Question on Paladinhood

[OOTS_Rules.]

Would defending an innocent evil creature, like Belkar, from an insanely demented good creature, like Miko, be enough to knock my character, a paladin, out of paladinhood?

[Morgan_Scott82]

Not in my opinion

Though if Paladin hood were ice cream this forum could drive Baskin & Robbins out of business, there are far more than 31 flavors of answers to this question.

[Jasdoif]

Would defending an innocent evil creature, like Belkar, from an insanely demented good creature, like Miko, be enough to knock my character, a paladin, out of paladinhood?

Overlooking that you consider Belkar to be an example of an innocent evil creature


Without any other circumstances involved, no, it would not. "Kill everything that registers as evil" is not in the Paladin code, while punishing those who harm or threaten innocents is.

[OOTS_Rules.]

Thank goodness, because there will be 3 good and 3 evil characters in my campaign's adventuring party.

Results:

Yes: 0
No: 2

[Hamster_Ninja]

In this particular instance its more important to look at innocenct/guilty than good/evil. Depending on the time, Belkar either deserved to be punished (though as Miko was doing more than was required, this could change) or didn't and in the latter it would be best to step in and stop Miko. Merely because someone's good doesn't give them a right to kill random innocent evil folk who haven't done anything wrong.

Edit: That might not be the best idea. For one thing part of the Paladin code strictly prohibits a paladin from associating with evil (though this is a part that has many's ire) and that not withstanding, you'll have the issue that the good will (likely) be grossly offended by the evils evil actions (murder, kidnappings and the like), plus it will be hard to motivate them because things that motivate one side (such as saving lives, helping others, freeing people from oppression) will be boring to the other side (who would rather be out there eviling it up)

[DaMullet]

Depends. If your DM is one of those who think that Whatsisname, the Dwarven Paladin in the Goblins Comic is dead on, then yes, you'd fall.

Most sane DMs, on the other hand, would agree with both myself and more than likely everyone else here on the issue, that protecting innocents, regardless of alignment, is what Paladins do.

And Jasdoif, in the example given, when Miko attacked Belkar in the throne room, he was innocent and helpless.

Maybe not on a Final scale, but he certainly hadn't committed any crimes in the 5 minutes previously (aside from being out of jail.)

[OOTS_Rules.]

HN: I'm not really talking about OOTS, I am just wondering if a paladin would lose his abilities for protecting a helpless evil creature, like Belkar with the MOJ or a baby red dragon, from a good agressor, such as Miko or a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon.

I suppose that was a no for your answer.

Da: I am the DM. I am making my DMPC. (Who isn't a paladin yet, but I need to be prepared) [I am one of the few in my neighborhood who play DND, so I DMPC because there aren't enough players to form a complete, 6-person group]. I am asking everybody for assistance in the opinion because I have little Paladin experience.

No: 3
Yes: 0

[Crilley]

Off topic, but maybe worth saying, In my town there is a grand total of five people who play dnd. However, we get along just fine without a DMPC.

Its just a question of how you work together, unfortunatly also it tends to be the most munchkin characters who survive

[Amphimir Míriel]

Would defending an innocent evil creature, like Belkar, from an insanely demented good creature, like Miko, be enough to knock my character, a paladin, out of paladinhood?

Without any more info on the case, I would rule that it qualifies as "defending the innocent".

Now, you later mention that there would be a mix of good and evil characters in the party.... That's a problem, because the paladin cannot knowingly associate with evil characters.

And even if there were no paladins in a group, mixing good and evil characters is always problematic...

Edit: And about DMPCs, they are fine if done correctly (look for a thread titled: "Being Robin" in this board)

[OOTS_Rules.]

That is the one part of my experiences with paladins that I actually decided to take out on my own accord. Look at what that rule did to Miko.

[Morgan_Scott82]

Off topic, but maybe worth saying, In my town there is a grand total of five people who play dnd. However, we get along just fine without a DMPC.

Its just a question of how you work together, unfortunatly also it tends to be the most munchkin characters who survive

I agree a DMPC is never essential and rarely beneficial. Especially if you're not running a cookie cutter out of the box adventure, you can write to your parties strengths and limit exposure to their weaknesses so that they still have a challenging experience, without putting yourself in the conflict of interests, party dividing, all too likely to cause problems of using a DMPC.

[OOTS_Rules.]

My character really doesn't do anything. He just is. . . there, as the fighter.

[Morgan_Scott82]

My character really doesn't do anything. He just is. . . there, as the fighter.

If it works for you guys, thats great. Its just not my style, and I've never seen it work out perfectly. Passably, yes, perfectly, no, and altogether too often its not worked at all.

[Whamme]

If you have 5 PC's, you do not need to add a 6th. Remember, the game is balanced around 4. So don't add a permanent NPC. Trust me, if you just stick to the normal NPCs and don't have a character that is 'you' the game will be fine. It may even be better because you can focus on making sure the rest of the game is awesome.

Also, a Paladin _in the same party as Evil beings_ will fall. Saving Belkar? Not fallworthy. Counting him as a friend and comrade, rather than prisoner or 'I cannae let tha wee bastid oot o' me sight. He hasnae harmed nowt, he WILL if'n he has tha chance. Cannae kill him for doin' nowt, an' I cannae let him kill an innocent.'

Sorry... for some reason, Roy and Durkon merged in my mind to form a Paladin. Remember, Roy is stopping Belkar from being evil.

[Jannex]

Without speaking to the DMPC question, I'll say this: For a paladin, the ends do not justify the means. That also applies when a paladin looks at the actions of others. Killing someone who has not done something to provoke such a response is wrong, regardless of the alignments of the parties involved. As such, a paladin would be well within his rights, under his Code, to prevent such from happening--and may even be obligated to do so. Lawful Good, remember.

[Morgan_Scott82]

While we're on the subject of paladins I'd like to voice one of my pet peeves as an aside: I strongly dislike the sentiment that there is "THE paladin's code" as in there is only one possible code that governs all paladins, of all deity, everywhere and always. The rules require that paladin's be Lawful Good and have a strict code of conduct that reflects their alignment. I think it perfectly logical for each order of paladins to have their own code of conduct reflecting the tenant of thier order, yes all codes are lawful good, yes each code is strict, but does every code have the exact same transgressions? Its just not an assumption I like, nor one I find internally consistant, though it seems to be a popular assumption.

Ok, whew, back to the topic at hand. Yes if we assume the PHB example paladin code to be the end all be all of paladinhood, then associating with evil characters is a no-no.

[OOTS_Rules.]

It works out for our group.

Thanks for the ideas, everybody, my question has been answered. I now am off to think of the Emerald Embassy's paladin code.

[Norsesmithy]

A rule for associating with evil creatures, as a paladin.

You shoud prefer not to, and if you must, you must be able to steer the party towards acheiving Good goals, and always try to reform and redeem the evil charectors.

I think that this guideline is a better one than NO ASSOCIATION! NO NO NO!, because if you are never allowed to associate with evil creatures, how can you redeem them?

[Counterpower]

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else, I think. Protecting Belkar would not be an evil act. Hinjo did do so, after all. And I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Hinjo shouldn't have.

That said, I also agree with Hinjo on another point. "Then he will be taken into custody and tried, lawfully, on those charges." Defending him from an unjustified execution is one thing. But the Paladin cannot ignore an evil act. There must be some kind of punishment (or preferably attempted redemption) for such, and ignoring evil acts on the basis of even friendship is not something a paladin would do.

[Starbuck_II]

A rule for associating with evil creatures, as a paladin.

You shoud prefer not to, and if you must, you must be able to steer the party towards acheiving Good goals, and always try to reform and redeem the evil charectors.

I think that this guideline is a better one than NO ASSOCIATION! NO NO NO!, because if you are never allowed to associate with evil creatures, how can you redeem them?

By default, D&D Paladins are designed to redeem. That is for the Clerics.

[Ravyn]

Oh, dear, are we going to get into that again? What's the point of being a shining warrior of the light, able to banish fear from those around you, a walking example of the advantages and joys of the Right Path, if you can't bring other people onto the path with you? And why else would they get Diplomacy as a class skill, if not to use it to teach people how they're supposed to behave?

[Duskwither]

Not in my opinion

Though if Paladin hood were ice cream this forum could drive Baskin & Robbins out of business, there are far more than 31 flavors of answers to this question.

Beautiful. You mind if I siggy that last part?

[averagejoe]

To offer another point of view, it was made pretty clear that Miko would have fallen if she had killed Belkar. (I know that it isn't OOTS, and that was just a convenient example, but presumably it would work similarly unless the DM varied widely from that point.) Anywho, another way to look at it is taking actions to prevent another paladin from falling, certainly a good act.

[SMDVogrin]

Oh, dear, are we going to get into that again? What's the point of being a shining warrior of the light, able to banish fear from those around you, a walking example of the advantages and joys of the Right Path, if you can't bring other people onto the path with you? And why else would they get Diplomacy as a class skill, if not to use it to teach people how they're supposed to behave?

Another perspective on Paladin's CHA/Diplomacy that I always thought was a good point:
-----
"Yes," said Cami slowly. "Some evils need that direct attack, and we must be able to do it, and to lead others in battle. Did you ever wonder why paladins are so likeable?" It seemed an odd remark, and threw Paks off-balance. Apparently others were confused as well, by the stirring in the room. "It's important," said Cami, now with that grin that pulled them all together. "We come to a town, perhaps, where nothing has gone right for a dozen years. Perhaps there's a grange of Gird, perhaps not. But the people are frightened, and they've lost trust in each other, in themselves. We may lead them into danger; some will be killed or wounded. Why should they trust us?" No one answered, and she went on. "Because we are likeable, and other people will follow us willingly. And that's why we are more likely to choose a popular yeoman-marshal as a candidate than the best fighter in the grange."
-----
- Elizabeth Moon, "The Deed of Paksenarrion", Chapter 23


By this reasoning, Diplomacy is not there to preach to the un-redeemed, but rather to rally the demoralized.

[Renegade Paladin]

Thank goodness, because there will be 3 good and 3 evil characters in my campaign's adventuring party.

Results:

Yes: 0
No: 2

Okay, now that's a problem. Preventing someone from murdering a suspect before trial is one thing, but maintaining a long-term association with evil people is something a paladin will not do.

That is the one part of my experiences with paladins that I actually decided to take out on my own accord. Look at what that rule did to Miko.

That rule did absolutely nothing to Miko. Her own hubris caused her fall.

If you're just being in the party as the fighter, why not, I dunno, play a fighter?

[Saph]

HN: I'm not really talking about OOTS, I am just wondering if a paladin would lose his abilities for protecting a helpless evil creature, like Belkar with the MOJ or a baby red dragon, from a good agressor, such as Miko or a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon.

Depends. What's the paladin going to do right after he protects the helpless evil creature?

If he's going to make sure the Belkar-type is tried and sentenced for his crimes, then that's exactly how a Paladin should behave. If he's just going to wait until the Gold Dragon is out of sight and then say to the baby red: "Okay, you're safe now, go have fun", then that is not okay, because when the red dragon goes back to killing members of the local village, it'll be the paladin's fault for failing to stop it.

This is why the "do not adventure with evil people" clause is in the Paladin's class description. It's not arbitrary - it's there for a reason. If you ignore it, you'll routinely be put in these kind of situations where you've got a choice between giving up a companion and allowing evil to go unchecked.

- Saph

[Tor the Fallen]

Innocent creature like Belkar = contradiction.
Belkar is not innocent, and he is evil.
While a paladin defending Belkar for whatever reason may not be enough to cause a paladin to lose her paladinhood, it certainly is a step in that direction.

[kamikasei]

Innocent creature like Belkar = contradiction.
Belkar is not innocent, and he is evil.
While a paladin defending Belkar for whatever reason may not be enough to cause a paladin to lose her paladinhood, it certainly is a step in that direction.

It is not, any more than it's an unethical act for, say, a bailiff of the court to defend an accused or convicted murderer when the victim's son tries to stab him halfway through the trial (for instance). Being evil, or even being clearly guilty of some crime, is not license for others to murder you.

[Tor the Fallen]

It is not, any more than it's an unethical act for, say, a bailiff of the court to defend an accused or convicted murderer when the victim's son tries to stab him halfway through the trial (for instance). Being evil, or even being clearly guilty of some crime, is not license for others to murder you.

Is the OP discussing a case of a trial, etc?

[kamikasei]

Is the OP discussing a case of a trial, etc?

No; he's discussing defending an innocent evil creature from a demented good one. While an "innocent" evil creature may or may not make sense to you, it's certainly the case that someone may be evil and have committed great wrongs, but the "good" person have no right to kill them. In that sort of situation, it is right (though it may be distasteful) to defend the evil from the good.

The OP did specifically reference Miko vs. Belkar, which is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A "good" character, acting out of a sense of righteousness, attempts to kill an evil character who offers no threat and for whose crimes she has no right to dole out punishment. That's simply murder, and a paladin should defend the targets of murders attempted right in front of him.