This is the question? Can a Paladin do a Chaotic act without falling?

[hamishspence]

My answer? yes. To Prove it, we must first show that chaotic acts exist which are neither illegal, nor breaches of the Paladin Code, nor do they put bystanders at risk. here is my most obvious answer:

Tossing a coin to decide which way to go at a fairly blank junction. Entrusting your fate to Luck is a Chaotic Act. Nevertheless, it is also a simple method of determining a choice in the absence of other information.

Now a Paladin who OVERdid this, drifting through life on the whims of fate, would Fall, NOT from Good to Evil, but from Law to Chaos, WITHOUT in any way becoming closer to morally neutral, breaching the Paladins Code in any way, or breaking any laws.

It is likely that sympathetic superiors would say "This is not a reflection on you morally, you're a great guy, you're just too darn Chaotic to be a Paladin any more. If you want to try to be Lawful again, great, but if not, best wishes on your new career"

[Morty]

Was there ever any confusion about this?


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

By RAW, paladin doesn't fall for commiting a chaotic act, as long as it doesn't violate his code of conduct or change his alignment.

[Jayabalard]

Tossing a coin to decide which way to go at a fairly blank junction. Entrusting your fate to Luck is a Chaotic Act. Nevertheless, it is also a simple method of determining a choice in the absence of other information.There's nothing inherently chaotic to entrusting your fate to the laws of statistics.

You should try a better example, one that actually involves a chaotic act.

[Ancalagon]

Chaotic? Yes, as long as the alignment does not change... and you have to do a lot of chaotic acts for that.

Evil? No.

[NikkTheTrick]

Since Roy remained Lawful Good, a Paladin can commit as many chaotic acts as he did (provided they're not evil or violate Paladin's code).

[Querzis]

They arent many chaotic act in the first place. Being chaotic and lawfull is more about attitude and intent then actions anyway. For example, in a war against an evil country, a paladin got captured but he managed get out of prison and kill some guards on the way out. He just broke out of prisons, probably broke lots of law from the enemy country and killed some law enforcers in that country. He still did nothing chaotic, he did all of this because it was his duty and for his kingdom.

No, paladins dont fall for chaotic acts. But except actions that go directly against their paladin code and their duty, nothing they do is chaotic as long as they got a Lawfull attitude and intent and, while it is definitly chaotic to directly break their code or their duty, since their code of conduct and their duty is all about doing good, most of the time breaking the paladin code is also evil and we care more about the evil part then the chaotic part. A paladin who grossly violate the paladin code probably also willfully commited an evil act at the same time anyway.

[....]

What if a paladin opened his world to the Far Realm; a place of pure, ufettered chaos.

There's nothing evil about the gibbering mouthers and gibberlings that would pour our just very...you know....chaotic.

[Shatteredtower]

There's nothing inherently chaotic to entrusting your fate to the laws of statistics.Even though they tended to make Two-Face more unpredictable?

Deciding life or death on the basis of a coin toss doesn't do much for the building of a structured society. Even if you determined precedent by this fashion, the results become fairly chaotic, with exemptions based on chance instead of reason.

[Callista]

Well, okay: How about a paladin who helps a slave run away? That would be a CG act; and I doubt any paladin's code would include perpetuating slavery, so he's safe there (even if it's technically considered theft). In a system where "slavery" means "property with no rights", abuses are easy to get away with. Not something a strongly Good person (like a paladin) would want to support, even if he has to live with it.

My opinion, said pally probably sends payment to the owner to offset the loss caused by the "theft".... Lawful types tend to be scrupulous like that. Also, after having seen the problem for himself, a LG persno would probably proceed to try to get the laws changed to either give slaves rights or abolish slavery--a Lawful way of accomplishing that particular goal.

Anyway, helping a slave escape would probably be a CG act--moderately chaotic, strongly good--which I can definitely see a paladin performing. Most strongly Good people don't like to see other people reduced to the status of property without rights, however sanctioned it is by law.

So yeah, it makes sense, both in a RAW way and an RP way.

[dragongirl13]

All right, time to break out the alignment geekery.

Lawful Good does not imply that the character must follow every single law laid before him/her. The character can choose to disobey an unjust law or a law that violates his/her personal moral code. A paladin must be true to her morals, and if that involves disobeying an unjust law to do something that will satisfy his/her code is perfectly okay. It is only when a paladin commits a chaotic act that would violate his/her code, the code of his/her deity, or the fundamental Paladin Code that he/she falls.

If a paladin commits a chaotic act because it doesn't violate his/her moral standards, the code of his/her deity, and the Paladin Code or because not committing the act would violate his/her morals/deitycode/paladincode.

If a paladin commits a chaotic act for selfish reasons, for treasure, for glory or because of peer pressure, the paladin will fall.

If a paladin commits a chaotic act under mind control, I believe that they do not fall because it wasn't them who really committed the act.

[Alfryd]

By RAW, paladin doesn't fall for commiting a chaotic act, as long as it doesn't [grossly] violate his code of conduct or change his alignment.
Precisely.

If a paladin commits a chaotic act for selfish reasons, for treasure, for glory or because of peer pressure, the paladin will fall.
No. He/she will not, unless the act is a gross violation of his/her code of conduct or triggers alignment shift.
If it IS a gross violation of their code of conduct, but performed subject to magical compulsion or misleading information, then the paladin will still Fall, but Atonement costs no XP. magical compulsion will never cause alignment shift.

People are putting far too much emphasis on the 'legality' aspect of Lawful here, when Consistency is really the key concept to bear in mind.

[Sisqui]

If it IS a gross violation of their code of conduct, but performed subject to magical compulsion or misleading information, then the paladin will still Fall, but Atonement costs no XP. magical compulsion will never cause alignment shift.


You know, I've always had a problem with that part, especially the magical compulsion thing. Isn't that like blaming the slave? Evil requires intent. If you are compelled by an outside intelligence and subject to its dictates, why should YOU be held responsible? It just validates slavery to me. But then, I might just be too lawful. Or chaotic. Or whichever it is that gets PO'd by the kind of illogical thought process that blames the victim.

[Alfryd]

If you are compelled by an outside intelligence and subject to its dictates, why should YOU be held responsible?
I believe it's intended to discourage Paladins from allowing themseves to fall under magical compulsion so that they can violate their code without technical guilt.
Paladin: Y'know, it sure would be awful if the party sorceror cast dominate person upon me, thus compelling me to eat them babies. Whoops! Whaddaya know! I've failed my Will save! Damn, but I love baby-meat."

Of course, atonement is generally a pretty trivial affair in that case, so, yeah, It's not a perfect fix.

[The Extinguisher]

Yeah, but then you just eat evil baby flesh. Problem solved.

[Dr Strangelove]

Performing a Chaotic act does not change your alignment from Lawful. It is when, given a choice, you prefer chaotic acts to lawful ones, that you are considered chaotic. That is to say, a paladin acting against the lawfully appointed magistrate in a town is technically chaotic, but if the magistrate is corrupt it the circumstances justify it.

Also, decisions that have no implications don't really count towards alignment. That would be kind of silly.

[Tarvok]

Remember that a Lawful Good character, when violating the laws of men, generally does so in obedience to Higher Law. Thus, for example, if a paladin found himself living in a society that condoned slavery, that was supposedly founded upon the law of a god, or the philosophy of a saint, that condemned slavery, his act of liberation would not be a chaotic violation of the laws of his society, but rather a lawful act of obedience to the Law of his God.

Remember, however, that not all Lawful Good characters would go out of their way to free the slaves. Though modern thinkers pretty much universally condemn slavery as a definitive evil, the subject was slightly more controversial in earlier societies (the sort that form the backdrop of most D&D campaigns). A paladin is perfectly capable of considering certain kinds of involuntary servitude to be not only lawful, but good. For example: is it better to have condemned criminals rot together in prison where they swap tales and teach one another how to be more skilled criminals once their term is up, or is it better for them to be working for their former victim (or whomever the victim chose as their agent in this), generating wealth for the victim, and learning job skills that can be used once their term is up?

[Aquillion]

Not only are paladins allowed to perform chaotic acts; they are, under some circumstances, required to perform them.

The only part of the Paladin code that they are required to keep to with absolute strictness, one-hundred precent of the time, no exceptions, is the prohibition against willingly committing an evil act--even one evil act will cause a paladin to fall instantly. All the rest is more flexable; a Paladin only falls if they "grossly" violate the other parts of the code. Having a friendly chat with a slightly evil person, breaking an essentially unimportant promise, and so forth wouldn't endanger their status unless they did it often enough to no longer be considered Lawful Good.


If it IS a gross violation of their code of conduct, but performed subject to magical compulsion or misleading information, then the paladin will still Fall, but Atonement costs no XP. magical compulsion will never cause alignment shift.The really odd thing about this part is that the part of the Paladin's code that is the strictest in other senses (no committing evil acts) contains a clause that they have to be willing to cause instant failure... while the rest of the code doesn't.

Going by the extremely technical wording of the RAW, a Paladin who is mind-controlled to stab innocent children will not fall, since the code only forbids willing evil act... but a Paladin who is mind-controlled and forced to curse the lawful king in front of the entire court could fall, since this is probably a gross violation of their duty to respect legitimate authority.

(And yes, I know most people don't like the idea of Paladins falling for unwilling acts... but the wording of Atonement makes it pretty clear that it's possible, while the Code itself makes exceptions only for unwilling evil acts. Nobody ever said the rules made any sense... you would think, operating under all these convoluted restrictions and requiring all those different stats, that Paladins would be a somewhat better class than they actually are.)

[Alfryd]

...since this is probably a gross violation of their duty to respect legitimate authority.
Evil acts are automatically gross violations of the Paladin's code of conduct. I think the definition given is simply inconsistent.

[pjackson]

You know, I've always had a problem with that part, especially the magical compulsion thing. Isn't that like blaming the slave? Evil requires intent. If you are compelled by an outside intelligence and subject to its dictates, why should YOU be held responsible? It just validates slavery to me. But then, I might just be too lawful. Or chaotic. Or whichever it is that gets PO'd by the kind of illogical thought process that blames the victim.

I don't think a Paladin would have a problem with it.
A Paladin who was forced or tricked into performing an evil act would likely blame themself anyway, and would want to atone.
Falling whilst under magical compulsion prevents the Paladin's powers from being used in the service of evil. Atonement is a small price to pay for that.

[Aquillion]

Evil acts are automatically gross violations of the Paladin's code of conduct. I think the definition given is simply inconsistent.The code of conduct is very specific:

Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).Note that the code is specifically listed; there are certain things in it, and certain things that aren't. Nowhere in the Paladin code does it say that unwilling evil acts violate it to even the slightest degree. They don't grossly violate the code of conduct, because the code of conduct doesn't forbid them at all... paradoxically, only the other, lesser offenses can be gross violations when you're talking about magical compulsion.

Per RAW, any paladin who is forced to do any of the other things listed in a way that "grossly" violates the code will lose their abilities (until they get an Atonement, which is XP-free for paladins who were magically compelled to break the code in this fashion.)

[Soups]

Ha! This reminds me of my DM being an alignment nazi.

His argument for paladin's are: As long as they do something in the name of good, they can never fall. They can blow up a kingdom to free slaves, he will steal medicine for a family if they can't afford it. BUT, If i want to be a lawful neutral cleric, I can't.

I personally believe alignment is your general tendencies. As long as the paladins don't willingly do evil acts, while following the code, they really never fall (unless they do something painfully stupid, as far as the PC is concerned). It's easier of you realize that D&D, while it does have magic, was trying to base it off real life in a way. People make mistakes. Is it really fair to make a pally fall because of a mistake? That is what attonement and common sense is for (never really agreed on miko being a fallen paladin)

Desisions about falling paladins are easy if your group plays like monkeys on heroin. My club loves to have thier chaotic characters be "chaotic stupid". Sure, thier character has 18 int, but apparently, raiding a supply shop in the name of doing something (atacking a gang) is justifiable and not an evil act. They are chaotic.

My brain hemorages every session I try to role play.

[Sisqui]

I believe it's intended to discourage Paladins from allowing themseves to fall under magical compulsion so that they can violate their code without technical guilt.
Paladin: Y'know, it sure would be awful if the party sorceror cast dominate person upon me, thus compelling me to eat them babies. Whoops! Whaddaya know! I've failed my Will save! Damn, but I love baby-meat."

Of course, atonement is generally a pretty trivial affair in that case, so, yeah, It's not a perfect fix.

But if a paladin did that, THAT would be the offending act, not the actual killing of babies wouldn't it? That seems to be a very different thing from having some 20th level enchanter spell you to infiltrate your paladin order and kill your comrades.

Paladin: "You want me to go forth and smite evil?"
God: "Yes"
Paladin:"And possibly die untold horrible deaths to be followed by resurrection and yet more untold horrible deaths?"
God:"Yes"
Paladin:"In your name, to spread your faith and therefore your power?"
God:"Yes"
Paladin:"But, if some evil sorcerer enchants me and I do something I would NEVER willingly do otherwise, I get the blame?"
God:"Yes"
Paladin:"Fark you!"
THUD!


I don't think a Paladin would have a problem with it.
A Paladin who was forced or tricked into performing an evil act would likely blame themself anyway, and would want to atone.
Falling whilst under magical compulsion prevents the Paladin's powers from being used in the service of evil. Atonement is a small price to pay for that.

But that is a failing of their understanding of the human condition- not something to be encouraged unless you want your followers to demean guilt and sin by wallowing in pseudo-guilt. The desire of a deity who even has paladins should be to uplift the soul, not weigh it down pointlessly.

[Alfryd]

The code of conduct is very specific... Note that the code is specifically listed...
Actually, it isn't.

...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth...
The and-so-forth bit is actually pretty open to interpretation, although there's general agreement on most points. (It's where wiggle room applies. Personally, for instance, I've never seen how poisoning someone is intrinsically more Evil than sticking them on sharp metal implements until they bleed to death, but that's just me.)

...paradoxically, only the other, lesser offenses can be gross violations when you're talking about magical compulsion.
Precisely. It's a paradox- i.e, a contradiction. Therefore it may- indeed must- be safely ignored. Evil acts are always a gross violation of the code of conduct, certainly in spirit if not by the letter. So either ignore the 'magical compulsion' bit or the 'unwilling evil' bit.


But if a paladin did that, THAT would be the offending act, not the actual killing of babies wouldn't it?
Yes, but by that argument, Hinjo was responsible for killing most of the senior members of the Sapphire Guard.
After all, he knowingly sent them to near-certain death in a battle to which outcome they were highly unlikely to make any difference. He had the power, he made the decision, and he knew the consequences. Everything else is temporizing moral cowardice.

[Inhuman Bot]

In theory. There was a dragon article about chaotic paladins. and as has been said before, if it isnt evil or violates his/her code of conduct.

[Jayabalard]

Even though they tended to make Two-Face more unpredictable?

Deciding life or death on the basis of a coin toss doesn't do much for the building of a structured society. Even if you determined precedent by this fashion, the results become fairly chaotic, with exemptions based on chance instead of reason.that's a very specific sort of situation... there's a pretty big difference between

letting a coin toss decide when there's nothing else to make a decision on (the given example)

and


ignoring logic and letting random chance choose when there are other, more logical methods.(twoface)

So while twoface is pretty clearly chaotic, the example given is not.

[Gol_Stoan]

I have been in a game with someone who played a "Paladin of Freedom"
Code of Conduct

A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm

Goes to show how loony things can get allowing stuff from supplemental books. :smalltongue:

[Green Bean]

The Code of Conduct for that class has always bugged me. A strict reading means that if you help a watchman subdue a criminal, you'll fall.

[Alfryd]

A strict reading means that if you help a watchman subdue a criminal, you'll fall.
Provided the criminal was guilty of something genuinely Evil, I doubt it.

[the_tick_rules]

well the paladin code states evil acts are unacceptable, not chaotic. So i wouldn;t say they do. But as you said fellow paladins may try to reign in their member. plus bending the code a little may tempt the paladin to try more of it.

[Sisqui]

Yes, but by that argument, Hinjo was responsible for killing most of the senior members of the Sapphire Guard.
After all, he knowingly sent them to near-certain death in a battle to which outcome they were highly unlikely to make any difference. He had the power, he made the decision, and he knew the consequences. Everything else is temporizing moral cowardice.

Ah, but there is a vast difference in being responsible and being at fault. It was Hinjo's duty to live up to the responsibility entrusted to him: protect the gate. It was the paladins' responsibility to live up to their committments and die defending it if necessary. Hinjo did not CAUSE their deaths- Xykon and Redcloak did that. My example from before was to illustrate that the paladin's evil act was to knowingly and willingly place himself in the control of someone who would exercise that control to produce an EVIL outcome. Even if he isn't in command of himself during the later commission of an evil act, the voluntary submission to the will of a person known to commit evil acts is something the paladin should justly be held accountable for. Any evil acts committed afterwards are his fault whether he was compelled at that point or not. Basically like being responsible for drunk driving- you aren't able to use good judgement to drive but you were the one who gave up that good judgement voluntarily by getting wasted. Hinjo's ordering the paladin's to fulfill their oaths and defend the gate was a GOOD one. And each one was subject to their own conscience and could freely have chosen to disobey his order. He did not compel them by any means- physical or magical- to do so.

[Alfryd]

Hinjo did not CAUSE their deaths- Xykon and Redcloak did that.
Neither did our hypothetical Paladin cause the death of that baby. The mind-controlling sorceror did. But the paladin made a decision which he knew would result in baby-meat.

You can argue that it was Hinjo's duty to sacrifice his best and brightest, in order to slightly improve Soon's odds in battle against Xykon (a battle, after all, on whose outcome the fate of the world hung,) but just because it's the lesser of two evils doesn't mean it ain't an evil.
I tend to give Hinjo the benefit of the doubt, since the Greater Good really was at stake and his underlings were, theoretically, prepared for just such an eventuality, but this is very, very iffy moral ground.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Ordering your soldiers to their deaths is not an evil act. That is the nature of war. Hinjo did that to bolster the strength of the defenders knowing that he may need every last one of them to defeat an epic level lich.

[Purple Cloak]

yeah if you think about it they were their to back up soon, its just unfortunate that their sacrafice was necasery as Xykon made it to the throne room

[Alfryd]

Ordering your soldiers to their deaths is not an evil act. That is the nature of war.
Oh, okay. I just wanted to have that point clarified.
A Lesson in Resource Management (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html)
Everything Sits Better on a Ritz (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0192.html)
Change of Direction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)

Of course, it sure would be nice if those soldiers could be sent off to a battle where they could realistically make a meaningful difference, but as we've established, that's strictly optional.

[Sisqui]

Neither did our hypothetical Paladin cause the death of that baby. The mind-controlling sorceror did. But the paladin made a decision which he knew would result in baby-meat.

Er...that was my point.........:smallconfused:


You can argue that it was Hinjo's duty to sacrifice his best and brightest, in order to slightly improve Soon's odds in battle against Xykon (a battle, after all, on whose outcome the fate of the world hung,) but just because it's the lesser of two evils doesn't mean it ain't an evil.

It is NOT evil. Ordering them to their deaths for his own amusement is evil. Ordering them to their deaths to try to tip the odds in the favor of not allowing someone to destroy all creation is absolutely not evil. It is unfortunate, it is tragic, but it is beyond the realm of credibility to think it is evil. Sacrificing the lives of people you love and respect so that untold numbers of others can live is considered a GOOD act in almost any ethical system I have ever heard of. Hell, even evil people acknowledge it is good, they just also think it's stupid.


I tend to give Hinjo the benefit of the doubt, since the Greater Good really was at stake and his underlings were, theoretically, prepared for just such an eventuality, but this is very, very iffy moral ground.

I beg to differ. There is nothing iffy about it whatsoever. Everyone in the Sapphire Guard willingly undertook those obligations and willingly saw them through. If what Hinjo or any of the other paladins had done was "iffy", well, we have seen that the twelve gods voice their opinions on such things quite forcefully. By your logic no commander in any war anywhere was ever on solid moral ground.

But even if that were not the case, that was NOT my original argument. What I said was that it was unreasonable for a god who even has paladins- a god who supposedly wants to foster justice- to make the penalty for crimes committed by an unwillingly ensorcelled person fall on them and not the magic user. Or hell, even on them AND the magic user. If they did not willingly submit to the enchantment they should not be held accountable for the results- anything else is unjust. If they DID willingly submit, then YES, they should fall.

[Totally Guy]

I knew a paladin who stopped being lawful, he just sat around the house all day in his underwear. Did lots of good but wouldn't go out to get a job. He fell but then converted those paladin levels to Slackguard.:smalltongue:

[Setra]

Neither did our hypothetical Paladin cause the death of that baby. The mind-controlling sorceror did. But the paladin made a decision which he knew would result in baby-meat.
No, the sorceror made the choice for him.

[Alfryd]

No, the sorceror made the choice for him.
Ah, but the Paladin deliberately suggested the notion, and deliberately failed his Will save. (You can do that, can't you?)

If they DID willingly submit, then YES, they should fall.
You're arguing that, even if a Paladin doesn't voluntarily raise the blade himself, merely making a decision that results in the gratuitous death of innocents is grounds for a Fall. Fine. But why in that case is Hinjo off the hook, when our hypothetical ensorcelled baby-eater ain't? Neither deliberately chose to raise the blade themselves, but both knew pretty well what was in store.

Ordering them to their deaths for his own amusement is evil.
Clearly, but that's not his sole motive. Ordering Hobgoblins to their deaths in order to clear the mountain path? That's just sound military planning- better to lose a handful of troops than risk the entire column en route. And feeding minions to the Guard monster? Well, that beasty's a valuable combat asset, and would probably have terminated plenty of careers regardless. Sending troops to be massacred as a diversion while the northern army takes the city? Ghastly, appalling, dreadful- remember the bit where it's a diversion?

On the other hand:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0433.html
-Raising your own soldiers as pale shells of their former selves, compelling them to fight twice in mockery of their own mortality? That's clearly despicable.
Oh, wait.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html
Of course, the important difference is that Ghost-Martyrs are all shiny and glowy and powered by 'positive energy' (whatever the hell that means,) and not all grey and gooey and icky, like zombies.
So that's cool, then.
Of course, zombies are just the animated remnants of vacant flesh, rather than a soul itself being kept from rightful rest, but I'm sure the Paladins consider that fine and dandy. Not that the hobgoblins have raised any especial complaints about being raised as shambling grey corpses, but what the hell do they know? Well, evidently more than the Paladins did, as the hobgoblins were marching alongside their dead for months, whereas the whole 'martyrdom' thing was apparently a tightly-guarded secret, and came as something of a shock. (But I digress.)

Everyone in the Sapphire Guard willingly undertook those obligations and willingly saw them through.
So what? By my understanding, Redcloak's hobgoblins are pretty darned loyal themselves. Logically, therefore, Redcloak doesn't need a justification for letting them drop like flies provided he has some flimsy ethical rationalisation to hand.

Sacrificing the lives of people you love and respect so that untold numbers of others can live is considered a GOOD act in almost any ethical system I have ever heard of.
The 'love and respect' issue is irrelevant here, and frankly, I consider it an insult to the dead. "Folks, I realise that you're pissed about being hung out to dry with no clearly-defined prior rationale, but I really respect your slavish, reflexive compliance."

Ordering them to their deaths to try to tip the odds in the favor of not allowing someone to destroy all creation is absolutely not evil.
I would remind you that Redcloak also considers himself a "Shepherd of all the goblin people", and most likely thinks of himself as working toward what he considers a Greater Good.
Say, for instance- (SoD spoilers)
What about ending the perpetual oppression and systematic slaughter of their ENTIRE SPECIES?

By your logic no commander in any war anywhere was ever on solid moral ground.
That is quite possible. War is fundamentally an excercise in probabilities and outcomes, where profit and loss is measured in ground and lives. There are no absolute moral certainties there, and I think it disingenuous and effete to hide behind excuses of loyalty or affection in order to rinse your hands of blame.

So, No. I don't get it. Why, in the name of the Greater Good, is Hinjo the Paladin entitled to sacrifice his willing minions in battles where there is at best a small chance they will make any meaningful difference, but Redcloak ain't?

"I pray to the twelve Gods that my friends can somehow manage to stop Xykon before even one of them dies, but I honestly do not expect it. ...They knew when they received their orders that they might be called upon to give their lives for the cause."
(No crap Sherlock.)
" ...There is a reason we only stationed Paladins of the Sapphire Guard in that room today. The Truth is... they are there as reinforcements."

Translation:

:redcloak: "Frankly, I don't expect any of them to come back alive."

[Renx]

You're all missing the point:

A paladin can commit a Chaotic act, no matter how strong, if the DM allows it.

[Kish]

So, No. I don't get it. Why, in the name of the Greater Good, is Hinjo the Paladin entitled to sacrifice his willing minions in battles where there is at best a small chance they will make any meaningful difference, but Redcloak ain't?"
Spoilers for Start of Darkness.

The answer to your question is contained in Redcloak's brother's death scene. Unfortunately, from what I remember, you don't accept the import of that either. "Redcloak is deluding himself, and deep down even he knows it" is not just Xykon's and Redcloak's brother's opinion; it's a fact. The Sapphire Guard were sacrificed to prevent the destruction of the entire world; the goblins and hobgoblins were sacrificed to prevent Redcloak from having to admit he was wrong.

[Sisqui]

Spoilered due to length of post:

Ah, but the Paladin deliberately suggested the notion, and deliberately failed his Will save. (You can do that, can't you?)

But I am arguing that a paladin who is unwillingly enchanted and DID NOT willingly fail his will save should not be punished the same way as one who did.


You're arguing that, even if a Paladin doesn't voluntarily raise the blade himself, merely making a decision that results in the gratuitous death of innocents is grounds for a Fall. Fine. But why in that case is Hinjo off the hook, when our hypothetical ensorcelled baby-eater ain't? Neither deliberately chose to raise the blade themselves, but both knew pretty well what was in store.

What part of "destroy all creation" says gratuitous death to you? If that gate falls, all of these paladins are dead anyway. All of them made the choice to go down fighting in an all out effort to try to keep that gate standing so that others might live and so they would continue to exist in the afterlife. Not one damn thing gratuitous about it. It was necessary! And who, exactly do you think was innocent- Xykon or Redcloak?


Clearly, but that's not his sole motive. Ordering Hobgoblins to their deaths in order to clear the mountain path? That's just sound military planning- better to lose a handful of troops than risk the entire column en route. And feeding minions to the Guard monster? Well, that beasty's a valuable combat asset, and would probably have terminated plenty of careers regardless. Sending troops to be massacred as a diversion while the northern army takes the city? Ghastly, appalling, dreadful- remember the bit where it's a diversion?

I will say again that there is a vast difference in intent- and evil is a function of intent. If you waste your resources because it amuses you, you are almost certainly evil. Hinjo was NOT amused by the deaths of those paladins, he just understood that this was the sole purpose of the Sapphire Guard- not to maintain law and order, not to defend Azure City, but to DEFEND THAT GATE. At any and all cost.


On the other hand:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0433.html
-Raising your own soldiers as pale shells of their former selves, compelling them to fight twice in mockery of their own mortality? That's clearly despicable.
Oh, wait.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html
Of course, the important difference is that Ghost-Martyrs are all shiny and glowy and powered by 'positive energy' (whatever the hell that means,) and not all grey and gooey and icky, like zombies.
So that's cool, then.

Except that the Sapphire Guard was willingly raised. The goblins etc... weren't. And if they were, then it isn't evil either.


So what? By my understanding, Redcloak's hobgoblins are pretty darned loyal themselves. Logically, therefore, Redcloak doesn't need a justification for letting them drop like flies provided he has some flimsy ethical rationalisation to hand.

If they are willing to follow him and believe in his cause then no, he doesn't. They have the right to determine the value of their lives and how they choose to give it just as the SG does.


I would remind you that Redcloak also considers himself a "Shepherd of all the goblin people", and most likely thinks of himself as working toward what he considers a Greater Good.
Say, for instance- (SoD spoilers)
What about ending the perpetual oppression and systematic slaughter of their ENTIRE SPECIES?

And I don't think his motives could in any way be considered as evil as Xykon's....at least at first. Once he becomes too invested in evil and commits certain acts referred to in a previous post, then his motives become less clear. But I don't think anyone ever has "just one" motive for anything they do. Sentient creatures are complex. Having one less than savory motive for an act does not rob your better reasons of their merit.


That is quite possible. War is fundamentally an excercise in probabilities and outcomes, where profit and loss is measured in ground and lives. There are no absolute moral certainties there, and I think it disingenuous and effete to hide behind excuses of loyalty or affection in order to rinse your hands of blame.

There is one moral certainty here that you seem bound and determined to overlook: it is an evil thing to fight an unjust war. It is a far more evil thing to not fight a just one. If Hinjo had gotten up on this high horse you are proposing, it could well have caused the end of the entire Ootsiverse. How much more morally justified can a military action get? And let's talk about the word "sacrifice." He isn't sending the SG to a battle where he knows beyond all doubt they will all die. He hopes they will live, meaning he at least entertains the possibility. Sacrifice as you seem to mean it usually involves someone with a knife and a bound, unwilling victim. There just is no comparison in these two situations.


So, No. I don't get it. Why, in the name of the Greater Good, is Hinjo the Paladin entitled to sacrifice his willing minions in battles where there is at best a small chance they will make any meaningful difference, but Redcloak ain't?
I never said Redcloak wasn't. He is using his troops as best he can in wartime. It is the ultimate goal I believe to be evil. The SG guards are trying to preserve creation by being raised as whatever type of undead they actually are. The goblins are trying to destroy it. (Well, at least Redcloak is. I doubt the other goblins realize he wants them to be soul martyrs to the cause as well. They are probably just under the illusion that they will conquer the city not undo the Ootsiverse entirely. If so, Redcloak's not telling them that definitely IS evil.)



:redcloak: "Frankly, I don't expect any of them to come back alive."

Most commanders on the shores at D-Day probably thought exactly the same thing.

[hamishspence]

Ordering someone into a sticky situation is not quite the same as ordering someone into a guaranteed-lethal situation, or, worse, KILLING someone for a tactical advantage, which is unmistakeably evil.

Saying: Swarm that dragon, in order to slow it down so a big weapon can be readied is more ruthless than saying Take That Beach, where massive casualties is expected, since winning is not even contemplated.

Shoving a man through the door to a reactor leak where radiation WILL kill him and yelling through the window ""fix it" is evil evil evil. Going in yourself, by contrast, is extremely Good, where you are sacrificing your own life to save others (Mr Spock) or the real life case of a Russian nuclear sub in a similar but not identical situation.

Ordering your own troops to engage the enemy then dropping missiles (like arrows) or bombs on them is evil. Murder of your own troops. Edward Longshanks did it in the somewhat unhistorical film Braveheart, and it showed just how horrible he was intended to be in the film.

Getting back to Chaotic acts, I interpret Law and Chaos in the simplest way possible: Control, and Freeing. A chaotic person says: the state is exerting too much control over people. And will take actions to try and correct this. It may include Lawful Behaviour, such as politely accepting judgements that go against you, but the long term motivation is Chaotic. Note that too much Lawful behaviour may cause you to change alignment.

Those Chaotic people who confine themselves to situations where the Control is being evil, such as ruthless tyrannies, and minimise the harm done in the process of weakening that control, are Chaotic Good.

Chaotic Neutral people simply try to weaken control over them, by moving around, ignoring summonses, hiding from authorities who want to arrest them, etc. They have little interest in society's control over other people.

Chaotic Evils are your nastiest kind of revolutionary. They commit atrocities and justify it by saying that the end (a freer society) justifies the means (murder of officials) The worst CE's want anarchy simply for the sake of it and accept no order "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Lawfuls want control, over themselves and/or others, and approach it by various means. Monks pursue Self-control, wishing to master every bit of their own bodies, which is why the cool abilities stop at Perfect Body, and epic monks get only slight improvements, in speed.

Other Lawful People may be more concerned with society, figuring that control over the people is needed to prevent anarchy, and approach it by means of Laws. LG people want laws that are well-thought out, and try and avoid making unnecessary ones, tempering justice with mercy.
LN people prize law as an end in itself, and dislike making exceptions for anyone. They think the Rule of Law is a goal to achieve.
LE people consider that it is necessary to do evil to people in the process of instituting Law. They will make brutal examples, believing the law and its enforcers should be feared, never loved.

Oh yes, and Neutral people generally lean only slightly in any one or two directions. However actively neutral people see the dangers in excessive behaviour along any of the axes, and try to moderate the actions of extremists of any kind. The Rilmani are Neutral outsiders in Fiend Folio that practice this.

Comments on my characterization of the major Law to Chaos axis, please?

[Hagentai]

Well it really falls upon a dm. I've met some DM's who have no earth business saying what is good or other wise.

But before we get of target, A pal is something that needs to be mulled over and struggled with. It's why the game has atonement spells (no matter how much that burns some DM's asses).