paladin code of honor question

[reorith]

most of us are familiar with

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.

during tonights game, a paladin stuffed a tomb mote in a bag of holding and used diplomacy to improve its attitude to friendly. he claims that it is "an experiment in morality and redemptiom" to see if he can turn this "always chaotic evil creature" good or at least neutral.

edit: did he violate the association part of the code if it won't be evil when he is finished?

[arkwei]

most of us are familiar with


during tonights game, a paladin stuffed a tomb mote in a bag of holding and used diplomacy to improve its attitude to friendly. he claims that it is "an experiment in morality and redemptiom" to see if he can turn this "always chaotic evil creature" good or at least neutral.

did he violate the association part of the code?

I am pretty sure if you want to redeem someone, then "association" is required.

[TheOOB]

Keep in mind that a paladin is a holy warrior, not a missionary. They promote good and smite evil, and leave stuff like conversion and philosophy to the clerics and their loose code of conduct.

[arkwei]

Keep in mind that a paladin is a holy warrior, not a missionary. They promote good and smite evil, and leave stuff like conversion and philosophy to the clerics and their loose code of conduct.

Yes, but paladin can still redeem people, right?

..or am I wrong?

[TheOOB]

Not if they have to associated with them for any length of time to do so. (assuming their evil). A paladin is more likely to call one of their priest buddies and have them sent to a church to atone for their sins, paladins have a pretty one-track mind.

[arkwei]

Not if they have to associated with them for any length of time to do so. (assuming their evil). A paladin is more likely to call one of their priest buddies and have them sent to a church to atone for their sins, paladins have a pretty one-track mind.

Hmm. Meh, I was very disillusioned of core paladins today anyways.

[Jack Mann]

Indeed. Paladins aren't allowed to redeem lost souls. Besides, lost souls can only be redeemed if you have sufficient box tops, and have you ever tried eating two hundred boxes of Holy-Os?

[Beleriphon]

Indeed. Paladins aren't allowed to redeem lost souls. Besides, lost souls can only be redeemed if you have sufficient box tops, and have you ever tried eating two hundred boxes of Holy-Os?

Yeah, the frost positive energy topping gets to you eventually. Not fun.

As for redeeming lost souls, paladins can do that, but not evil people. It isn't part of their job description. For me that paladin should basically give the evil guy his speech, and be on his way. The lost soul is the CN character or the LN neutral guy that keeps the emphasis on the lawful.

[Duraska]

I think this situation hinges on how the Paladin goes about "redeeming" this creature. I assume by redeeming it, he means changing its alignment to CN or higher.

If he does it quickly, like by using an item of opposite alignment on it, I would say that he was not associating with the creature, but rather enforcing his will upon it. I would say that this is fine because as long as the CE doesn't want to become good, then the Paladin isn't associating with the creature, but rather enforcing his will upon it. And since the creature is evil, the Paladin can take an extreme action against it without falling.

If the Paladin attempts to redeem it by spending time talking to it and negotiating with it, then I would rule that he is, in fact, associating with an evil creature. Even though the creature may become friends with the Paladin, if it retains its evil alignment, the Paladin cannot be a willing companion to it ( - the Paladin cannot help it out, or perform any favors for it, even if it promises to be "good").

So I guess basically my answer boils down to this:

• If the Paladin quickly forces the creature to adopt a CN alignment (or better) via a magic item, or spell, then he is not associating with the creature and would not be violating his code of conduct.
• If the Paladin spends a few days or weeks engaging with the creature and attempts to alter its alignment through compromise and favor, then he is associating with an evil creature, and would be violating his ethical code.

[Beleriphon]

So I guess basically my answer boils down to this:

• If the Paladin quickly forces the creature to adopt a CN alignment (or better) via a magic item, or spell, then he is not associating with the creature and would not be violating his code of conduct.
• If the Paladin spends a few days or weeks engaging with the creature and attempts to alter its alignment through compromise and favor, then he is associating with an evil creature, and would be violating his ethical code.

You basically have my view as well. If you have to cajole an evil creature into being good, then you aren't really making it good. All you've done is make not perform evil acts. The thing is still evil.

Now if the creature is a prisoner and changes alignment by virtue of your shining example then we have a whole other ball game.

[Bouldering Jove]

I'm rather surprised that the consensus seems to be to punish the paladin for this. In its context, I always thought that the description of "association" in the paladin code of conduct was about adventuring parties and with whom the paladin will create long-term relationships. How isn't a recurring villain that the paladin willingly pursues an "association" by the standards being presented?

[arkwei]

If he does it quickly, like by using an item of opposite alignment on it, I would say that he was not associating with the creature, but rather enforcing his will upon it. I would say that this is fine because as long as the CE doesn't want to become good, then the Paladin isn't associating with the creature, but rather enforcing his will upon it. And since the creature is evil, the Paladin can take an extreme action against it without falling.

No, I would believe only killing is viable. Paladin cannot torture.

About magic items: Just enlighten me, but how is a Charm Person spell less evil than torturing? You are really brainwashing the subject to make it think you are his friend. If that is not evil then some spy organization doesn't deserve their black name at all.

[arkwei]

I'm rather surprised that the consensus seems to be to punish the paladin for this. In its context, I always thought that the description of "association" in the paladin code of conduct was about adventuring parties and with whom the paladin will create long-term relationships. How isn't a recurring villain that the paladin willingly pursues an "association" by the standards being presented?

Not quite, association means "befriending," at least that is the context when I was using it. It is just that if someone don't think you are a friend or at least generally kinda trying to help them, they won't listen to you. And you can't lie in the name of good, according to BoED pg.9.

And about diplomacy: you are improving his attitude towards you to be friendly. That's befriending, therefore right out. Unless you claim "I wasn't considering him my friend," but then you are lying to someone about being friendly, which is an evil act by BoED pg.9.

[Nerd-o-rama]

That's it. In all current and future games I DM, the "associates" cluase is officially stricken from the rules. I can't change the rules as written for the sake of other games, but I can damn sure complain about them. Telling a Paladin he can't proselytize and attempt to redeem Evil, but rather must Smite the hells out of anything that pings on his detect-o-meter, is ridiculous, promotes mindless killing over social roleplaying, and in my mind, is very much against the ideals of Good, which promote compassion and mercy. Granted, a Paladin's primary purpose is a blunt instrument to be used against the irredeemable, but to say he can't try to destroy Evil by changing it to Good? Not in my games.

[kamikasei]

I'm rather surprised that the consensus seems to be to punish the paladin for this. In its context, I always thought that the description of "association" in the paladin code of conduct was about adventuring parties and with whom the paladin will create long-term relationships. How isn't a recurring villain that the paladin willingly pursues an "association" by the standards being presented?

Exactly what I was thinking. The responses here seem to be taking an extremely harsh and limiting view of "association". While keeping an evil creature around to try and talk it around to good might be considered "association", debating with a prisoner or making small talk at official functions with the noble who shows up on Detect Evil but hasn't done anything the paladin can pursue him for shouldn't cause you to fall.

On the other hand, proselytizing to random evil creatures is a poor use of a paladin's time. If you think someone is redeemable you hand them over to authorities, tell the authorities that you think the person might respond well to the right treatment, and set a good example while doing so. Dabbling in experimental alignment-changing would probably be viewed, not as a violation of the code of honor, but as an inappropriate indulgence.

And of course, going up to a villain who you know to be evil and to be doing evil things and simply chatting with him about alignment rather than thwacking him over the head and bringing him before the judge is not really what paladins are about.

[Duraska]

No, I would believe only killing is viable. Paladin cannot torture.

About magic items: Just enlighten me, but how is a Charm Person spell less evil than torturing? You are really brainwashing the subject to make it think you are his friend. If that is not evil then some spy organization doesn't deserve their black name at all.

You have to keep in mind that as far as D&D rules are concerned, alignment is an absolute and palpable part of a character. Evil creatures are thoroughly evil. There are no shades of grey when it comes to alignment in D&D. Creatures are either Good, Evil, or Neutral.

Changing a creature's alignment to good, whether it be through a spell or magic item, is not torture at all. The creature now possesses a good alignment, and is therefore thoroughly and genuinely good. It would actually now despise its former (evil) self and be thankful that it was redeemed.

Edit: I do want to add that the Charm Person spell does not (as far as I know) actually change the target's alignment, but only its reputation toward you. Therefore, if a Paladin cast a charm person spell on an evil creature, and then proceeded to team up with it, he would be violating his code of conduct. After all, creature is still evil, and even though he might view the Paladin as a friend, the Paladin would not be able to associate with it unless it truly changes alignment.

[arkwei]

Exactly what I was thinking. The responses here seem to be taking an extremely harsh and limiting view of "association". While keeping an evil creature around to try and talk it around to good might be considered "association", debating with a prisoner or making small talk at official functions with the noble who shows up on Detect Evil but hasn't done anything the paladin can pursue him for shouldn't cause you to fall.

I'm very cool with changing the rules of the core. But, as the rules stand right now, associate is left undefined. So really, anything goes, and I kinda want to support your view. They have to have SOMETHING.

[arkwei]

You have to keep in mind that as far as D&D rules are concerned, alignment is an absolute and palpable part of a character. Evil creatures are thoroughly evil. There are no shades of grey when it comes to alignment in D&D. Creatures are either Good, Evil, or Neutral.

Changing a creature's alignment to good, whether it be through a spell or magic item, is not torture at all. The creature now possesses a good alignment, and is therefore thoroughly and genuinely good. It would actually now despise its former (evil) self and be thankful that it was redeemed.

So is brainwashing someone into evil. Now he despise its former self (good). And it is thankful that it is enlightened. That's not torture at all.

...That was just a paraphrase of your words. They have to sound wrong to you.

Even I believe good people can use evil methods, brainwashing is going too far.

[Duraska]

I'm very cool with changing the rules of the core. But, as the rules stand right now, associate is left undefined. So really, anything goes, and I kinda want to support your view. They have to have SOMETHING.

The Paladin's code of conduct requirement is a roleplaying restriction, and therefore one that would be difficult for WOTC to fully define. I think the definition of association is certainly something that falls within the domain of the DM. That said, I personally consider association to be an act that requires input from the two (or more parties involved). Here's some examples:

Example of Association: A police detective is trying to uncover gang activity and recruits the assistance of a mole. In return for sharing information about the inner-workings of the gang, the detective offers the mole immunity for any previous crimes. Both the detective and the mole are involved in a give and take relationship.

Example of non-association: A police detective brings a gang member in for questioning. During the interrogation, he makes threats and uses psychological tactics on the gang member in order to get information about various crimes committed by the gang's leader. At no point during the interrogation does the detective offer the suspect any kind of deal or protection. This is a situation where the detective is recieving assistance without offering any in return, and the gang member is giving assistance without recieving any favor in return.

That's how I personally define association in D&D.

[Duraska]

So is brainwashing someone into evil. Now he despise its former self (good). And it is thankful that it is enlightened. That's not torture at all.

...That was just a paraphrase of your words. They have to sound wrong to you.

Even I believe good people can use evil methods, brainwashing is going too far.

Technically no, I would not consider that to be "torture" because the end result is a creature who used to be good, but is now evil. If, instead, the creature was good the whole time but was forced to commit evil acts, then I would say that this is torture. Do you see the difference? In one situation a persons entire outlook on life is fundamentally changed, where as in the other situation they still hold true to their set of morals, but are forced to act in opposition to those morals.

I also believe that good people can succumb to evil actions when they're trying to do something that they think is good. This happens very often in the real world. However, using the D&D RAW, there are clearly defined "good" and "evil" people, and "good" and "evil" actions. Therefore, some of the stuff that would seem vile to us in the real world, would be perfectly acceptable in D&D because it's happening to an "evil" creature. In real life, brainwashing someone is terrible; but in D&D if that brainwashing session results in their alignment changing from evil to good - then they are fundamentally a good person now, and therefore it's a gain for society as a whole. I think this is a prime example of how D&D's alignment system is too simplistic (and widely unnecessary), but that's another topic all together (and not relevant to this thread).

[Jack Mann]

We aren't talking about what's right, merely what the rules say. Sticking around long enough to change someone's alignment is going to count as associating. One talk ain't gonna do it, I'm pretty sure, unless you've your diplomacy cranked up. I'm pretty sure Book of Exalted Deeds has some information on how redeeming the evil works, and if I remember right, it takes a few days at least. That would be associating.

Think that's stupid and unnecessarily harsh? Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I change it in my games. But the base rules say you can't. Don't bag on us because of the decisions of those spooky wizards from the seaboard regions.

[Renegade Paladin]

A paladin cannot redeem an evil creature when he is on even terms with it, but a prisoner is not his associate. Though isn't a tomb mote some form of undead? Good luck redeeming that one...

[kamikasei]

Think that's stupid and unnecessarily harsh? Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I change it in my games. But the base rules say you can't. Don't bag on us because of the decisions of those spooky wizards from the seaboard regions.

It's not the rules but your interpretation that I consider unnecessarily harsh. My argument is not the paladins can in fact associate with evil creatures, but that there are things I think they can do without it qualifying as "association".

[Thoughtbot360]

These "Paladins" you speak of sound like a very evil bunch if their choices when it comes to tackling the noble cause of attempting to solve the problem the average D&D world has with irredeemably evil creatures. From what you've told me, their only options are mind control, murder, or turning them over to religious fanatics that are running, I can only assume, a Love In Action operation (only for evil outsiders instead of "Bi-curious" boys.)

Seriously, though, this whole stupid "code of honor" thing is unfair. For everyone sitting around the table. The party can't function as it usually can because they are afraid of setting off the paladin. The DM probably isn't too happy when the paladin argues with the party. But, get this, the paladin isn't having fun, not even the ones played by good players, because they are afraid of losing their powers, they are always asking themselves "Can I do this?" And then they ask the DM if they can do this. The DM is annoyed with the paladin again. And let me tell you, the paladin's don't like this, particular those played by people who define good as healing and improving the world, not cleansing it of everything that is not pre-defined to be your "friend."

My conclusion: It behooves the DM to rewrite the paladin code. This sounds like a lot of work, but think about it. Why does anyone like the concept of the paladin? I mean, the Fighter who tries to stop violence and shows mercy on defeated enemies based on principles he choose to follow sounds a lot more like a hero and a good guy than some zealot with a code that reduces his excuses to not kill anything he detects as "evil" to brainwashing or handing the subject over to some other people not because the subject trusts them, but because they have better ranks in diplomacy and profession (make people give themselves over to Jebus). In my eyes, most of the content in the BoED and the vaunted paladin's code are mutually exclusive.

I seriously suggest to replace the Paladin's detect evil at will ability with a continous "detect evil intent" What's the difference you ask? Simply put, the Paladin has a constant information feed on any imminent murder. He senses a murderer's excitement and thrist for blood, but only when they are (at least mentally) fingering their weapon or when they are just about to poison someone's drinks, or when the assasain is spending those infamous five rounds focusing on the soon-to-be-victim of his death attack. This allows a paladin not only to be mostly immune to assasains but also allows them to have the odd but ultimately cool quirk of charging out of the tavern without a word to stop a murder in the back alleys nearby. This however means the paladin will always be vulnerable to being overwhelmed, but it doesn't apply to Asmodeus unless Asmodeus is feeling particularly murderous at the moment. If you want to cause a paladin's head to spin with nasuea cast a city-wide mind affecting spell that drives the inhabitants (regardless of alignment) berserk. Its not really a solution to all the pally's problems, but its a very invigorating fresh way to present the paladin.

[The_Blue_Sorceress]

I guess I have a looser interpretation of this than other people do, because I always interpreted the rules in such a way as to allow paladins in my game to tremporarily join forces with an evil individual in pursuit of the greater good, provided that the paladin work not only to help bring the evil individual around, but also to prevent the evil individual from committing evil acts. If an evil person is prevented from doing evil, that's the best that a paladin can do without resorting to mind control, which has always smacked of less than ethical tactics to me and would essentially be a violation of the lawful part of the paladin's alignment. Aside from that it's something that takes the power of the decision to be good out of the hands of the individual being redeemed, thus making the redemption more or less meaningless except in that the individual's behavior, motives and morality have changed. When a paladin is attempting to redeem someone I allow them to interact, with the expectation that if the evil individual takes an action for which the paladin would be bound to arrest them, or even kill them in neccessary, that the paladin would do that regardless of their relationship.

-Blue

[Renegade Paladin]

These "Paladins" you speak of sound like a very evil bunch if their choices when it comes to tackling the noble cause of attempting to solve the problem the average D&D world has with irredeemably evil creatures. From what you've told me, their only options are mind control, murder, or turning them over to religious fanatics that are running, I can only assume, a Love In Action operation (only for evil outsiders instead of "Bi-curious" boys.)

Calling killing such a creature in combat "murder" is a stretching a fair bit, I think. And rehabilitation of truly evil individuals if they're taken prisoner but not executed is certainly preferable to just keeping them locked away to stew until they escape or are released. Besides, who said anything about religious fanatics? In a world where the gods are real, tangible, and frequently interfere in mortal affairs, it is more than probable that most followers, and even most clerics, aren't mindless fanatics.

Seriously, though, this whole stupid "code of honor" thing is unfair. For everyone sitting around the table. The party can't function as it usually can because they are afraid of setting off the paladin. The DM probably isn't too happy when the paladin argues with the party. But, get this, the paladin isn't having fun, not even the ones played by good players, because they are afraid of losing their powers, they are always asking themselves "Can I do this?" And then they ask the DM if they can do this. The DM is annoyed with the paladin again. And let me tell you, the paladin's don't like this, particular those played by people who define good as healing and improving the world, not cleansing it of everything that is not pre-defined to be your "friend."

I don't particularly see why I should let you tell me, because the evidence of my experience tells me that this simply isn't the case. I freely admit that not every party can handle having a paladin in it, but one that can will be perfectly able to function as it normally would because their normal operations won't "set off" a paladin. The DM may or may not get annoyed if the players roleplay a conflict between their characters; I know I don't, and my players are mature enough to not just start yelling at each other OOC over the game. As for asking the DM whether or not the paladin would lose his powers for doing X, that should be perfectly clear. If a paladin player has this problem, it's because his DM is far more strict about causing paladins to fall than the rules intended. Discounting alignment change, the paladin falls for gross (as in, large, and leaves no doubt) violations of the Code, or for an evil act. It isn't too hard to work out what will cause a paladin to fall in most situations. If the DM gets annoyed with his players asking legitimate questions, he doesn't belong behind the screen. As for healing and improving the world, guess what? Lay on hands and remove disease are there for a reason. But it is a paladin's job to be a holy warrior, not a holy social worker. If you'd rather do the latter, you're probably better off playing a cleric and taking the Healing and/or Protection domains.

My conclusion: It behooves the DM to rewrite the paladin code. This sounds like a lot of work, but think about it. Why does anyone like the concept of the paladin? I mean, the Fighter who tries to stop violence and shows mercy on defeated enemies based on principles he choose to follow sounds a lot more like a hero and a good guy than some zealot with a code that reduces his excuses to not kill anything he detects as "evil" to brainwashing or handing the subject over to some other people not because the subject trusts them, but because they have better ranks in diplomacy and profession (make people give themselves over to Jebus). In my eyes, most of the content in the BoED and the vaunted paladin's code are mutually exclusive.

Whoa, easy there Tiger. I agree that paladins should have individual codes (using the Player's Handbook skeleton code as a basic guideline, nothing more), but you have to remember one thing: The paladin chose to take up that mantle. He chooses to follow his principles every day of his life; same as your hypothetical fighter. He's no less heroic because he gains power from doing so. If a paladin is only sticking to his paladinhood out of a cynical wish to maintain his personal power rather than a real desire to actually discharge the duties of paladinhood (protection of the weak, fighting evil, saving the world from darkness, that kind of thing), then he should eventually fall regardless. Selfish motives don't work too well with paladinhood. As for handing over prisoners, what the heck do you expect him to do? Let them loose? We're not talking about political prisoners or rebellious teenagers here; we are discussing real, objective, puppy-killing evil. It is in no way equivalent to brainwashing harmless people, because if a paladin's hauled someone in for doing evil, he really did some evil.

I seriously suggest to replace the Paladin's detect evil at will ability with a continous "detect evil intent" What's the difference you ask? Simply put, the Paladin has a constant information feed on any imminent murder. He senses a murderer's excitement and thrist for blood, but only when they are (at least mentally) fingering their weapon or when they are just about to poison someone's drinks, or when the assasain is spending those infamous five rounds focusing on the soon-to-be-victim of his death attack. This allows a paladin not only to be mostly immune to assasains but also allows them to have the odd but ultimately cool quirk of charging out of the tavern without a word to stop a murder in the back alleys nearby. This however means the paladin will always be vulnerable to being overwhelmed, but it doesn't apply to Asmodeus unless Asmodeus is feeling particularly murderous at the moment. If you want to cause a paladin's head to spin with nasuea cast a city-wide mind affecting spell that drives the inhabitants (regardless of alignment) berserk. Its not really a solution to all the pally's problems, but its a very invigorating fresh way to present the paladin.

I don't really see the need. A paladin who runs around detecting evil on everything he encounters without cause will be quickly ostracized by all and sundry; I can't help but think that such behavior would be considered very rude by all the innocent people that he randomly decided to basically conduct a mental search on without a reason.

Edit:

Keep in mind that a paladin is a holy warrior, not a missionary. They promote good and smite evil, and leave stuff like conversion and philosophy to the clerics and their loose code of conduct.

If a cleric has looser standards of behavior than a paladin, something's wrong. A cleric is the direct representative of his deity; a cleric of a lawful good, paladin-sponsoring god should have much similar standards of behavior and should he fail to uphold the deity's tenets, he should have to atone. The same goes for clerics of other faiths; their own standards are of course different, but if they don't exemplify them, they're going to have some 'splainin' to do.

[Saph]

most of us are familiar with
during tonights game, a paladin stuffed a tomb mote in a bag of holding and used diplomacy to improve its attitude to friendly. he claims that it is "an experiment in morality and redemptiom" to see if he can turn this "always chaotic evil creature" good or at least neutral.

edit: did he violate the association part of the code if it won't be evil when he is finished?

I'd say what he's doing is fine. He's trying to spread Good, which is exactly what paladins are supposed to do, and he's trying to do it by persuasion rather than force, ie in a good way, which is also what paladins are supposed to do. Props to the player.

Of course, it won't necessarily work, in which case he'll have to quit his association with the tomb mote once it's clear that it's staying evil, but that's fine too.

I honestly don't know why some people have such problems with paladins. About 60% of the D&D sessions I've seen have had a paladin in the group, and I've never once seen it cause any problems. The paladin does good, fights evil, and upholds the law, in that order. Simple.

- Saph

[The Prince of Cats]

My take would be that preventing a subject from performing evil acts would mitigate the 'associating with evil' angle. I mean, I would make a paladin fall if they allowed an evil-doer to continue doing evil but I would think that it is only really applicable to actively-evil entities.

Not every paladin is a holy avenging stick-up-the-arse type. Some are just good people who really believe that everyone can be redeemed. That said, my players would probably pray to their god for some guidance if they were unsure.

If the paladin is resolute in his decision to redeem the creature or kill it, preventing it from doing harm, then I would allow it. If the paladin started to doubt himself or if someone (otherthan the paladin) was harmed as a result of his actions, I would advise them to kill the mote and atone. By 'advise', I mean strip their powers and give them a holy message that left no room for arguments and probably cost a few HP just to make sure the message went in...

[Zincorium]

Most people who've posted agree with my interpretation of the paladin: that they're the people of the highest scruples who do not falter in the face of evil. However, by the book and too often in practice, they're a thug with a laundry list of rules to follow and a preconditioned violent response to what they perceive as evil. That all these things are codified and judged by a harsh outside force really diminishes the virtue of the character in my mind. Are you really good if often what you do, you do only because you are commanded to or you face a loss if you don't?

Being truly and completely good means doing the right thing regardless of personal cost or effort, and a paladin who refused to do what is necessary for the greater good, because it would mean they lost paladin status, is in my mind not worthy of the title in the first place. And that's the problem. All the self-sacrificing, completely empathic people who want to make things right in the world would lose paladin status because they can't reconcile not associating with evil when it means that more evil occurs. If you can get two rival organizations against one another via diplomatic means, and you refuse to do so knowing that they will continue to harm innocents, have you not knowingly done great evil?

Part of it is sheer vagueness of the rules, which instead of making the rules more adaptable leads to wildly different but equally strict interpretations of the same passage. The fact that the consequences are so game shattering and immediate certainly doesn't help matters. The group I play in has agreed to not have paladins because we can't reconcile all our views of what a paladin is and is supposed to behave like, and a being paladin requires certainty in what is right at all times, we can agree on that much.


What it all boils down to is that paladins too often balk at doing what is truly righteous because they are afraid of losing paladinhood, and along with it the power and prestige. And this should never be the case.

[Saph]

What it all boils down to is that paladins too often balk at doing what is truly righteous because they are afraid of losing paladinhood, and along with it the power and prestige. And this should never be the case.

I honestly don't find this to be the case anyway. The paladin characters I've seen very rarely have this problem. There are very few situations where doing what's 'righteous' absolutely HAS to mean doing something evil. There's generally a third alternative, and this is what a paladin does.

- Saph