yet another paladin dilemma (not related to falling)

[King of Nowhere]

So, the recent sprout of paladin threads made me curious about how a paladin would handle a grey situation in my campaign world.

I will start with the premise that none of my players is a paladin, so there's really no in-game implication. My players are free to take the decision they prefer, and explore the ramifications in game. I run a "shades of grey" world, and have no problem with light grey and dark grey allying against black.

My campaign world has a worldwide secret criminal organization that's a crossover between illuminati/freemasons and "all financial institutions are plotting to rob us" conspiracy theories. they have no nefarious plot to destroy civilization or anything, though. they simply want to be rich and powerful. they are like parasites, sucking money out of the financial system.
Their leader (let's call him crimelord) is definitely a bad person. he embezzled countless millions, he ordered murders. he took his home nation of bananagua and twisted its laws so that it would be virtually impossible to get convicted of anything with good lawyers (he ramped up the guarantees to the accused to the point that prosecution became impossible; and once the defendant has been acquitted, it's very easy for the accuser to get slapped with a slander suit, so most people won't even try). the one thing he did not do is cause wars for profit; that's the one moral event horizon he won't cross. He's not above taking advantage of wars once they start without his intervention, though.
On the other hand, the crimelord has been a major factor of peace and stability. A firm believer in long-term planning (all my long-term villains are firm believers in long-term planning. I imply that those who aren't don't last long), he has cautiously fostered economic growth, for purely egoistical reasons: it is easier to embezzle money in a prosperous economy than in a poor one. He acts like a modern financial shark, and that requires an advanced, modern economy that is only possible if the world has a certain level of prosperity. A financial and political genius, in his 50 years of power (as a dwarf, he can live another couple centuries) he prevented economical crysis, found peaceful solutions to conflict and removed instable people from power, and he made money over all of it. his nation of bananagua is unjust, but the people have bread and circuses and a decent level of prosperity, and most are content enough.

now there is a big bad, and the crimelord decided to join the fight against him, on account of "if that guy wins, best I can hope for is that he'll made me a slave. he'll see me as a competitor and won't tolerate me. I'll take my chances with you guys instead". as the best diplomancer and spymaster in the world, he's been a valuable asset for the party; his information on the big bad attack plans have saved tens of thousands of lives, and he did persuade one of the more lukewarm allies of the big bad to switch sides. his financial manipulations are costing the big bad and his allies more than a lost battle.
Still, the crimelord remains a totally evil dude, and if he ever was tried for everything, it would take hours just to read the charges.

He would be a natural enemy of the party (I was surprised when the party decided to cooperate with him affter he crossed their path a few times, but it turned out to be an effective decision), and fearing the party would be above his capacity to stop, he is planning to offer them a pact:

- the crimelord won't have anybody killed, and will stop his organization from using murder, except against rival criminals
- the crimelord and his organization won't ever embezzle more than 5% of the GDP of any given nation.
- the crimelord will supply the party with information regarding other evils, and will offer assistance in rooting them out.

In exchange, the crimelord asks that the party won't hunt him or hamper his organization, that they deny the existance of his organization and stay out of any action that goes against them.

the crimelord can be trusted, to a reasonable extent. one that goes around backstabbing allies won't find allies and won't become leader of a worldwide criminal network. Also, in the long run he would be found out, and he won't take that kind of risk for a short term prize.

Now, I repeat that the party has no paladins, but I wonder: would a paladin be allowed by his code to make such a deal?

First answer would be no, he's an evil guy and can't be bargained with. then again, he'll become significantly less evil with this pact, so it can be considered an "attempt to redeem an evildoer".
there is also the war against the big bad to consider. I know the paladin code says you must not judge on consequences, but I am far more lax on it; I expect paladins to not be bloody stupid honor-before-reason bigots who would cause millions to suffer because they could not bend.

My personal answer is "in normal time, probably not; a paladin could take such a pact and stay a paladin only if he was genuinely convinced that the crimelord can be redeemed (which may even be the case; he's willing to be bad for power and money, but he doesn't need to be bad). Considering the war, and the importance of staying allies with the crimelord, a paladin would be justified in giving his word for himself, and then hope that after the war someone else will stop the crimelord. It would probably require some kind of atonement, though".

I also homebrewed a chaotic good order of paladins whose oath is much more lax, on the lines of "fight baddies however you can and make the world a better place", and they would be ok making that pact in all cases, as it can be argued that the crimelord is making the world a better place by fostering the economy, and as long as he can be prevented from the worst actions (no murder), then this pact is certainly benefitting the world as a whole.

It goes without saying that fighting the crimelord would have a high cost. no simple assassin could be effective against the party because they have plenty of allies willing to resurrect them and are immune to soul binding, but the crimelord would target their allies by ruining national economies, cause governments to collapse and be replaced by less competent governments, foster riots in the population. Possibly manipulating politics to bring some other power to war against the party's allies.

I'm curious as to your opinions on what a paladin should do in this case.

[MisterKaws]

If I were a PC Paladin, I'd take the pact and finish the bigger baddie. Then, after that, I'd retire. As the crime lord's personal assistant. No better way to ensure he fulfills the pact and gets redeemed than taking it in your own hands.

Would also mean I get to make a new character, since my Paladin would retire as an adventurer for the greater good.

[MultitudeMan]

So, the recent sprout of paladin threads made me curious about how a paladin would handle a grey situation in my campaign world.

I will start with the premise that none of my players is a paladin, so there's really no in-game implication. My players are free to take the decision they prefer, and explore the ramifications in game. I run a "shades of grey" world, and have no problem with light grey and dark grey allying against black.

My campaign world has a worldwide secret criminal organization that's a crossover between illuminati/freemasons and "all financial institutions are plotting to rob us" conspiracy theories. they have no nefarious plot to destroy civilization or anything, though. they simply want to be rich and powerful. they are like parasites, sucking money out of the financial system.
Their leader (let's call him crimelord) is definitely a bad person. he embezzled countless millions, he ordered murders. he took his home nation of bananagua and twisted its laws so that it would be virtually impossible to get convicted of anything with good lawyers (he ramped up the guarantees to the accused to the point that prosecution became impossible; and once the defendant has been acquitted, it's very easy for the accuser to get slapped with a slander suit, so most people won't even try). the one thing he did not do is cause wars for profit; that's the one moral event horizon he won't cross. He's not above taking advantage of wars once they start without his intervention, though.
On the other hand, the crimelord has been a major factor of peace and stability. A firm believer in long-term planning (all my long-term villains are firm believers in long-term planning. I imply that those who aren't don't last long), he has cautiously fostered economic growth, for purely egoistical reasons: it is easier to embezzle money in a prosperous economy than in a poor one. He acts like a modern financial shark, and that requires an advanced, modern economy that is only possible if the world has a certain level of prosperity. A financial and political genius, in his 50 years of power (as a dwarf, he can live another couple centuries) he prevented economical crysis, found peaceful solutions to conflict and removed instable people from power, and he made money over all of it. his nation of bananagua is unjust, but the people have bread and circuses and a decent level of prosperity, and most are content enough.

now there is a big bad, and the crimelord decided to join the fight against him, on account of "if that guy wins, best I can hope for is that he'll made me a slave. he'll see me as a competitor and won't tolerate me. I'll take my chances with you guys instead". as the best diplomancer and spymaster in the world, he's been a valuable asset for the party; his information on the big bad attack plans have saved tens of thousands of lives, and he did persuade one of the more lukewarm allies of the big bad to switch sides. his financial manipulations are costing the big bad and his allies more than a lost battle.
Still, the crimelord remains a totally evil dude, and if he ever was tried for everything, it would take hours just to read the charges.

He would be a natural enemy of the party (I was surprised when the party decided to cooperate with him affter he crossed their path a few times, but it turned out to be an effective decision), and fearing the party would be above his capacity to stop, he is planning to offer them a pact:

- the crimelord won't have anybody killed, and will stop his organization from using murder, except against rival criminals
- the crimelord and his organization won't ever embezzle more than 5% of the GDP of any given nation.
- the crimelord will supply the party with information regarding other evils, and will offer assistance in rooting them out.

In exchange, the crimelord asks that the party won't hunt him or hamper his organization, that they deny the existance of his organization and stay out of any action that goes against them.

the crimelord can be trusted, to a reasonable extent. one that goes around backstabbing allies won't find allies and won't become leader of a worldwide criminal network. Also, in the long run he would be found out, and he won't take that kind of risk for a short term prize.

Now, I repeat that the party has no paladins, but I wonder: would a paladin be allowed by his code to make such a deal?

First answer would be no, he's an evil guy and can't be bargained with. then again, he'll become significantly less evil with this pact, so it can be considered an "attempt to redeem an evildoer".
there is also the war against the big bad to consider. I know the paladin code says you must not judge on consequences, but I am far more lax on it; I expect paladins to not be bloody stupid honor-before-reason bigots who would cause millions to suffer because they could not bend.

My personal answer is "in normal time, probably not; a paladin could take such a pact and stay a paladin only if he was genuinely convinced that the crimelord can be redeemed (which may even be the case; he's willing to be bad for power and money, but he doesn't need to be bad). Considering the war, and the importance of staying allies with the crimelord, a paladin would be justified in giving his word for himself, and then hope that after the war someone else will stop the crimelord. It would probably require some kind of atonement, though".

I also homebrewed a chaotic good order of paladins whose oath is much more lax, on the lines of "fight baddies however you can and make the world a better place", and they would be ok making that pact in all cases, as it can be argued that the crimelord is making the world a better place by fostering the economy, and as long as he can be prevented from the worst actions (no murder), then this pact is certainly benefitting the world as a whole.

It goes without saying that fighting the crimelord would have a high cost. no simple assassin could be effective against the party because they have plenty of allies willing to resurrect them and are immune to soul binding, but the crimelord would target their allies by ruining national economies, cause governments to collapse and be replaced by less competent governments, foster riots in the population. Possibly manipulating politics to bring some other power to war against the party's allies.

I'm curious as to your opinions on what a paladin should do in this case.

First of all, may I say that I really love your world-building, King!

In terms of classic paladins, I don't think they'd go for it. I know she's not the perfect example, but Miko Miyazaki would rather see civilisation crumble than knowingly permit an evildoer to escape justice, and I'm reminded of Rorshach's response at the end of Watchmen as well. I'm left wondering what the Steve Rogers of MCU would do, but as he went kinda non-lawful, I reckon he'd go along with it, given the high stakes.

[Biggus]

I agree with multitude man on two things. Firstly, this sounds like an excellent world you've created, I would totally play in it. Secondly, a classic D&D Paladin wouldn't go along with this.

However, this doesn't sound like a classic D&D world, it sounds more like the real world, where very few if any of the people in positions of great power are truly "white knights", but are generally a light grey at best.

I like what you say about " I expect paladins to not be bloody stupid honor-before-reason bigots who would cause millions to suffer because they could not bend": in the real world, people who succeed in making the world a better place nearly always have to make uncomfortable compromises at times, taking a totally inflexible right-is-right-no-matter-what approach just doesn't work. At best, you get assassinated and become an inspiration to future generations, at worst you actually end up causing tremendous amounts of avoidable suffering.

So I'd say that within the context of your world, it would make sense for a Paladin to take the deal, especially if they genuinely believed they could help to shift the crimelord towards a lighter shade of grey in the process.

[King of Nowhere]

However, this doesn't sound like a classic D&D world, it sounds more like the real world, where very few if any of the people in positions of great power are truly "white knights", but are generally a light grey at best.


As I said, I prefer shades of grey.
The reason is that it is a good compromise between idealism and realism.
The white and black commonly expected from d&d setting just feels fake. real people are rarely white or black. the heroes and villains lack depth and motivation. I have troubles immersing in those settings.
the real world is mostly grey and grey, and that feels real, but it has a different problem: if everyone is grey, then there are no good guys and bad guys and I can't hope for someone to win. I get detached, I don't care what happens to the protagonist because, well, if he's not better than his opponents, why should I want him to win?
shades of grey takes, for me, the best of both. It feels real, the people feel real, and yet I can still say "this guy is in the right, i hope he wins".
My major villains tend to rarely commit open villany. Those who do are quickly found and defeated by some hero. they instead tend to be highly pragmatic people, good to their minions (you get more loialty) and loial to their allies (sure, you can backstab someone for a quick profit, but then everyone will see you as a loose cannon and will go against you). they prefer to resort to good means (builds better PR, and makes less enemies). they are also perfectly willing to use evil means to get what they want whenever it's the more convenient solution. Some will play nice for a long time, and then when all the pieces are aligned sping up some grand scheme all of a sudden.
Conversely, the good guys have altruistic goals and good intentions, but they will resort to evil means if desperate enough.
I also like the meaningful moral choices this gives the players. I set up a few powerful people/organization, each one with their plan, and have the players interact with it.
They acted very smart once they figured out the world, as they realized many of the villainous factions actually had pretty reasonable goals (get rich, keep those pesky humans out of our land, set up a system exploiting the working class without some paladin trying to overthrow the evil regime every week...) that could be realized without necessarily resorting to evil means. So they helped those factions reach their goal in exhange for alliance against some greater evil. Worked really well. Nowadays, the first thing they consider when encountering a new villain is how to recruit him.

I'm quite proud of the crimelord as a villain. he went against the party because the party was trying to overthrow the evil powers and ccreate a united world, while the crimelord used the divisions of the many nations and factions to his advantage. So the crimelord pretended to help them reach some common goals, and all the while he sold informations to their enemies and set them up for ambushes - some of whom forced them to flee and were significant setbacks. He also subtly gave them all manner of nuisances; from alienating old allies to hiring all the high level item crafter to deny the party the expensive items they were trying to commission. And all the while the crimelord operated through proxies, and for the better part of a year the players never realized he was responsible for all those little nuisances :smallbiggrin:.
They only discovered it when the big bad told them; the big bad knew the crimelord would see him as the bigger threat and ally with the party, and so he tried to drive a wedge between them. stil the party do not see the crimelord as an enemy, which is why he is considering offering them a stronger alliance; he thinks he can trust them, and it's going to be much cheaper than dealing with them in any other way.
he's not even sacrificing much. In a world where magic is becoming more and more common, an assassination has too much risk of bringing unduly attention (and high level divinations) on the crimelord's organization. As long as he limits himself to financial crimes, nobody is going to burn a bunch of 9th level spells to find him, and at worst some of his henchmen will face a few years of jail. Not stealing too much in any single nation is simply a long term strategy; you can butcher the cow for quick cash, but milking the cow is more profitable in the long run. And as for sharing information with the party, he still get those information from his spy network. It literally doesn't cost him a thing to share some of them with the party, as long as they agree to not compete with him.

I actually grew quite attached to the character; I hope the players will take the offer and let him go karma houdini.