Is alignment dependent on ignorant actions?

[Kruploy]

What I mean to ask here is that if actions that would be labeled evil were to be committed by a character who did not know these actions would be evil would suffer an alignment hit or not?

I ask because I recently tricked my pals, one of whom was playing a paladin, into slaughtering an entire tribe of goblins.

I accomplished this by making a wounded guard testify to the party that the nearby goblin tribe was constantly assaulting the human village when, in fact, the opposite was true and the head of the human village just wanted to eliminate the goblin folk to get some valuable artifacts. Needless to say, the party, brought up in the age of RPGs where stuff like this is dime a dozen and fairly normal, bought this and unceremoniously unleashed a kill em all on the goblins that would shame Anakin Skywalker.

Now I believe that the paladin should suffer an alignment hit but at the same time, the guy got deceived and would not have killed the green dudes if he knew what was going on.

So if you commit an evil act unknowingly do you shift towards the dark side?

Or are you simply played for the fool?

Are you the victim or the criminal or both?

Blast your opinions guys.

[Mando Knight]

1.) Yes, killing an entire village because you didn't investigate someone else's deception would be evil. Paladins should hold such charges as a most serious matter.

2.) No, that's not act that would change one's alignment all on its own.

3.) The one who deceived another into killing a village committed Evil, and is not Good.

4.) The deception calls into question the terms of the Paladin's Code of Conduct itself, however: does "Willingly commit an evil act" from the standard 3.5 code require foreknowledge that the act would be evil?

5.) "LOL they were innocent, you fall!" is a terrible way to "challenge" a Paladin. You don't "challenge" a Wizard by suddenly having the party's hirelings actually be the Big Bad's minions, stealing the spellbook and then vanishing in the night, do you?

[Anxe]

This isn't something that would change someone's alignment, but its a great example of how a paladin can fall without knowingly breaking his code. Up to you if this counts as a violation of the code. Atonement is pretty simple in this case though. GET THE LIARS!

[Slipperychicken]

BoVD says that "tempting others to do wrong" is an evil act.

If you ask me, I'd say the Paladin doesn't fall. That quest was indistinguishable from standard fare.

4.) The deception calls into question the terms of the Paladin's Code of Conduct itself, however: does "Willingly commit an evil act" from the standard 3.5 code require foreknowledge that the act would be evil?

Unless he's making a moral choice (as opposed to being tricked or magically compelled), the act doesn't really reflect a change in the actor's personality or moral outlook. So yeah, evil acts don't count unless you do them willingly.

[jedipotter]

Unknowing doing an evil act is wrong, but it is not a ''cast out of heaven forever'' type of action. You can just toss someone out for that. And you can't expect someone to do a intensive investigation everytime they want to do anything.

And this is even more important for game play. It just ruins the fun if the good characters are always saying ''ok, guys, before we take action we have to research the whole history of the area and find all the details. You'd quicky go from ''sword and magic'' to ''investigate blandness''.

[russdm]

In my opinion, the Paladin takes the evil hit because he didn't bother to investigate the claims nor attempted to stop the fighting in some way. He believed what was told to him, then acted upon it. A Paladin should be investigating to make sure what he is being told is true and should have double-checked before committing to killing all of the goblins. A paladin that doesn't do this, gets the full reward of falling, because he could have taken the time to do so if he actually wanted to and is required to do by his code of conduct.

A Paladin should use his "sense motive" skills and make sure he is not being feed a load of crap. Also, the paladin could talked with the townsfolk to find out the truth easily, like in the tavern over drinks!!!, or even done some checking around at the goblin place.

[Mnemnosyne]

I'd say this depends a lot on the atmosphere and behavior set forth in the game up to this point and considered acceptable so far. Because, in a game where this sort of behavior has been routine up to now, suddenly making the paladin fall because he was deceived seems unfair. On the other hand, if the game has been one where even typical 'monster' races have been treated 'fairly' and considered as people, and you had to be sure you were doing the right thing before slaughtering them, then yes, he definitely acted rashly and should take the consequences.

If it's a new game and this is their first adventure, I'd say it was probably a bad choice first adventure because you didn't give them a chance to gain an understanding of the world, so they came in with preconceptions such as 'goblins = bad' because that's the standard RPG trope. If you want them to realize there are innocent goblins in the world, you should make sure they see that such goblins exist first, because the default to us as players is that goblins are evil and can be slain without problems.

However, even if you failed to set it up correctly, yes, I would say that was an evil act because the paladin didn't take due precautions to make sure the people he was killing were, in fact, evil. I would go ahead and have him fall...but make sure that there is an NPC to provide a basically cost-free atonement handy, so he can easily regain his powers. This will show him he needs to be more careful and diligent in ensuring that he doesn't go off slaughtering those who do not deserve it, and show him that you can make mistakes and atone for them, so committing one evil act isn't the end of the road as a paladin. He may not be able to bring back those he killed, but part of the conditions for atonement may well include bringing to justice the person who tricked him.

[DSmaster21]

I would say just paladin-wise he does not fall because he had no knowledge of the action's illegitemacy. However should he discover that what he was told was lies he should seek to atone for the act in some way immediately. Should teach him to be more cautious in the future.

As per the over-question of alignment? I would say it is dependent on all actions but I subscribe to alignment as a measure of how your personality is expressed not alignment defining your personality.

I think that this is semi-RAI (The all actions having an effect not the rest of my opinion) since this exists Phylactery-of-Faithfulness

[Mastikator]

Even if the goblins were evil and even if they were harassing the humans, genocide is still Very Evil. The paladin should have sought a diplomatic solution, diplomacy is a paladin skill after all.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

There is a legal concept that may help here called "criminal negligence".

We don't just punish intentional wrongdoing, we also punish some kinds of carelessness when the person should have known better and any reasonable person would have been more careful.

Example. You go to the pharmacist for medication A. The pharmacist hands you a bottle he thinks contains A. Alas, the pills bottles were labeled wrong at the factory and the bottle actually contains B, which kills you.

Whether the pharmacist is criminally liable depends on whether this gets characterized as an accident that could have happened to anyone or as negligence that a proper professional would have avoided. In the real world things look bad for our hypothetical pharmacist because there are rules that say they're supposed to check the actual pills are the correct size/color/markings and not just rely on the bottle. Break a professional rule and someone ends up dead? Almost certainly liable.

Your Paladin's defense is going to center on how reasonable it was to go out and kill a bunch of people based on the evidence the Paladin was given. That's going to depend on the details of what all was said to con the Paladin, but I'm not liking his odds.

My guess is that if the village had been full of humans, he wouldn't have gone in swinging without doing more investigation. My guess is xenophobia and anti-goblin bias are motivating him and I'd take away his powers for that.

Atonement is an option, once he learns not to kill people who are green on less evidence than people who are pink, once he learns to investigate more seriously before he kills anyone, etc...

Show some real remorse and reform and he can have his powers back.

[Dimers]

Dinging the paladin for not looking into the matter is probably going to make the game less fun, and unless your group is very abnormal, certainly won't make it more fun. It'll turn every session into social paranoia.

Paladins have mechanical consequences for certain acts, but really, this could happen in any group where someone has a code of honor. So if you want to keep the game fun for everyone, don't pull a **** move like that, where you make someone go against their code of honor. Or if you think it'd be great for some reason, ask the player first and make sure they're okay with the IC jerking-around.

Good players agree to work within each others' moral and ethical boundaries, even if the characters don't.

[Mando Knight]

Even if the goblins were evil and even if they were harassing the humans, genocide is still Very Evil.

Destroying a village is not genocide. Waging war with clear ethnic boundaries is not genocide. Attacking an ethnic group with the purpose of destroying that ethnic group is genocide.

[russdm]

Destroying a village is not genocide. Waging war with clear ethnic boundaries is not genocide. Attacking an ethnic group with the purpose of destroying that ethnic group is genocide.

Agree with this. I don't see the destruction of the goblin village as genocide, unless it was the only one in existence (unlikely). Otherwise, this is merely an evil act for killing everyone when there was no cause.

[Mastikator]

Destroying a village is not genocide. Waging war with clear ethnic boundaries is not genocide. Attacking an ethnic group with the purpose of destroying that ethnic group is genocide.

The head of the human village wanted to have all the goblins killed and steal their artifact. The paladin committed the deed on the words that the goblins were attacking the human village (when the opposite was true), without doing any investigation the human paladin killed not only the goblin combat forces but also the non-combatants, the goblin children. He's more like Kore than Big Ears.

[russdm]

The head of the human village wanted to have all the goblins killed and steal their artifact. The paladin committed the deed on the words that the goblins were attacking the human village (when the opposite was true), without doing any investigation the human paladin killed not only the goblin combat forces but also the non-combatants, the goblin children. He's more like Kore than Big Ears.

Its still not genocide yet. If that was the only goblins in the world, then yeah its genocide. It is something for which the paladin should be completely falling for because it completely defiles the paladin code regarding harm to innocents, because the non-combatants hadn't done anything. Frankly, this is the response expected of for Murderhobo players, rather than an actual paladin being played by someone.

[Mastikator]

Maybe genocide wasn't the correct word, racially motivated mass murder.

Edit- please don't tell me murdering a whole village without question because they're goblins isn't racially motivated mass murder. This isn't "gray area" morality, this is clearly in the land of ridiculously evil.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe genocide wasn't the correct word, racially motivated mass murder.

The exact definition of genocide is kind of fuzzy when you're talking about a small segment of the total population.

I imagine the politically-correct label would probably use "killings" instead of "murder". The latter implies illegality, which isn't necessarily the case. (EDIT: But the term "murder" is generally expected if you're trying to use the word's emotional weight to get people riled up)

[ElBeardo]

I really hate the concept of this idea. Alignment has always been one of the things about DnD that I have always hated. People should be able to get the feel of a character by how they are acted out. It either becomes a crutch, "I killed all of the NPC's because i'm SO RANDOM LOLZ," or it is used by DM's to make people RP characters that they didn't make and don't want to play. I think that this sort of thing is a great way to test your paladins ability to roleplay, but it shouldn't be so debilitating for his character that he stops having fun.

[Mastikator]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder
"To kill brutally or inhumanly."

I stand by my choice of the word "murder". It's brutal and inhumane to kill an entire village. It's murder.

[veti]

And this is why there should be no such thing as a "RAW paladin".

As part of character generation, the player should be writing down a list of rules and ideals that they're required to follow - incorporating the base "paladin code", but going into much more detail about how specifically they will apply these rules. Optionally they could divide them into "absolute rules" that must always be followed, and "nice to haves" that can be violated if circumstances justify it, but personally I'd let them wing that bit.

Did the paladin attempt 'Detect Evil' or 'Sense Motive' on whoever was siccing them on to the goblins? If not, why not?

Did they attempt either of these things on the goblins themselves? Why not?

Did they give the goblins a chance to surrender? Why not?

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think the paladin should be falling harder than an ACME anvil, pending atonement. But to focus the player's mind and stop this sort of thing from happening again, get them to write out their own code.

[Janus]

If it's a new game and this is their first adventure, I'd say it was probably a bad choice first adventure because you didn't give them a chance to gain an understanding of the world, so they came in with preconceptions such as 'goblins = bad' because that's the standard RPG trope. If you want them to realize there are innocent goblins in the world, you should make sure they see that such goblins exist first, because the default to us as players is that goblins are evil and can be slain without problems.

So much this. It seems like people often forget that the characters would understand their world's societies much better than the players, and the DM needs to find a way to bring that up.

Frankly, given the situation at hand, combined with the party's apparent inexperience, I might give the paladin a warning. Maybe a vision from the deity telling him how he screwed up and that he's expected to rectify the situation and bring the true villains to justice. I'd throw in paying money for the deaths (weregild, I think is the term), but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone to pay it to.
Let it be a learning experience for the player. Make it fun.

[Aergoth]

So much this. It seems like people often forget that the characters would understand their world's societies much better than the players, and the DM needs to find a way to bring that up.

Frankly, given the situation at hand, combined with the party's apparent inexperience, I might give the paladin a warning. Maybe a vision from the deity telling him how he screwed up and that he's expected to rectify the situation and bring the true villains to justice. I'd throw in paying money for the deaths (weregild, I think is the term), but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone to pay it to.
Let it be a learning experience for the player. Make it fun.

Donating anything he earned from killing the goblins to charity prevents him from benefitting it and starts a suitable pennance, attempting to right the wrong by dealing with the authority that abused his sense of justice would be the second step (being very careful to avoid pushing the boundaries of a paladin's code)

Addressing the original question: This isn't a matter of alignment. It's a matter of DM intentions. The DM is the final arbiter of alignment. Did you trick the paladin with the intent of having him fall? Then go ahead and have him fall. If it was a spur of the moment thing, maybe you don't have him fall because you expected a little more of someone who may have been inexperienced and has been trained by other games to take quests from wounded people at face value. It really all boils down to one thing:
Do you want to go full Moustache-Twirling DM and have the paladin fall because you as the DM tricked him as the player?
I recommend against it. That's a good way to lose trust and players. This is captured in a cutscene levels of bad game you're walking into.

[Ravens_cry]

Do you want to go full Moustache-Twirling DM and have the paladin fall because you as the DM tricked him?
I recommend against it. That's a good way to lose trust and players.

Quoted.
For.
<expletive redacted/>
Truth.

Seriously, this basically breaks the trust and social contract of the game unless agreed upon beforehand.
It's the kind of DM that goes "You fall because . . . those Demons you fought?"
"THEY WERE ACTUALLY ORPHANS CARRYING PUPPIES!"

[hamishspence]

From WOTC's Save My Game articles:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

Something to keep in mind.

[SiuiS]

5.) "LOL they were innocent, you fall!" is a terrible way to "challenge" a Paladin. You don't "challenge" a Wizard by suddenly having the party's hirelings actually be the Big Bad's minions, stealing the spellbook and then vanishing in the night, do you?

DMs do that to spell books all the time. It's why spell mastery was invented.

This isn't something that would change someone's alignment, but its a great example of how a paladin can fall without knowingly breaking his code. Up to you if this counts as a violation of the code. Atonement is pretty simple in this case though. GET THE LIARS!

I want to disagree, but now I'm not so sure.

If the code requires not willingly performing an action, then he could fall.
If the code instead requires not willingly performing a evil action, then he could not.

The irony here, by the way? That if slaughtering an entire goblin village counts as evil, then it doesn't matter. The paladin went in knowing he was murdering a bunch of people in their beds.

This is why older editions specified that any camp was a war camp; it was clear they were enemies on the march.

[HammeredWharf]

Unless the goblins in question were ultra-evil, baby-eating villains, I don't see how slaughtering an entire tribe could be anything but evil. Goblins are "usually neutral evil", so an average tribe of them has some non-evil members. If a paladin goes around murdering whatever people tell him to murder without stopping to think about it, he's surely going to fall.

If the players are relatively new, I'd let the paladin fall, but make atonement easy enough for it not to be a big deal.

[prufock]

So the act was evil, the intent was not. Does "evil by neglect of due diligence" count or is mens rea important to the act?

The answer is not clear in D&D. A better story - and thus better answer - is to have the party discover the deception in hindsight. If your players are good roleplayers, this will probably be enough to create some internal conflict in the paladin (and possibly other members). The cognitive dissonance should be reflected in his play, and he may use this as a learning experience.

If they aren't good roleplayers, then you may want to invoke some penalty, but don't use this as an excuse to have the paladin fall. Have him contacted by a church member who knows of the act or - if they're high level - an emissary of his god, and chastise him. Give him a quest with a mark of justice to atone, and maybe take away ONE of his powers (if he needs further convincing) until he does.

[hamishspence]

Going by the description in the Atonement Spell details:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

there is such a thing as "evil acts committed unwittingly, that need atoning for".

[Amphetryon]

In my opinion, the Paladin takes the evil hit because he didn't bother to investigate the claims nor attempted to stop the fighting in some way. He believed what was told to him, then acted upon it. A Paladin should be investigating to make sure what he is being told is true and should have double-checked before committing to killing all of the goblins. A paladin that doesn't do this, gets the full reward of falling, because he could have taken the time to do so if he actually wanted to and is required to do by his code of conduct.

A Paladin should use his "sense motive" skills and make sure he is not being feed a load of crap. Also, the paladin could talked with the townsfolk to find out the truth easily, like in the tavern over drinks!!!, or even done some checking around at the goblin place.

Wrinkle on the above hypothetical: What happens, in the board's opinion, if the Paladin does attempt Sense Motive/Gather Information before charging off to slaughter the Green-Skins, and fails to break 10 on either check? If the party is low-level enough to still be fighting Goblins, Sense Motive and Gather Information are unlikely to be infallible methods of gathering intel.

[RedMage125]

I've actually got a RAW answer for you. A situation that directly parallels this one:

A maniac puts poison in a town’s water supply, believing
(wrongly) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is
that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the
townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character
pours poison into the town’s water supply. Is that evil?
Probably not—at least, not in the context of the rest of the
character’s actions and the circumstances involved. Still,
good characters shouldn’t commit even remotely questionable
acts on a large scale unless they’re absolutely sure
there’s no other way to succeed. It’s rarely a good idea to
destroy a town of evil people, because there might be at least
a few good people in the town as well.

So your paladin has not "willingly committed an evil act", and thus does not fall. But if he really is Lawful Good, he probably not only feels guilty for his actions, but feels the need to punish those who deceived him (note that "punish" does not equate to "kill").

So don't take his powers, but you have created an excellent opportunity for a paladin to roleplay the fallout of having committed an act he feels was somewhat evil, having been tricked into doing so under the pretense that it was a Good thing to do. Now, if he acts out of anger and kills one of those villagers when they are unarmed and defenseless, THAT would be murder, and he would fall.