" being possessed or used by evil, as an excuse for people to make Paladins fall is so disingenuous. Just because someone is "Innocent", doesn't mean that you are immune from the unfortunate consequences from other people's actions. So, no the Paladin wouldn't fall for taking the life if some Lich used him. I mean, the Paladin wouldn't be alright with it I suppose, but he wouldn't lose his Honor for it. I mean barring he looked for any and all means to break the curse, or if time didn't permit investigations. It's better the Innocent be sent to its just rewards, then risk his soul to eternal damnations, not to mention the countless lives that would be saved.

[Biggus]

The official answer, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds (p.9) is that any evil act still causes a Paladin to fall, no matter how many innocent lives would be saved by doing it.

Personally, I think this is a rather childish and simplistic definition of how good and evil works, and I don't tend to use it when I'm DMing. For me personally, if someone is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and they choose to kill one person rather than let thousands die by inaction, they've done the right thing, and I don't have much respect for the wisdom or goodness of a deity who says otherwise.

The most sense I can make of the official position is that D&D morality works how it does in children's fantasy stories, not how an intelligent adult would see it.

[Conradine]

Ok, I'll give my opinion...
assisting a voluntary heroic sacrifice, for me, it's not an evil act at all.


The whole "sadistic wizard trap" , I get inspired from Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn ( do you remember the genie who poses a similar question to the PC in the initial dungeon? ).

[HouseRules]

The official answer, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds (p.9) is that any evil act still causes a Paladin to fall, no matter how many innocent lives would be saved by doing it.

The whole point why I made my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23987633&postcount=2)


Personally, I think this is a rather childish and simplistic definition of how good and evil works, and I don't tend to use it when I'm DMing. For me personally, if someone is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and they choose to kill one person rather than let thousands die by inaction, they've done the right thing, and I don't have much respect for the wisdom or goodness of a deity who says otherwise.

and second post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23987715&postcount=7).

[Conradine]

Another similar situation, more plausible: the expert paladin stays back to slow down the horde, telling the young paladin to escort the civilians to safety, and he tell's him to barricade the door behind him. By barricading the door, the young one actually "kills" the more expert one. But that's heroism.


Personally, I think this is a rather childish and simplistic definition of how good and evil works, and I don't tend to use it when I'm DMing. For me personally, if someone is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and they choose to kill one person rather than let thousands die by inaction, they've done the right thing, and I don't have much respect for the wisdom or goodness of a deity who says otherwise.


From a consequentialistic viewpoint that's true.
But to kill an innocent who is not consenting and mabye is actually begging for life would be an evil act indeed, even if it saves lifes.

[GrayDeath]

Situations like that show that the DM hates Paladins and you should not paly a Paladin at their table.

That said, RAW it depends on if killing the Innocent who freely offers himself to save others is considered an Evil Act.
If it is, he falls, if it is not, he doesnt. Easy as that.

I myself would not consider it an Evil act, as doing so violates others peoples freedom to do Good by deciding to sacrifice themselves.

[HouseRules]

Situations like that show that the DM hates Paladins and you should not paly a Paladin at their table.

That said, RAW it depends on if killing the Innocent who freely offers himself to save others is considered an Evil Act.
If it is, he falls, if it is not, he doesnt. Easy as that.

I myself would not consider it an Evil act, as doing so violates others peoples freedom to do Good by deciding to sacrifice themselves.

Neutral (Self Offer for Greater Good) with Evil Leaning (Killing an Innocent) Deed?

In the argument about the Greater Good and Lesser Evil...
Killing an Innocent that Offers their Life for Greater Good is a Neutral Deed with Evil Leaning.
Killing an Innocent that is Begging for life life instead of Greater Good is an Evil Deed with Neutral Leaning, since you cannot say Evil with Good Leaning unless there's an alignment of the other sided of Neutral called Neutral (Anti-Neutron could help you understand that more).

[Cicciograna]

What would Captain America do?

I'd say that CA would not kill the Monk, would not let the Monk die, he'd probably rally his friends to find an alternative solution that involves punching baddies. I'd say a Paladin would behave the same way.

[King of Nowhere]

On the other hand, inaction is also a choice. So, choosing to act and do evil, or choosing inaction and letting evil happen, are morally on the same level.
Realistically, most morality choices are of lesser evil. A paladin can't be taken at fault for having to choose. Rejecting choice is especially an hypocrite way to avoid responsibility.

"Being a paladin is like being a farmer. To do your job you have to step in the muck and get dirty. The challenge of our call is not to upheld the letter of an abstract ideal, but to apply it to the real world in a satisfying way"

"Being a paladin is about taking responsibility. You see a wrong, and you take uppn yourself the responsibility to make it better. If you fail, you take responsibility for the failure, you learn, and you do better next time."

"Pelor is up there in the sky. Down here, there's just us"

[Biggus]

The whole point why I made my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23987633&postcount=2)


Yes, I saw that, but several other people were saying that no they wouldn't fall, and ericgrau said there was nothing against it in the SRD, so I thought it was worth pointing out that it does say so somewhere in an official source.



From a consequentialistic viewpoint that's true.
But to kill an innocent who is not consenting and mabye is actually begging for life would be an evil act indeed, even if it saves lifes.

From a traditional D&D perspective, yes. To me, if there is such a thing as objective good and evil, it's found in the intent, not the action (in fact, as far as I can see the idea of certain acts being objectively wrong in all circumstances is completely unsustainable and leads to numerous absurdities if you think about it long enough) but D&D disagrees.


On the other hand, inaction is also a choice. So, choosing to act and do evil, or choosing inaction and letting evil happen, are morally on the same level.
Realistically, most morality choices are of lesser evil. A paladin can't be taken at fault for having to choose. Rejecting choice is especially an hypocrite way to avoid responsibility.

My feelings exactly. A lot of people don't see it that way though.

[HouseRules]

From a traditional D&D perspective, yes. To me, if there is such a thing as objective good and evil, it's found in the intent, not the action (in fact, as far as I can see the idea of certain acts being objectively wrong in all circumstances is completely unsustainable and leads to numerous absurdities if you think about it long enough) but D&D disagrees.

It is along the lines of PR like how AD&D 2E made lots of "PR" changes (no more demon, devil, daemon, half-orc (born exclusively by orc rape human women)) to AD&D because PR matters a lot more than we would normally think.

Minus Four Strength

18/00 (Highest for Male Fighters)
18/91 to 18/99
18/76 to 18/90
18/51 to 18/75
18/01 to 18/50 (Highest for Female Fighters)
18 (Highest for Dual Classed into Fighters)


Number of Wishes From Strength 10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18/10
18/20
18/30
18/40
18/50
18/60
18/70
18/80
18/90
18/99
18/00
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

[Psyren]

By rule, they must fall, and then go through an Atonement quest.

This is the correct answer by RAW. Or to borrow the Giant's phrasing: "They wouldn't have an atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) Failing to find another solution might not be the paladin's fault entirely, but it's still a failure.

Now, I wouldn't do this kind of scenario at all... but if I did, I wouldn't have the paladin fall immediately, as that would put the group in more danger. More of a between adventures, contemplative sort of deal that results in a sidequest. Again, taking a leaf from the Giant here, where he suggested (and nothing in the rules contradict) that not all falls are as dramatic or immediate as Miko's was, when referring to the paladins from Start of Darkness.

As others have done though, I'd question the overall point of the story being told here.

[Biggus]

Minus Four Strength

18/00 (Highest for Male Fighters)
18/91 to 18/99
18/76 to 18/90
18/51 to 18/75
18/01 to 18/50 (Highest for Female Fighters)
18 (Highest for Dual Classed into Fighters)


Oh yeah, I remember that. It was based on actual world weightlifting records as I recall, so there was some justification for it. Of course, the counter-argument runs "you're OK with a dragon the size of a blue whale being able to fly, but not with a woman being able to bench-press 500 pounds?".

[HouseRules]

Oh yeah, I remember that. It was based on actual world weightlifting records as I recall, so there was some justification for it. Of course, the counter-argument runs "you're OK with a dragon the size of blue whale being able to fly, but not with a woman being able to bench-press 500 pounds?".

Exceptional Strength and Exceptional Dexterity, from Dragon Magazine, represents a way to give +5 Strength Bonus to Fighters and +5 Dexterity Bonus to Thieves because they need that extra +5 in their stats to match against casters.

[Biggus]

Again, taking a leaf from the Giant here, where he suggested (and nothing in the rules contradict) that not all falls are as dramatic or immediate as Miko's was, when referring to the paladins from Start of Darkness.


This is a good point. Looking at the wording of the Atonement spell, it's clear that while certain acts are considered objectively evil, circumstances and intent both matter in determining the severity of the transgression.


Exceptional Strength and Exceptional Dexterity, from Dragon Magazine, represents a way to give +5 Strength Bonus to Fighters and +5 Dexterity Bonus to Thieves because they need that extra +5 in their stats to match against casters.

I've never heard of this, do you know which issue it was in?

[HouseRules]

I've never heard of this, do you know which issue it was in?

Google (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22Exceptional+Dexterity%22+%22Dragon+magazine%2 2) says 108 and 125.

[Biggus]

Google (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22Exceptional+Dexterity%22+%22Dragon+magazine%2 2) says 108 and 125.

Thank you!

[Kyberwulf]

I feel as if this one of those situations where you have Batman representing all alignments, without taking into account the motives for those actions.

Take into account that how Angels would and could act. I mean the ones that are purely representing the alignments. They could and probably would do these acts.

[HouseRules]

It's a problem with people avoiding the "Atonement Quest" and using the "Atonement Spell".
These are role-playing features designed to help role-playing.
Stay in your role or choose another class.
The problem is role vs class distinction in the game.
A character could take Fighter class and role-play a better Paladin than the Paladin Class could ever do so in many circumstances (though not all).

[Psyren]

The real answer to this is that the Paladin would consult his Phylactery of Faithfulness before taking action :smalltongue:

But again, even if that said "yes, this will affect your standing" the paladin might have to go through with it and just deal with the fallout (no pun intended) later.

[Biggus]

Google (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22Exceptional+Dexterity%22+%22Dragon+magazine%2 2) says 108 and 125.

Just searched those issues, they aren't the ones, they just happen to have the words "exceptional dexterity" in them...

[King of Nowhere]

This is the correct answer by RAW. Or to borrow the Giant's phrasing: "They wouldn't have an atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) Failing to find another solution might not be the paladin's fault entirely, but it's still a failure.

Now, I wouldn't do this kind of scenario at all... but if I did, I wouldn't have the paladin fall immediately, as that would put the group in more danger. More of a between adventures, contemplative sort of deal that results in a sidequest.

that's also a good way to resolve it.

"that evening, as you pray[patron deity], you feel conflicted about your actions. On one hand, you firmly believe that you've done the best you could in the circumstances, and you have no guilt over the death of your comrade. On the other hand, maybe there was a third alternative that would have saved everything and that you just failed to consider? Certainly if you had been stronger you would not have needed to leave someone behind anyway. So, you feel confident that you did right, but still you feel guilty for failing to do more. Most people would just dismiss it: 'there's nothing else I could have done'. But you are not most people. You are a paladin, and you swore to do better every time you fail, even if it's not your responsibility. You feel some kind of penance for your failure is in order..."

If I played a paladin, I would not mind that outcome. the most important distinction is perhaps that I'm not held guilty for failing, and did not have a "right" choice forced on me by the dm

[Psyren]

that's also a good way to resolve it.

"that evening, as you pray[patron deity], you feel conflicted about your actions. On one hand, you firmly believe that you've done the best you could in the circumstances, and you have no guilt over the death of your comrade. On the other hand, maybe there was a third alternative that would have saved everything and that you just failed to consider? Certainly if you had been stronger you would not have needed to leave someone behind anyway. So, you feel confident that you did right, but still you feel guilty for failing to do more. Most people would just dismiss it: 'there's nothing else I could have done'. But you are not most people. You are a paladin, and you swore to do better every time you fail, even if it's not your responsibility. You feel some kind of penance for your failure is in order..."

If I played a paladin, I would not mind that outcome. the most important distinction is perhaps that I'm not held guilty for failing, and did not have a "right" choice forced on me by the dm

Exactly - Paladins are held to a higher standard, and that might not be totally fair - but if the world were totally fair, it wouldn't need paladins in the first place. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1032.html)

So I would have the paladin get through the ordeal and keep their powers, but if they didn't proactively take steps to right that wrong (or not go far enough) they would wake up one morning without them, and be compelled to go to a nearby temple. One obvious quest to assign would be to recover the monk's remains from that machine and bring them back to be raised if they haven't already done so. Another might be to get faced with a similar Kobayashi-Maru type of scenario and this time, find the third option that escaped them in the dungeon.

[ezekielraiden]

I don't know why you guys are bringing the hate on DM's. No one said this had anything to do with a D&D game. This is just a question someone asked. Shows how biased you are,
Because there is no situation that can exist where this scenario has actually occurred, yet a DM or something passing for one (e.g. the writing team for a CRPG) was not involved. It is logically impossible for no human(s) to be ultimately responsible for creating this kind of scenario. We can therefore, by logic alone, assume that there is some human or humans acting with intent behind this scenario. On the surface at least it strongly appears that a catch-22 is intended, given the "every choice, including not choosing, appears to be wrong" nature, and the common knowledge that DMs have a tendency to be especially harsh on Paladins due to their near-unique sensitivity to falling (and thereby losing their class features). This is not bias. It is a reasonable response to say, "IF your hypothetical DM actually does put you in this situation, call them out for their crappy behavior, because there is no in-character means to solve an out-of-character problem like this." As King of Nowhere notes, this kind of scenario depends on there being a lot of trust between paladin-player and DM, because the player may react badly if they aren't sure that the DM isn't out to get them, and the DM may not be able to know that the player can find a surprise third option in time. It can be tough. Both sides have a right to be suspicious about motives when the Paladin class is involved. A lot of Paladin players play aggressively unpleasant characters, and a lot of DMs punish even well-played, positivr Paladins with genuine Kobiyashi Maru scenarios.

And, as noted, RAW on this topic is clear...and stupid. But RAW being self-evidently stupid has not stopped thousands of DMs from rigorously, vigorously enforcing it.


I would say that the Paladin wouldn't fall. It has to do with once someone makes a choice to take an active role, other then sitting there being all innocent of choice, they are no longer innocent. The Monk would go out like a boss, Paladin would swear to avenge this maliciousness. Same with the fighter on the bridge. If the Paladin can help it he would be the one to die go out. If there is no other choice, if one of his friends can make that sacrifice, they would honor it.

The whole thing of an "innocent" being possessed or used by evil, as an excuse for people to make Paladins fall is so disingenuous. Just because someone is "Innocent", doesn't mean that you are immune from the unfortunate consequences from other people's actions. So, no the Paladin wouldn't fall for taking the life if some Lich used him. I mean, the Paladin wouldn't be alright with it I suppose, but he wouldn't lose his Honor for it. I mean barring he looked for any and all means to break the curse, or if time didn't permit investigations. It's better the Innocent be sent to its just rewards, then risk his soul to eternal damnations, not to mention the countless lives that would be saved.

It is ironic that you call the situation out as being disingenuous. Only people, who have awareness and intent, can be disingenuous; a hypothetical scenario devoid of authorial influence (DM/etc.) cannot be disingenuous. It seems to me that you and I agree much more than we disagree: you think that no real DM would do this thing, because *if* they did, they would be clearly in the wrong. I believe that any DM who did this thing would be clearly in the wrong--I just know from personal experience and friends' experience that some DMs really are willing to be this disingenuous, and will proclaim all the while that they are fair, balanced, and not deceptive or punitive in the least.

Edit:
That said, while I think the RAW is clearly stupid, I emphatically agree with Psyren et al. about the "gentle/partial fall" and the "penance is appropriate even when you did everything you could" ideas. I guess the problem is that RAW at least strongly implies that falling is a rigidly binary, strict effect: either you're 100% fine or you're 100% fallen, and ne'er the twain shall meet. If we allow for "you have to hold yourself to the absolute highest standards, and that means feeling guilty even for killing slavers because all life is sacred, and doing something to address that fault," then yeah I'm with you. (The quoted example was literally from a Paladin I personally played, and it made sense and felt completely right for this char who had dedicated so much effort to peaceful resolution, respecting his opponents, and protecting even dangerous/evil beings from predation by others.)

[GloatingSwine]

Depends, can the DM tank a PHB to the face?

[Tvtyrant]

The real question is, can you make a magic sword of use activated Atonement and Forced Repentance so the Paladin can instantly regain their Paladin levels as they kill innocents?

[TheYell]

slept on it and I guess the Paladin would tie a rope to the lever so the Monk could pull it hisowndamnself

[Asmotherion]

After trying to find a way arround this he'd eventualy use his own life in a desperate hope it might function.

in other words i don't believe a Paladin would do that.

[D+1]

... if the innocent explicitly asks for it?

Hypotetical situation: the paladin, his monk friend and many innocents are locked in a dungeons by an evil wizard.
The only way to escape is to sacrifice an human life by a machinery that must be activated by someone else - and no, the paladin's life would not be accepted.
So the monk enter the machine and says to the paladin:

"Hurry up, take my life, save the others."

Can the paladin activate the machine?
Unequivocally, yes. Unless you're using OPTIONAL rules from somewhere, there is nothing problematic for a paladin as far as their class or alignment is concerned in this scenario as given. But you're using loaded verbiage. "Can a paladin KILL an innocent..." suggests the paladin is TO BLAME if anyone but the paladin dies in this scenario. But you've already established that the paladin CANNOT be successful by sacrificing THEMSELVES within the boundaries of this narrowly defined scenario. The paladin can't save anyone through their own sacrifice, they can only ENABLE the monk to save everyone by self-sacrifice. If the paladin does nothing then one of the "innocents" can activate the machine thus enabling the monk to perform the self-sacrifice. The paladin pulls the switch, the monk dies, everyone else is saved, the paladin feels bad about losing their friend the monk, the paladin feels bad that they personally couldn't be the one to perform the self-sacrifice, but AS DEFINED there is no other option. A "good guy" is able to sacrifice themselves and save everyone. The paladin helps that happen and indeed relieves any of the innocents of the burden of being the one to pull the switch. All is as well as it could be, and though the outcome is less than perfect, it's better than the DM-permitted alternatives.

Why would anyone say that a paladin falls or must atone for anything here?

[HouseRules]

Just searched those issues, they aren't the ones, they just happen to have the words "exceptional dexterity" in them...

It's in "Strategic Review Issue 7" (last issue before becoming Dragon Magazine) during OD&D.

[Elkad]

Aiding someone in a suicide - Fine. That's what the OP proposed.

I'll propose another one. Paladin and friends are on a ship packed with innocent peasants, and it's weeks to shore (or escorting a caravan through the wilderness, or some similar situation where you can't get outside help). Unknown to anyone, at least one of the innocents was hosting a Red Slaad egg. He turns into a Blue Slaad (CR8). The 5th level party defeats it, barely, losing the sole member with Cure Disease and Lesser Restoration in the process. A couple more peasants were infected. You can probably defeat peasants that turn into Red Slaad with preparation, so that isn't terrible. But the Wizard is infected as well. A few days later Wizard has failed yet another save, and Cha is down to 1. It is now very likely a Green Slaad is going to be loose onboard, that you have no chance to defeat (CR9, and you'll be down another party member). Wizard refuses suicide, or anything similar (being cast adrift in a rowboat, etc), convinced lucky Fort saves will happen (DC18 twice in a row, at maybe +4). Wizard has self-barricaded in a room. Familiar is on guard duty any time Wizard is sleeping.

Even allowing someone else to kill the Wizard is accessory to murder, much less doing it yourself.

Code would say you accept your fate, and spend your last day helping the peasants do the same. Maybe while making a plan to attempt to negotiate with the Slaad - It's Chaotic Neutral after all, not Evil.
Practicality would say kill the Wizard and fall.

[Karl Aegis]

Aiding someone in a suicide - Fine. That's what the OP proposed.

I'll propose another one. Paladin and friends are on a ship packed with innocent peasants, and it's weeks to shore (or escorting a caravan through the wilderness, or some similar situation where you can't get outside help). Unknown to anyone, at least one of the innocents was hosting a Red Slaad egg. He turns into a Blue Slaad (CR8). The 5th level party defeats it, barely, losing the sole member with Cure Disease and Lesser Restoration in the process. A couple more peasants were infected. You can probably defeat peasants that turn into Red Slaad with preparation, so that isn't terrible. But the Wizard is infected as well. A few days later Wizard has failed yet another save, and Cha is down to 1. It is now very likely a Green Slaad is going to be loose onboard, that you have no chance to defeat (CR9, and you'll be down another party member). Wizard refuses suicide, or anything similar (being cast adrift in a rowboat, etc), convinced lucky Fort saves will happen (DC18 twice in a row, at maybe +4). Wizard has self-barricaded in a room. Familiar is on guard duty any time Wizard is sleeping.

Even allowing someone else to kill the Wizard is accessory to murder, much less doing it yourself.

Code would say you accept your fate, and spend your last day helping the peasants do the same. Maybe while making a plan to attempt to negotiate with the Slaad - It's Chaotic Neutral after all, not Evil.
Practicality would say kill the Wizard and fall.

A level 5 party has almost no chance of knowing the nuances of outsider reproduction. Maybe the wizard might know something about a green slaad, maybe a bard might know something about a blue slaad. Unlikely they know anything about a green slaad, much less where they come from. Knowledge: The Planes check at 20+Hit dice at least. The wizard gets to do whatever he wants because there is no way a paladin has enough skill points in Knowledge: The Planes to know something is wrong.

[Psyren]

Aiding someone in a suicide - Fine. That's what the OP proposed.

I'll propose another one. Paladin and friends are on a ship packed with innocent peasants, and it's weeks to shore (or escorting a caravan through the wilderness, or some similar situation where you can't get outside help). Unknown to anyone, at least one of the innocents was hosting a Red Slaad egg. He turns into a Blue Slaad (CR8). The 5th level party defeats it, barely, losing the sole member with Cure Disease and Lesser Restoration in the process. A couple more peasants were infected. You can probably defeat peasants that turn into Red Slaad with preparation, so that isn't terrible. But the Wizard is infected as well. A few days later Wizard has failed yet another save, and Cha is down to 1. It is now very likely a Green Slaad is going to be loose onboard, that you have no chance to defeat (CR9, and you'll be down another party member). Wizard refuses suicide, or anything similar (being cast adrift in a rowboat, etc), convinced lucky Fort saves will happen (DC18 twice in a row, at maybe +4). Wizard has self-barricaded in a room. Familiar is on guard duty any time Wizard is sleeping.

Even allowing someone else to kill the Wizard is accessory to murder, much less doing it yourself.

Code would say you accept your fate, and spend your last day helping the peasants do the same. Maybe while making a plan to attempt to negotiate with the Slaad - It's Chaotic Neutral after all, not Evil.
Practicality would say kill the Wizard and fall.

If a rowboat is an option, the paladin would probably knock the wizard out and set both of them adrift, him to watch over the wizard and keep the rest of the ship safe. He would likely die if the wizard fails the final save and turns, but the innocents would be safe. The familiar can stay on the main boat so that he can help everyone else realize what the outcome was - if their empathic link is severed, it means the wizard failed, for example.

[Elkad]

A level 5 party has almost no chance of knowing the nuances of outsider reproduction. Maybe the wizard might know something about a green slaad, maybe a bard might know something about a blue slaad. Unlikely they know anything about a green slaad, much less where they come from. Knowledge: The Planes check at 20+Hit dice at least. The wizard gets to do whatever he wants because there is no way a paladin has enough skill points in Knowledge: The Planes to know something is wrong.

"What is this strange disease the blue frogman inflicted" is probably a "Basic" question. DC 15+8HD=23. A 20Int wiz:5 likely has +13 on his check (Know:Planes is a skill I always max on my Wizards anyway). His familiar gets a roll as well, though only at +7, so maybe it should Aid Another instead. Plus possible buffs. (Heroism, Guidance of the Avatar, etc)
And when a peasant with the same disease changes first, it kinda gives the game away, even if you don't know the Wizard will become a Green Slaad instead of Red.

But the whole point of the exercise is to put the Pally in an untenable situation without major GM Fiat. If they blow the Knowledge checks, they don't know to segregate people, and those jump up and infect even more peasants for a froggy version of Wightpocalypse. You can likely do it with something other than Slaad as well. Will the Paladin kill someone non-evil who specifically doesn't want to die, and will fight to prevent that, to save a bunch more people.


I know what I'd do in the Paladin's spot. I'd renounce my oath (willingly falling), then I'd push the wizard overboard (possibly after sapping him and tying him to an anchor), and make my new mission in life to overthrow whatever god made me take that terrible oath. I'm not going to make the GM make me fall. I'm going to jump.

[ngilop]

Then the Paladin falls whichever action he takes, either failing to protect the other innocents, or killing the innocent monk. You can't out-reason a GM Paladin trap. Any NPC whose purpose and function in the game is to cause a Paladin to fall will pretty much succeed, because the GM can declare any condition he chooses to be in violation of the code - and if you run into a setup where a wizard has a magic machine that only accepts non-paladins, you can bet that the scroll of Teleport the Paladin happens to have in his back pocket will fail as well.

THIS.

There was an amazing thread on these forums about this several years ago, and an even better post within said thread, I want to say Grod is the owner of the quote, but I could be wrong as I have looked for and failed to find that thread many a times the past 5 or 6 years.

The thread of course about paladins getting crap on all the time in an do this and you fall do that and you fall because the only choice peeps ever give is evil or evil. The quote is that the mere existance of paladins means that there HAS to be a 3rd choice that doesn't end in the paladin falling because he has to chose an evil act.


If anybody can find that thread I would be very very greatful.

[Conradine]

Another situation: an ally is blocked with a leg in a bear trap. No tools for sawing the limb, not in a short time: the hobgoblins are coming. These hobgoblins are infamous torturers. The wounded ally beg the paladin to strangle him / break his neck so he'll not be tortured to death.

Can the paladin do this?

[Mnemius]

All of these, when thrown by a GM, should prompt a "Get up from table and leave" response.

The only time it might be allowed is if you know the GM is the type to have some sort of figure it out 3rd option.

[GloatingSwine]

Really though, a paladin should only fall because of the volitional act of their player, not because a situation was contrived in order to produce it.

You shouldn't be trying to create trolley problems for your paladin players, you should be putting temptations in their path, ways they can take an easier path if they compromise their oaths.

[legomaster00156]

Another situation: an ally is blocked with a leg in a bear trap. No tools for sawing the limb, not in a short time: the hobgoblins are coming. These hobgoblins are infamous torturers. The wounded ally beg the paladin to strangle him / break his neck so he'll not be tortured to death.

Can the paladin do this?
Well, uh, in that case, the paladin just... opens the bear trap. Even without proper tools, I have to expect that any paladin worth their salt has a high enough STR bonus to handle that.

[Kyberwulf]

Again, why are people bringing DMs into these hypotheticals? I don't think anyone posing these questions are specifically saying DMs are the ones doing them, they are just putting people in crappy situation to see if someone falls.

For the Bear trap question. In this situation I think he would fall. I think a real Paladin would stay and defend the friend to the death in this situation. There aren't a lot of Innocents lives immediately at stake that requires actions. This situation dictates that he stay and fight.

[D+1]

Apologies for all the over-emphasis below but this is simply a point which cannot be hit too hard because so many people just don't get it.

Another situation: an ally is blocked with a leg in a bear trap. No tools for sawing the limb, not in a short time: the hobgoblins are coming. These hobgoblins are infamous torturers. The wounded ally beg the paladin to strangle him / break his neck so he'll not be tortured to death.

Can the paladin do this?
I'd say that the least a paladin could do is hand that ally a dagger to do it themselves if the paladin is going to then just walk away ANYWAY - which the scenario is clearly attempting to engineer. "FORCE the paladin to do something they shouldn't do in order to make them fall," is simply a cheap trick in any case. DM's don't do it to any other classes, but it seems there always will be a DM who is just fascinated by being able to do that and seemingly wants to be told that doing so makes it somehow the players fault and the PC should then pay the price for it. The implication in the above is that there just is no other way. ALL other options are off the table and there are only the suggested possibilities of, "Do the bad thing and fall," or, "do nothing and probably fall anyway because you did nothing." I resoundingly will always object to that premise and will never punish the player or the PC for at least attempting to then find the lesser of evils that the DM pointlessly is inflicting on them.

Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I might hand the trapped ally a weapon if they didn't already have one - and then just go down swinging WITH them. End of moral trap. Then I'll have words after the game with the DM (and certainly prior to choosing to continue to play even with another PC) about why they felt it necessary or justified to push my character into a no-win scenario.

If a paladin PC EVER gets into a morally-must-lose scenario it should be by their choice - by their deliberately BAD choice. The player should ALWAYS know what the correct moral choice is for that game - whether because the rules regarding moral choices are made super-abundantly clear or because the DM makes their personal interpretations super-abundantly clear long before any such choice needs to be made. MORAL FAILURE is a choice - not an ACCIDENT. Unless a paladin PC has been making deliberately bad moral choices that lead them into a no-way-out corner, there should be a way out. One which a PLAYER is readily able to see and understand. Players may not like the results of having to make the best of a morally problematic situation, but players/PC's should never have to pay the moral penalty for being tricked or forced into a no-win moral situation by the DM. Not ever, because that's just a DM being a jerk.

[Karl Aegis]

Another situation: an ally is blocked with a leg in a bear trap. No tools for sawing the limb, not in a short time: the hobgoblins are coming. These hobgoblins are infamous torturers. The wounded ally beg the paladin to strangle him / break his neck so he'll not be tortured to death.

Can the paladin do this?

You climb on the paladin's warhorse and escape. It's a class feature.

[GrayDeath]

You climb on the paladin's warhorse and escape. It's a class feature.

That.

Or, if everything else fails (and the Hoprse is already carrying another deathly endangered friend^^) and you feel slashy you sunder the Trap. Or swing and cut off the leg. Or carry the guy. Or put the guy into your Bag of Holding or....just about anything,r eally, except leave him there/kill him.

Honestly, what is the point of your .... weird situations?

[King of Nowhere]

Another situation:

seriously, what is the point?
everyone has different ideas of where exactly the paladin must draw the line. the main distinction between good roleplaying and dm jerkishness is (again) communication. Because, regardless of everything else, I strongly believe that any fair DM should give an explicit warning like "your paladin is fairly sure that would be against his oaths" before letting the paladin do something stupid. Because the player may not know what exactly is the paladin's code, but the character certainly do.
And there should never be a contrived situation where the paladin will fall either way, or where the only option for not falling is very hard to find. I said it before, I repeat now: as long as a paladin tries his best (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) - within the limits of his abilities, including his ability to determine what is best (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html)- then he should never, ever fall. At worst he may want to take a penance for perceived failure.

You trying all those crazy scenarios won't change a thing in that. And if the specific scenario happens at your table, whether you are the player or the dm, you should just talk it out and determine what actions would be acceptable for a paladin.

P.S. I personally think that a mercy kill to someone who was asking for it anyway, and was beyond saving anyway, is perfectly fine. But I guess that would depend upon one's personal views on euthanasia, and that would be a forbidden topic on this forum.

[lord_khaine]

And there should never be a contrived situation where the paladin will fall either way, or where the only option for not falling is very hard to find. I said it before, I repeat now: as long as a paladin tries his best - within the limits of his abilities, including his ability to determine what is best then he should never, ever fall. At worst he may want to take a penance for perceived failure.


P.S. I personally think that a mercy kill to someone who was asking for it anyway, and was beyond saving anyway, is perfectly fine. But I guess that would depend upon one's personal views on euthanasia, and that would be a forbidden topic on this forum.

I do think these comments hit the nail on the head.
I wasnt even aware euthanasia were a forbidden subject here.
But yeah, aiding someone else in a willing and heroic sacrifice would be a good act if no alternative could be found.

Edit.
By default, the answer to "does a Paladin fall if X" should be a solid No.

[TheYell]

I wasnt even aware euthanasia were a forbidden subject here.

Pretty much any real-world political controversy is beyond the scope.

[Conradine]

Honestly, what is the point of your .... weird situations?


Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"

[TheYell]

That's no better than our 14 year old DM in Scouts having us level 1 guys open the wrong door and encounter Tiamat.

You should be able to do better.

[GrayDeath]

Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"

Ah, good to know.

I will from now on refrain from answering in your "what if" threads then, as that is exactly the kind of jerky DMing I abhor with all my heart.

(Dont get me wrong, I understand Paladins are at times problematic/controversal, and I can also understand people not liking them...but in that case I as DM tell my Players no paladins in this Campaign" and am done with it.).

"Just beacause I can/Want to" btw is never ever a good justification,be it DMing or anything else, really.

[TheYell]

... if the innocent explicitly asks for it?


Just remembered that line from Veracruz:

COOPER: You were about to hang an innocent man!
LANCASTER: Ain't no such thing as an 'innocent' man.
COOPER: (slow grin)

[Nemoricus]

As a general rule, I would not make a paladin fall if their choices decide which innocents live and which die. As long as they didn't knowingly put those lives in danger to begin with, their choices reflect their understanding of the situation and their code. Only inaction, refusing to decide, would be grounds for the paladin to fall. Even rejecting the choice by attempting to find a third option would be enough for me.

As another scenario, take an invading evil army. The paladin and their team can thwart a prong, but no matter what they choose, innocent people will die. So long as the paladin rides out to do battle, they will not fall. It was not their actions that put those people in danger, and by acting, the paladin can save lives.

Now, I would expect the paladin to feel conflicted if they chose between defending the kingdom's leaders to ensure that the army could be countered or defending those who could not defend themselves. They still would not fall, because in either case they are acting to fight evil to the best of their ability and the best of their understanding.

That is all I would ask of them. Paladins may be divinely empowered champions of good and right, and they may be held to a higher standard, but they are still mortals. There's no code to encompass every situation they may encounter, and there will always be situations where the tenets of that code will come into conflict with each other. In those situations, I expect that they would use their best judgement and make a choice.

[Necroticplague]

... if the innocent explicitly asks for it?

Hypotetical situation: the paladin, his monk friend and many innocents are locked in a dungeons by an evil wizard.
The only way to escape is to sacrifice an human life by a machinery that must be activated by someone else - and no, the paladin's life would not be accepted.
So the monk enter the machine and says to the paladin:

"Hurry up, take my life, save the others."

Can the paladin activate the machine?

No. Killing an innocent is killing an innocent is killing an innocent, regardless of the circumstances. BoED is fairly clear on this account.



An evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may acheive. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.....Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to aver a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom....
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided......it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscioable

If you are in a situation where the options are 'evil act or die', it's still a choice, despite what all the foolish relativists who think they've found something when they produce thought experiments of this nature.

It then goes on slightly further to say 'no, you can't just stand by while allies do evil, either', just to head off the 'can he let a party member use the machine' inevitable counter-question.

[Remuko]

Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"

please tell me you forgot the blue text? because thats...oof.

[Karl Aegis]

Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"

Can you at least come up with something that cannot be solved with the character's native class features? Ki Strike Adamantine, Abundant Step and Empty Body are all relevant for escaping a prison. Summon Mount, up to fourth level spells and Holy Avenger weapon are all relevant to a decently leveled Paladin. Door to Great Evil from the Ghostwalk Web Enhancement in particular will allow a friendly Paladin (or ten) to jump on your evil wizard torturing random people with full buffs on and proceed to ruin their day. Ebon Steed Figurine can get someone out of an extra-dimensional prison. Simple things that characters can do or have on them can solve encounters entirely, even if the class itself is lackluster.

[ezekielraiden]

Again, why are people bringing DMs into these hypotheticals? I don't think anyone posing these questions are specifically saying DMs are the ones doing them, they are just putting people in crappy situation to see if someone falls.

Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"

You were saying, Kyberwulf?

[2D8HP]

... if the innocent explicitly asks for it?

Hypotetical situation: the paladin, his monk friend and many innocents are locked in a dungeons by an evil wizard.
The only way to escape is to sacrifice an human life by a machinery that must be activated by someone else - and no, the paladin's life would not be accepted.
So the monk enter the machine and says to the paladin:

"Hurry up, take my life, save the others."

Can the paladin activate the machine?


Because the Wizard who built the machine is a sadistic jerk who loves to psychologically hurt paladins.


Another situation could be: the mighty fighter is holding the bridge against orcs while the wounded and exausted paladin is left behind. The fighter scream "Blew the charges paladin, destroy the bridge!", fully knowing that will take his life too.


Another similar situation, more plausible: the expert paladin stays back to slow down the horde, telling the young paladin to escort the civilians to safety, and he tell's him to barricade the door behind him. By barricading the door, the young one actually "kills" the more expert one. But that's heroism.




From a consequentialistic viewpoint that's true.
But to kill an innocent who is not consenting and mabye is actually begging for life would be an evil act indeed, even if it saves lifes.


Another situation: an ally is blocked with a leg in a bear trap. No tools for sawing the limb, not in a short time: the hobgoblins are coming. These hobgoblins are infamous torturers. The wounded ally beg the paladin to strangle him / break his neck so he'll not be tortured to death.

Can the paladin do this?


Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"

In none of these scenarios would my Paladin fall because I wouldn't consent to playing out any of these scenarios unless I was paid very well to be at that table, and I'm just not that hard up to take that job.

I'm walked away from far less annoying DM's than the one you described, so that's a NOPE!!! to all that, life is too short for that kind of "play".

[hamishspence]

No. Killing an innocent is killing an innocent is killing an innocent, regardless of the circumstances. BoED is fairly clear on this account.


If you are the innocent, and sacrificing yourself will save lives, BoED encourages you, strongly, to do so. So it's possible for it not to be covered by "For violence to be acceptable, it must primarily be directed at the Evil" principle.

So, if self-sacrifice is Not Evil, maybe delegating the actual act to someone else (because you're not equipped to do it yourself) can be Not Evil?

BoVD suggests that to qualify as Murder, lethal violence must have some nefarious intent.

For an OoTS example - in the Order of the Scribble backstory, a paladin (with a comrade beside him) demands a rift be sealed to trap a monster - even at the risk of their own lives:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html

Suppose the caster had been a multiclass character with one level in paladin and the rest in wizard. Would they have fallen for the act, which resulted in the death of a fellow party member?

I don't think they would. There's an element of "knew what they were in for when they signed up" here.

[Kyberwulf]

I am still curious were he said he was a DM, and he wanted to put players into a scenario where he wants to sadistically put Player Characters into situations where they will fall, for the LOLS as a DM.

[hamishspence]

I am still curious were he said he was a DM, and he wanted to put players into a scenario where he wants to sadistically put Player Characters into situations where they will fall, for the LOLS as a DM.

This doesn't count?


Sometimes I like to come up with situations were, whatever the Paladin does - even inaction - he.will.fall.

Then spin the knife telling the player: "You see what you did?!? You monster!!!"






If you are in a situation where the options are 'evil act or die', it's still a choice, despite what all the foolish relativists who think they've found something when they produce thought experiments of this nature.
True - the question is whether "killing an innocent" always qualifies as Evil - or whether it's context-sensitive in a way that some other acts aren't.


Regarding "are there circumstances where 3.5ed Paladins might be expected to kill innocents and Not Fall" it should be said that the Order of Illumination from Complete Adventurer is all paladin-rogues and cleric-rogues, and:

"The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread"

and

"Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors (the PRC for the paladin-rogues) to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel."

[lord_khaine]

True - the question is whether "killing an innocent" always qualifies as Evil - or whether it's context-sensitive in a way that some other acts aren't.

Im also 100% certain that this was not the sort of "killing" that BoED had in mind when talking about evil deeds.
There is a reason for why the book has the Mature Audience stamp. Its because it should not be read like how the devil reads the bible.

[Necroticplague]

True - the question is whether "killing an innocent" always qualifies as Evil - or whether it's context-sensitive in a way that some other acts aren't.
Why would it? None of the other acts are context-dependent, so why would one of the most fundamental ones be as such?



Regarding "are there circumstances where 3.5ed Paladins might be expected to kill innocents and Not Fall" it should be said that the Order of Illumination from Complete Adventurer is all paladin-rogues and cleric-rogues, and:

"The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread"

and

"Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors (the PRC for the paladin-rogues) to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel."
what does the fact that there’s an order whose paladins are much more likely to fall than others supposed to be supporting?

The fact that their a bunch of nut jobs doesn’t mean the cosmic force of good smiles on them any brighter than others.

[hamishspence]

None of the other acts are context-dependent, so why would one of the most fundamental ones be as such?

Actually BoVD specifically says of several of its "notable Evil acts" that some are Not Always Evil.

Lying, for example.

So it's safe to ignore BoED's use of Lying as an example of the sort of thing that is "never justified".

Similar principles apply to killing. Which BoVD goes out of its way to describe as context-sensitive - some killing is Murder, and therefore Evil, and some isn't.


BoED says that "justified violence" must primarily be directed against Evil - but there are exceptions, cases where violence against the Evil is not justified, or where violence against the Not Evil, is.

[legomaster00156]

Wait, why is the BoED being held up as a serious measure of goodness? :smallconfused:

[HouseRules]

Similar principles apply to killing. Which BoVD goes out of its way to describe as context-sensitive - some killing is Murder, and therefore Evil, and some isn't.

We cannot discuss too deeply with the subject without violating the forum rules.

Kill in a War is not consider Murder unless it is a War Crime, but that goes too deeply into politics that we cannot discuss the boundary of what is or not a War Crime.

Killing because the government requires death penalty is not Murder, and this is very obvious.
Paladins do these task all the time.

[hamishspence]

Wait, why is the BoED being held up as a serious measure of goodness? :smallconfused:

I personally think it has some good guidelines - but those should be interpreted with some nuance.

[Morty]

The situation described in the OP is ridiculous, contrived and generally designed to offer no good options, and as such deserves no further consideration. The general question of whether or not it's okay for a paladin to kill an innocent is a better one, even if it exposes a glaring weakness of the code of conduct.

On the whole, I would say that no, the paladin shouldn't fall as long as they really do believe they're doing the right thing. Because no matter what happens, the choice to kill an innocent to save others or accomplish some goal is a horrific one that will torture any good person, possibly for their whole life. And I would really rather the character (and by extension the player) had to grapple with their conscience and regret on their own, instead of the GM basically declaring the choice right or wrong by declaring that the paladin falls from grace or doesn't.

[2D8HP]

http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/trolleyMadness1.png
http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/trolleyMadness2.png

[D+1]

The situation described in the OP is ridiculous, contrived and generally designed to offer no good options, and as such deserves no further consideration.This, first and foremost.

The general question of whether or not it's okay for a paladin to kill an innocent is a better one, even if it exposes a glaring weakness of the code of conduct.But the answer is simple and obvious. It isn't okay to kill an innocent. But IF (and that's a damm big "if") a situation actually comes up in the game where THERE IS NO CHOICE, where a comfortable and fully morally righteous action CANNOT be found, then it is not a CHOICE to do bad for the sake of being bad and therefore no viable reason to blame the paladin PC for making the BEST choice that is possible. Choosing to become a paladin is not a choice to be perfect and never even FACE a moral choice. But choosing between BAD and WORSE is not the same thing as choosing between BAD and GOOD. DM's must be forced - by players - to stop treating them as if they were identical scenarios. And a character who finds themselves in a situation where the choices again are BAD and WORSE, but cannot make the choice and therefore does nothing, is not the same as saying, "I will do nothing because doing nothing IS the morally correct choice when faced with no other acceptable options."

And above all, without any argument whatever, the DM knows what is the correct choice for the PC (of any alignment) to make in EVERY situation, ALWAYS, and has made that interpretation ABUNDANTLY clear to the player, whether that's a "by the book" interpretation or not. When the player knows what the correct moral choice is supposed to be in the DM's eyes and THEN chooses incorrectly, THAT is a moral choice in the game - not an attempt to GUESS at the correct answer and then being told by the DM that they guessed wrong. If the DM EVER does not know the correct moral answer for any PC in any situation, then the players good-faith attempt to make that correct choice IS NEVER INCORRECT.


On the whole, I would say that no, the paladin shouldn't fall as long as they really do believe they're doing the right thing. Because no matter what happens, the choice to kill an innocent to save others or accomplish some goal is a horrific one that will torture any good person, possibly for their whole life. And I would really rather the character (and by extension the player) had to grapple with their conscience and regret on their own, instead of the GM basically declaring the choice right or wrong by declaring that the paladin falls from grace or doesn't.Here endeth the lesson.

[Kantaki]

snip

My answer would be „I stop imagining being in such a ridiculous situation”.
Or possibly „I jump off the trolley*”, if I have answer within the scenario.

*„and hunt down whoever put me there in the first place.”:smalltongue:

[Conradine]

Actually, honestly, I didn't meant to propose convolute scenarios.

The main question was rather simple:

if someone wants to do the hero and sacrifice himself, can the paladin assist him?

[hamishspence]

The main question was rather simple:

if someone wants to do the hero and sacrifice himself, can the paladin assist him?

IMO, yes, they can.

[Necroticplague]

On the whole, I would say that no, the paladin shouldn't fall as long as they really do believe they're doing the right thing. Because no matter what happens, the choice to kill an innocent to save others or accomplish some goal is a horrific one that will torture any good person, possibly for their whole life. And I would really rather the character (and by extension the player) had to grapple with their conscience and regret on their own, instead of the GM basically declaring the choice right or wrong by declaring that the paladin falls from grace or doesn't.

Why should the potentially delusional beliefs of some mortal have any impact on codes that lie above divine ones? The entire point of how paladins and Exalted characters can exist is because there is a right and wrong answer. Morality and Alignment at best line up by coincidence, so I don't see why the vagaries of the former should have impact on absoluteness of the latter. Doing the right thing at the cost of your soul's purity can be a perfectly moral action, and one some might be willing to take, but that doesn't stop it from being Evil. The fact the alignments were named as such is a rather unfortunate artifact.

[GrayDeath]

Of course they can.

A Paladin has no monopoly on Martyrdom.Rather the contrary in my opinion, he would be very proud of the other person making the Good Choice and help him however he can (but ideally later help his dependants, if any, and/or try and ressurect them, after all, they are cleary Good people and will do more Good ^^).

[2D8HP]

My answer would be „I stop imagining being in such a ridiculous situation”.
Or possibly „I jump off the trolley*”, if I have answer within the scenario.

*„and hunt down whoever put me there in the first place.”:smalltongue:


Seems absolutely legitimate to me!


if someone wants to do the hero and sacrifice himself, can the paladin assist him?


Well, I'd say that's it's up to the self-sacrificer (and the hero being "done") if they welcome a third and "assistance".

Personally I'd probably close the door and leave the couple some privacy, maybe put some "mood music" on, and set a table for their rest and recovery at most if I was feeling altruistic, but I'm no Paladin and may insist that the couple launder the sheets if it's my house.

[King of Nowhere]

If you are the innocent, and sacrificing yourself will save lives, BoED encourages you, strongly, to do so. So it's possible for it not to be covered by "For violence to be acceptable, it must primarily be directed at the Evil" principle.


wait. If you are a paladin and sacrifice yourself for the greater good, then you have killed an innocent (yourself).
And therefore you are evil and you must fall!
then again, if you fall when you commit to self-sacrifice, then the person who actually dies is an ex-paladin scum who's probably about to become a blakguard, so it's all right if he dies :smalltongue:


Why should the potentially delusional beliefs of some mortal have any impact on codes that lie above divine ones? The entire point of how paladins and Exalted characters can exist is because there is a right and wrong answer. Morality and Alignment at best line up by coincidence, so I don't see why the vagaries of the former should have impact on absoluteness of the latter.
I see. So you are saying that alignment are arbitrary and have nothing to do with what we normally call good or evil.
well, if your table plays with that premise, then it's entirely your choice. I would not like to call that good or evil, though, and that's not how most people see the concepts.

EDIT: I also don't see much point using the alignments that way. if they relate to morality, then they at least help you deciide who you should help and who you should kill. but if they are something abstract, they are just confusing and superfluous.

[Anymage]

Backing up a second, in stories it seems like the universe and the heroes have some sort of deal going. Or if you want to talk tables, the players and the DM.

If everyone wants the heroes to act like paragons of unblemished virtue, the world has to make allowances for that. There's always some way to make everything work out (although there may be high cost for the heroes), good ultimately triumphs over evil, and even the bad guys will for some reason follow a general code of not being too disturbing. The paladin can certainly allow one of his allies to be the one martyring themselves (otherwise a party full of paladins would all fall if one of them had to sacrifice for the greater good), but there aren't too many hard moral problems.

If the setting verges on the crapsack and everybody prefers virtues to be more tarnished, heroes get graded on the curve. If the ritual to summon the apocalypse demon requires sacrificing an innocent, maybe spoiling the ritual by killing the child first is the least bad option available. Heroes do the best they can with the situations they can, even if their absolute actions would make more traditional heroes queasy. It's tricky to do this without falling to problems like thinking that expedient torture is "good" (a point that comes up unfortunately often on message boards), but some people seem to like exploring morals in murkier places.

If the DM wants a crapsack world and holds heroes to an unimpeachable standard to make some nihilistic point, the only question is how many feeder levels you can get for you blackguard. Otherwise pick a class that people don't like to go all nihilist on, or pick a better table.

[Psyren]

Wait, why is the BoED being held up as a serious measure of goodness? :smallconfused:

Because it's the only one we have? (Well, I guess there's some stuff in Champions of Valor.)

[hamishspence]

Because it's the only one we have? (Well, I guess there's some stuff in Champions of Valor.)

And a few other books as well. Mostly for the other alignments though:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?241789-Alignment-related-3-0-3-5-book-statements-summary

[RedMage125]

I suggest a lot of people here look to the Book of Vile Darkness Chp 2 "The Nature of Evil", for what constitutes an Evil act. Of specific import is the "Action vs Intent" section, where a Paladin named Zophas ends up causing the deaths of innocents. Depending on Context, he may not even fall.


Nope, not an evil act. He is actually assisting in the performance of a Good act (a person sacrificing themselves to save others).
This is correct. Allowing another person to volunteer to sacrifice themselves is not "killing an innocent".

The monk is willfully offering to sacrifice his own life so there's no issue here. The right question would be,

How does a Paladin handle a monster that has bound its life phylactery style to an innocent being.
The Paladin keep the innocent person near him so that he can constantly be ready to destroy the monster each time it manifests while seeking out some alternative to separate the monster's soul from the innocent.

Ooooh, but its such good story(tm)! I will never understand why DMs feel the need to mess with paladins, but not with anyone else. You never hear about druids being put in cursed metal armor, or wizards losing books, or clerics missing prayer time. Always with the paladins though!
One should make note that creating moral quandries, or tempting a Paladin with "the easy way out" that leads to a fall can be GREAT stories. "no win" scenarios where the Paladin fals no matter what are just Jerkbag DMs.

The official answer, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds (p.9) is that any evil act still causes a Paladin to fall, no matter how many innocent lives would be saved by doing it.

Personally, I think this is a rather childish and simplistic definition of how good and evil works, and I don't tend to use it when I'm DMing. For me personally, if someone is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and they choose to kill one person rather than let thousands die by inaction, they've done the right thing, and I don't have much respect for the wisdom or goodness of a deity who says otherwise.

The most sense I can make of the official position is that D&D morality works how it does in children's fantasy stories, not how an intelligent adult would see it.
That, in and of itself, is a childish and simplistic view of D&D alignment.

In D&D, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are not simply points of view, they are "the forces that shape the cosmos" (3.5e PHB, Chp 6). Even the gods are beholden to these forces. they are completely objective and dispassionate. No amount of word semantics or post-hoc justifications will sway them. Committing an Evil Act in order to achieve a Good End is quite simply, committing an Evil Act followed by committing a Good Act. The objective forces do not care about your reasons.

Now, the mistake that you (and a lot of people) are making is the idea that "everyone in the D&D world shares this objective view". That is false. You could have an individual who knows of a prophecy (for the sake of argument let's say it's genuine) that an orphan in his second decade of life will cause Demogorgon to enter the Material Plane during the convergence of moons. The convergence is in 7 years. So this individual travels the world, slaughtering every orphan between the ages of 3 and 13 that he comes across. He tries his best to not commit any other evil deeds, but he will eliminate people who try and stop his mission. He views himself as Good. But by the RAW of D&D, the continuous, repeated, and above all unrepentant murder of hundreds of innocents means his alignment is Evil.

You can still have "morally gray" characters and situations in D&D. But the fact that there is an objective scale by which you are measured, judged, and possibly found wanting reinforces classic tropes of fantasy.

But you must realize that Paladins are held to a higher standard. A Lawful Good Fighter can choose the "lesser evil" act and remain Lawful Good. He'll probably be haunted by nightmares and grief and guilt, but he'll be fine. Paladins are the ones who are supposed to reject the dichotomy of said choice and refuse to give ground to Evil. They're supposed to find another way. Like I said about the person with the monster's life force bound to them, they should protect that person and find a way to save them. Do not do something evil simply because it is easy. Staying the course is supposed to be hard. That's the cost of all the ridiculous powers and abilities that the Paladin class offers. they get those extra powers because they've chosen to always do the right thing, even when it's much harder.

It should be noted that Paladins don't automatically "cease to be Lawful Good" after committing an evil act. That's also a common misconception. One act does not change your alignment (3.5e DMG, page 134). Now, if a Paladin committed an evil act, lost his powers, and now burned with resentment over it, showing no remorse, no repentence, and began to behave in even MORE morally questionable ways, then his alignment would change. Case in point: Miko Miyazaki. She killed her liege lord (evil act). But she did so because she (incorrectly) believed him to be evil, and in league with the city's enemies. She kept her faith in the gods, and asked for guidance on how to defeat evil. She died trying to stop an evil force. But as Soon pointed out to her, she never actually learned her lesson and admitted she was wrong. BUT...he also told her that she would see Windstriker again, meaning she was still going to a Lawful Good afterlife.


On the other hand, inaction is also a choice. So, choosing to act and do evil, or choosing inaction and letting evil happen, are morally on the same level.
Realistically, most morality choices are of lesser evil. A paladin can't be taken at fault for having to choose. Rejecting choice is especially an hypocrite way to avoid responsibility.
Except that the 3.5e RAW doesn't say that a Paladin falls for "allowing evil to happen". A Paladin falls for "intentionally committing an evil act". Extra emphasis on ACT. By definition, inaction does not cause a fall.

Now, as a Lawful Good individual who is dedicated to the ideals of Law and Good, the paladin likely feels immensely guilty for his inaction, and will seek to make ameds and redeem himself. but by the RAw he has not lost his powers.


"Being a paladin is like being a farmer. To do your job you have to step in the muck and get dirty. The challenge of our call is not to upheld the letter of an abstract ideal, but to apply it to the real world in a satisfying way"

"Being a paladin is about taking responsibility. You see a wrong, and you take uppn yourself the responsibility to make it better. If you fail, you take responsibility for the failure, you learn, and you do better next time."

"Pelor is up there in the sky. Down here, there's just us"

I like these quotes, though. Very nice.


On Trolleys (spolier blocked so as not to sideline the rest of the converstaion):

You know, the Trolley Problem got kind of brought up in a slantwise kind of way. It's important to note that the standard Trolley Problem designed by Foot is not relevant to ethics or morality, least of all by D&D metrics, and certainly not 3.5e Paladins. The Trolley Problem is not an ethical dilemma. All it tells you is the priority of Utilitarianism vs Personal Accountability in the person being asked. That is all.

Why is not relevant to D&D? Well, like I said, a Paladin only falls if they "intentionally commit an evil act". The Evil of the deaths of people in the Trolley Problem is on the head of the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. The Paladin at the switch has no agency to commit an Evil act. Yes, it could be argued that by throwing the switch, he is "killing" the person on the second track, but that means only that he should NOT throw the switch because he doesn't fall for failing to commit an act. A truly diabolical villain would tie 5 murderers/rapists/child molesters to one track, and a saintly old priest to the other, and not tell the person at the switch. Of course, this has no effect on the Paladin one way or another, because Action and Intent determine the alignment effect of an act, not consequences.

Point is, the Paladin is now in a deathtrap, and someone is going to die. The Paladin did not put these people there, and he has no agency to stop ALL of them from dying. He has not "murdered" anyone. The only question the standard Trolley Problem poses to the Paladin is: "is saving a net 4 lives more important than feeling responsible for the death of one?". And that's where it gets REAL screwy. Because, if the Paladin chooses not to throw the switch, has he placed his value of his own purity over the lives of 4 people? Isn't that selfishness? Contrariwise, if he was willing to risk falling by throwing the lever, because saving 4 lives is more important than him having Paladin powers, isn't that actually a very selfless act? Isn't he actually sacrificing his own power to save them? Like I said, it's all screwy, and moreso, because by the RAW, the Paladin has no agency to actually "murder" anyone in this scenario. 3.5e defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes" (BoVD).

The only good choice a Paladin in this scenario has is to, as I said, reject the dichotomy. The Paladin can throw himself in front of the trolley, probably dying in the process, using their own armored body to bring the trolley to a stop.

OTOH, there are 2 variants to the Trolley Problem that are relevant to D&D, and to Paladins. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants.

In the Fat Man variant, the Paladin is on a bridge over the runaway trolley, which is speeding towards 5 people tied to the tracks. Also on the bridge is a grossly obese man. The fat man is a total innocent. If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives. Not the standard Trolley Problem. And it is an Evil act, because this Paladin still should have chosen to sacrifice himself and not killed someone else to avoid that.

The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the fat villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.

[Telonius]

How it would probably go:

Monk: Come on, do it!
Paladin: Look, I'm having some serious qualms here. I can't just kill somebody because they ask for it.
Monk: (Unarmed strike)
Paladin: Hey, thanks!
Monk: No problem, I know how the whole Lawful thing is. Hey, would you mind aiming for the neck? Gut wounds are a pain.
Paladin: No problem, least I could do.

[Morty]

Why should the potentially delusional beliefs of some mortal have any impact on codes that lie above divine ones? The entire point of how paladins and Exalted characters can exist is because there is a right and wrong answer. Morality and Alignment at best line up by coincidence, so I don't see why the vagaries of the former should have impact on absoluteness of the latter. Doing the right thing at the cost of your soul's purity can be a perfectly moral action, and one some might be willing to take, but that doesn't stop it from being Evil. The fact the alignments were named as such is a rather unfortunate artifact.

I consider the choices, actions and inner struggles of the characters we actually see and play to be far more important and interesting than some abstract cosmic forces we're unlikely to interact with.

[flamewolf393]

Part of the problem no one ever addresses.

In our world, good and evil are social constructs. In the dnd world, they are concrete concepts with fixed definitions, and how they affect our world are VERY clearly defined and upheld by gods and devils alike. If a paladin commits an act that is within the stricture of evil, then the devils have a clear opening to make a potential claim on him, simply because the devils rule over the domain that action falls under. The paladin is tainted in at least some small way by that action no matter what the intentions were until he undergoes cleansing in the form of atonement.

If a paladin knowingly commits an evil act even for a good reason, thats still a crack in the holy armor protecting his soul. And that is why I LOVE the alternate alignment paladin, the CG paladin of freedom. They can do what they and their god believe is right without worrying about strict codes.

That being said, a gm should NEVER force a paladin to fall unless they really done ****ed up. If the paladin is sticking to good intentions there should always be a way out. Usually an atonement spell a day in meditation is more than enough because the god in question does not want to lose a good paladin.

[Almadelia]

Except that the 3.5e RAW doesn't say that a Paladin falls for "allowing evil to happen". A Paladin falls for "intentionally committing an evil act". Extra emphasis on ACT. By definition, inaction does not cause a fall.


Is this true though? It's not actually physically possible to not act. By existing you act on everything around you, and since you're presumably conscious during this time you're intentionally acting in a non-helpful manner. There's no such thing as not acting, your only choice is how you act. Now, clearly a Paladin doesn't fall if he tries and just outright fails to stop Evil. A Paladin also arguably doesn't fall if he doesn't try because the evil is so clearly out of his league; while I'm sure the idea of a hero facing down the necromancer alone is noble, if you're a kid with a stick and the other guy is Orcus you've really done nothing but given him another body. But it's definitely true that, from a purely semantic perspective, inaction is in and of itself an act. Imagine a Paladin just idling next to his Wizard girlfriend as she claims immortality by slaughtering an entire city's people in order to transmute herself into, I don't know, a Banshee. The Paladin doesn't do anything and just stands there, knowing what's going on.

Now, if I were the DM in this situation I'd firstly stop the session and 1. ask myself how I got into this mess with a Paladin and a Wizard who's clearly NE in the same room and 2. drop the Paladin to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral. But even without that, he's not actively doing anything, but this is clearly fall-worthy. Though he's not actively committing an Evil act, he's acting in such a manner as to knowingly allow an Evil act that he could stop (well alright I really doubt a Paladin could stop a Wizard of equal level from so much as taking a piss but you get the idea). At some point in time the line begins to blur as to what specifically counts as acting. Imagine a villain who's been committing horrid deeds through the entire campaign, he's basically a puppy-kicking card-carrying disney villain, he has never spared a single child's lolipop in his presence. And now, a dozen sessions after his defeat, the PCs see him just watching as they drive back a horde of demons; if he so much as cast a single spell, it'd be over for the PCs, but he doesn't. He's not actively helping, but he's actively maintaining his distance from the affair. That would be considered character development, something that signals 'hey, maybe he's gone Neutral.' I would probably disqualify him from being an Antipaladin for doing something like that.

When you actually stop and think about it, why does a Paladin fall for intentionally committing an evil act? Clearly, one single evil act is almost never enough to change your alignment, not to Neutral let alone Evil. But what it does do is make you slightly less Good. If you imagine the 3x3 grid, zoom in on the LG box, and then cut it up again and again and again - Outsiders would be sitting outside of the box entirely. They're in a league of their own, they effectively are the box - mortals don't compete with them. But even though they don't compare with Archons, Paladins are obligated to sit at the far corner of the LG box, that's what they represent, they are not just good people they are paragons of virtue. Being LG isn't good enough for them, they have to be more LG than everyone else around them. They represent the best of the best that the Material has to offer. They do this because they believe in being Lawful Good, it's a passion for them, something they do because they love to do it. So when a Paladin commits an Evil act, they slide ever so slightly down towards Neutral, and that's enough to kick them out. They're still LG. They're just not LG enough.

[RedMage125]

Is this true though? It's not actually physically possible to not act. By existing you act on everything around you, and since you're presumably conscious during this time you're intentionally acting in a non-helpful manner. There's no such thing as not acting, your only choice is how you act.
Well, this is a 3e forum, and 3.5e quite clearly tells us what is Good and what is Evil (PHB, DMG, BoVD, BoED). It is important to remember that a view that amounts to "Evil triumphs when Good does nothing" is not in keeping with the default RAW of D&D. Good and Evil are both objective, separate forces, and the absence of either is Neutrality. The Book of Vile Darkness (Chp 2) is quite clear that it is Action and Intent that affect whether an act is Evil, not Consequences. Look to the Zophas example in that book for citation of that. Zophas does not fall when the innocents killed in the rockslide he caused when it was a genuine accident taht he could not have predicted.


Now, clearly a Paladin doesn't fall if he tries and just outright fails to stop Evil. A Paladin also arguably doesn't fall if he doesn't try because the evil is so clearly out of his league; while I'm sure the idea of a hero facing down the necromancer alone is noble, if you're a kid with a stick and the other guy is Orcus you've really done nothing but given him another body. But it's definitely true that, from a purely semantic perspective, inaction is in and of itself an act. Imagine a Paladin just idling next to his Wizard girlfriend as she claims immortality by slaughtering an entire city's people in order to transmute herself into, I don't know, a Banshee. The Paladin doesn't do anything and just stands there, knowing what's going on.
Look, I'm making a point strictly about the RAW here. Show me, with an example drawn from a rules source, that what the Paladin in your example did was "intentionally committing an evil act" emphasis on all of those words, really. Find that, and i weill concede the point.



Now, if I were the DM in this situation I'd firstly stop the session and 1. ask myself how I got into this mess with a Paladin and a Wizard who's clearly NE in the same room and 2. drop the Paladin to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral. But even without that, he's not actively doing anything, but this is clearly fall-worthy. Though he's not actively committing an Evil act, he's acting in such a manner as to knowingly allow an Evil act that he could stop (well alright I really doubt a Paladin could stop a Wizard of equal level from so much as taking a piss but you get the idea). At some point in time the line begins to blur as to what specifically counts as acting.
Well, 3e Paladins are explicitly prohibited from knowingly associating with Evil characters, other than actual efforts made to redeem them, or they violate their CoC. You said the NE wizard was the Paladin's girlfriend? That raises way to many questions that I would have to dissect your entire scenario completely to respond to your points.

Oh, and I think a paladin of about up to 4th level could seriously wreck a wizard of equal level. The paladin's saves are very good, thie AC and hit points well above the wizard's. They're immune to fear, they can heal themselves...and that smite is going to seriously mess the wizard up. 2nd level and lower spells have a much lower likelihood of incapacitating a paladin. Once the wizard gets 3rd level spells it gets dicey. They could conceivably fly, and boost their AC to the point that a melee-focused paladin won't be able to hit them with a ranged weapon, and then just rain spells or arrows on them at leisure.


Imagine a villain who's been committing horrid deeds through the entire campaign, he's basically a puppy-kicking card-carrying disney villain, he has never spared a single child's lolipop in his presence. And now, a dozen sessions after his defeat, the PCs see him just watching as they drive back a horde of demons; if he so much as cast a single spell, it'd be over for the PCs, but he doesn't. He's not actively helping, but he's actively maintaining his distance from the affair. That would be considered character development, something that signals 'hey, maybe he's gone Neutral.' I would probably disqualify him from being an Antipaladin for doing something like that.
The last bit of this is worded oddly, and I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.


When you actually stop and think about it, why does a Paladin fall for intentionally committing an evil act? Clearly, one single evil act is almost never enough to change your alignment, not to Neutral let alone Evil. But what it does do is make you slightly less Good. If you imagine the 3x3 grid, zoom in on the LG box, and then cut it up again and again and again - Outsiders would be sitting outside of the box entirely. They're in a league of their own, they effectively are the box - mortals don't compete with them. But even though they don't compare with Archons, Paladins are obligated to sit at the far corner of the LG box, that's what they represent, they are not just good people they are paragons of virtue. Being LG isn't good enough for them, they have to be more LG than everyone else around them. They represent the best of the best that the Material has to offer. They do this because they believe in being Lawful Good, it's a passion for them, something they do because they love to do it. So when a Paladin commits an Evil act, they slide ever so slightly down towards Neutral, and that's enough to kick them out.


It's because paladins are held to a higher standard. It's not because it makes them "less good" (there isn't a point scale). It's because they are empowered by the forces of Good. They get those powers in exchange for the oath to never use evil means, even if the greater good will be served. They're supposed to be the shining beacon. When they allow evil to taint them (again, through action, which must be intentional and willing), they are no longer worthy of those powers.


They're still LG. They're just not LG enough.

So many people miss this. Do you know how many stories, even in 3e, that I hear about some DM saying "you did something bad, your alignment shifts from LG to CE". So many violations of RAW in that kind of example. Like I said in my post, Miko Miyazaki remained LG to the bitter end. She was still an ***hole, though.

[hamishspence]

Like I said in my post, Miko Miyazaki remained LG to the bitter end.

Given The Giant's phrasing in War & XPs:

"She pushed and pushed at the boundaries of what it meant to be LG and a paladin, until finally she broke through"



I can believe that she was already very close to the LG/LN border for a long time before her actual Fall, and during it, may have crossed the border.


She died trying to stop an evil force. But as Soon pointed out to her, she never actually learned her lesson and admitted she was wrong. BUT...he also told her that she would see Windstriker again, meaning she was still going to a Lawful Good afterlife.




As for seeing Windstriker and having him "visit her as much as he is able" - he can get permission to travel.


You asked why X is a certain way in this comic strip. I, the author, am telling you why. Windstriker is not a dead soul, he is a living Celestial creature; he is not bound by the same rules. He needs a pass because he is in the service of the Twelve Gods and will likely be assigned to another paladin at some point, from whom he must get permission before going on a trip. If he were unemployed, he would be free to go to whatever plane he could find a way to travel to. Dead souls have no such freedom.

[RedMage125]

Given The Giant's phrasing in War & XPs:

"She pushed and pushed at the boundaries of what it meant to be LG and a paladin, until finally she broke through"



I can believe that she was already very close to the LG/LN border for a long time before her actual Fall, and during it, may have crossed the border.
I interpreted that same line to mean that she finally committed an act which was Evil. Roy points out to her that she does not seem to have "concern for the dignity of sentient beings", which is aline from the 3.5e PHB about Good.


As for seeing Windstriker and having him "visit her as much as he is able" - he can get permission to travel.

That's interesting. I've never seen that before.

[King of Nowhere]

there are people discussing different things here.
some are discussing morality.
and some are discussing RAW.

The first group is considering the matter as "would it be morally justified to do X"
The second group is considering the matter as "what does the books say about it".

that's why there are insurmontable differences in opinion