A Paladin's Dilemma

[Lord]

So I've come up with an interesting dilemma.
Basically, you have a dark fantasy world. The setting is an ongoing war between three western style kingdoms and a massive eastern style culture who were taken over by a powerful demon. Said demon is worshipped as a god and uses crucifixion as a death penalty for even small crimes, on the theory that it will deter people from committing any crime. Since he has eyes watching people at all times, he almost always finds out about crimes. That said, he makes a virtue of pragmatism, is reasonable and upholds his end of any bargains that are made.
Meanwhile, the western style kingdoms are more chaotic, with many feuding lords. However, there are plenty of perfectly good people in it, and many benevolent nobles as well as wicked ones. Their patron god is a god of healing who believes that revenge is a virtue, a goddess of the wilds who hates all humanoids equally, and a god of travel and trade who is a pretty swell guy.
Now in this setting, you have a paladin from the western kingdoms. He has a childhood friend he grew up with who is about three years older than him. Both of them trained to be knights together and are close friends. However, his friend left to join the war against a nation led by a powerful demon. Years later, after the paladin has grown up and become an accomplished warrior, they reunite and are quick to resume their friendship. This is perfectly acceptable, even beneficial since their families are very close.
There is a problem though. The paladin figures out after a bit that his friend's alignment has shifted from neutral good to chaotic evil.
Basically what happened is that she was never a very stable person, to begin with. And she ended up under the command of a psychotic general who forced his men to commit atrocities. In the process of following orders, she had a mental breakdown and got a taste for it. She proceeded to participate in a series of raids and become completely axe crazy.
But, and here is the crux of the issue, the paladin's old friend has not done anything illegal. Or even wrong by the standards of her society. The paladin finds her actions distasteful, but rape and murder are just part of war in this world. This is a dark ages style world with a much lower standard of morality. As a result, he doesn't have the same horror at her actions that we in the modern day have, though he does want them to stop. He also believes that her actions will result in an early grave for her, and possibly her damnation.
Further complicating things is that his friend still holds him in affection. She actively goes out of her way to rescue him when he gets in over his head at several points and is generally a good boss to her subordinates. She just so happens to be a benevolent war leader who lives for carnage. Her wicked deeds only have the enemy nation as a victim, whom she regards much like D&D regards orcs. Faceless monsters whose destruction are a good act.
Since her evil deeds are just considered the cost of doing business in war, there is no direct legal means to shut her down. According to the law, she has done nothing wrong, and the warrior culture practically encourages her raids, if not her atrocities.
So, bearing all this in mind, what should the paladin do to stop her evil deeds?

[Koo Rehtorb]

There's some viable options.

1) Spend some time with her in earnest discussion and try to correct her wayward ways through reason and compassion. Start nice and go harder over time it's not getting through to her.

2) Decide that, although monstrous, this is not a priority for him. Go elsewhere in the world and find good to do there instead.

3) Execute her for her crimes against morality, if not law, extrajudicially. She is an unrepentant monster and deserves death for her sins. If the system cannot or will not deal with her, then it falls on the paladin to see justice done in their stead.

What he can't do is continue to offer her aid in any way or do anything that could be construed as support for either her or her position.

[Lord]

There's some viable options.

1) Spend some time with her in earnest discussion and try to correct her wayward ways through reason and compassion. Start nice and go harder over time it's not getting through to her.

2) Decide that, although monstrous, this is not a priority for him. Go elsewhere in the world and find good to do there instead.

3) Execute her for her crimes against morality, if not law, extrajudicially. She is an unrepentant monster and deserves death for her sins. If the system cannot or will not deal with her, then it falls on the paladin to see justice done in their stead.

What he can't do is continue to offer her aid in any way or do anything that could be construed as support for either her or her position.

1} Was my assessment of the best course of action. Of course, it might not work.

2} Sounds like a decent idea. Although it could be argued it is washing his hands of the situation rather than resolving it.

3} Congratulations, you've just condemned to death every single adventurer who ever destroyed a nest of orcs. Also, you have started a blood feud between the paladin's family where once there was a genuine friendship. So there is going to be even more blood and death with plenty of rape and pillage to go around. And the Dark God you are fighting is going to take full advantage of said infighting.
Plus, you've destroyed the reputation of your family. And there are problems dozens of other people just like her who won't stop what they are doing. Not to mention the lingering guilt of killing your oldest friend for what amounts to empty principle. Plus you aren't going to be able to do much knight errantry when you're a wanted outlaw who killed an upstanding citizen.
Or maybe you could keep things quiet.
You know, go with her on a mission and stab her in the back. You could just say the orcs did it. Nobody would ever know. Nobody.

[Koo Rehtorb]

3} Congratulations, you've just condemned to death every single adventurer who ever destroyed a nest of orcs.

Killing orcs is not evil. Raping and torturing orcs to death is evil and would call for the same retribution.

Also, you have started a blood feud between the paladin's family where once there was a genuine friendship. So there is going to be even more blood and death with plenty of rape and pillar to go around. And the Dark God you are fighting is going to take full advantage of said infighting.
Plus, you've destroyed the reputation of your family. And there are problems dozens of other people just like her who won't stop what they are doing. Not to mention the lingering guilt of killing your oldest friend for what amounts to empty principle. Plus you aren't going to be able to do much knight errantry when you're a wanted outlaw who killed an upstanding citizen.
Or maybe you could keep things quiet.

This is consequentialist morality. Paladins don't work like that. If she deserves death, it is always legitimate to kill her (provided that you have exhausted other options first). It genuinely doesn't matter if it will make the situation worse. A paladin can exercise restraint and try to utilize one of the other options instead, particularly deciding that there is no good way for him to solve this problem at the current time and focusing on something else instead. But deciding to deal with her regardless of the consequences doesn't make him a bad paladin. It may make him an unwise paladin, but not a bad one.

You know, go with her on a mission and stab her in the back. You could just say the orcs did it. Nobody would ever know. Nobody.

Nah you can't engage in that sort of cloak and dagger stuff. If you're going to kill her then you need to announce that you did it and why you did it.

[Lord]

Killing orcs is not evil. Raping and torturing orcs to death is evil and would call for the same retribution.



This is consequentialist morality. Paladins don't work like that. If she deserves death, it is always legitimate to kill her (provided that you have exhausted other options first). It genuinely doesn't matter if it will make the situation worse. A paladin can exercise restraint and try to utilize one of the other options instead, particularly deciding that there is no good way for him to solve this problem at the current time and focusing on something else instead. But deciding to deal with her regardless of the consequences doesn't make him a bad paladin. It may make him an unwise paladin, but not a bad one.



Nah you can't engage in that sort of cloak and dagger stuff. If you're going to kill her then you need to announce that you did it and why you did it.

Paladins are servants of law and good. That doesn't mean they have to be stupid about it. Killing your oldest friend and ally out in the open and announcing why you did it will only serve to discredit those who maintain that the enemy have rights. It will create a cultural backlash against your entire movement. Thus doing far more harm than good.

Let us assume that the paladin has decided she must, for whatever reason, be removed. Permanently.

Does it really matter how she dies? And if murdering her in public will create serious problems for good then surely a more subtle means would be preferable?

Now, personally, if I had to kill her, I would just find legal reason to challenge her to a duel. That would be perfectly legal, and unlikely to end in everything spiraling out of control. It would also give me a platform upon which to state my case, that the brutal treatment of prisoners of war and such should stop.

An idea just occurred to me.

You don't necessarily have to kill her. Religion is filled with examples of people who were divinely punished nonlethally for their sins. In this context, the friend, at the least, believes she is fighting a holy crusade. Much like the crusaders did. Saul of Tarsus infamously persecuted Christians before being set straight by a divine appearance.

In a world of divine magic, appealing directly to the god of healing whom she claims she is fighting might be a viable alternative. Maybe the start of some kind of redemption quest, I don't know.

[redwizard007]

1} Was my assessment of the best course of action. Of course, it might not work.

2} Sounds like a decent idea. Although it could be argued it is washing his hands of the situation rather than resolving it.

3} Congratulations, you've just condemned to death every single adventurer who ever destroyed a nest of orcs. Also, you have started a blood feud between the paladin's family where once there was a genuine friendship. So there is going to be even more blood and death with plenty of rape and pillage to go around. And the Dark God you are fighting is going to take full advantage of said infighting.
Plus, you've destroyed the reputation of your family. And there are problems dozens of other people just like her who won't stop what they are doing. Not to mention the lingering guilt of killing your oldest friend for what amounts to empty principle. Plus you aren't going to be able to do much knight errantry when you're a wanted outlaw who killed an upstanding citizen.
Or maybe you could keep things quiet.
You know, go with her on a mission and stab her in the back. You could just say the orcs did it. Nobody would ever know. Nobody.

Congratulations, you just stumbled into a thread that should be titled "moral quagmire intended to shaft your player."

First, grimdark and paladin... Jesus Christ. Who thought that was a good idea? It's like playing a merfolk in Darksun. Get on the same page with your players. It's called session zero. Use it.

Second, I'm assuming you are playing one of the archaic, pre 5e games where alignment requirements are in play. Otherwise you wouldn't be having this problem. Just update your campaign to the 21st century and move on. There's an app for that.

Third, D&D is not designed as a gray morality game. Good is good. Evil is evil. While murder can be cloaked as "war" or "skirmishes," rape is always considered evil. So is torture. If you are going to change the basic philosophies that the cosmos is based on, then that will require adjustments to classes like Paladin, that traditionally are heavily invested in alignment.

[Lord]

Congratulations, you just stumbled into a thread that should be titled "moral quagmire intended to shaft your player."

First, grimdark and paladin... Jesus Christ. Who thought that was a good idea? It's like playing a merfolk in Darksun. Get on the same page with your players. It's called session zero. Use it.

Second, I'm assuming you are playing one of the archaic, pre 5e games where alignment requirements are in play. Otherwise you wouldn't be having this problem. Just update your campaign to the 21st century and move on. There's an app for that.

Third, D&D is not designed as a gray morality game. Good is good. Evil is evil. While murder can be cloaked as "war" or "skirmishes," rape is always considered evil. So is torture. If you are going to change the basic philosophies that the cosmos is based on, then that will require adjustments to classes like Paladin, that traditionally are heavily invested in alignment.

This isn't based on a specific game. Rather it is a hypothetical situation designed to make people think about things and create a stimulating debate. If I were making a game, the only time a situation like this should crop up is if one of the players is evil. I chose the gaming section, since it concerns a D&D class.

Also it isn't grimdark. Grimdark is where everything is terrible and nothing can improve. This world is more Nobledark, being a very dark setting, but one where there is good that can and does triumph. It's just that it is a constant struggle and the good isn't all on one side. Even the Dark God I mentioned has some good aspects. He makes a virtue of pragmatism and virtually never does evil deeds unless they serve a productive purpose to his designs. Even his goal of world domination is vaguely well intentioned, in that he believes he'd do a better job than the disorderly gods. He goes out of his way to establish an orderly and relatively fair society {corruption is virtually nonexistent}, and he actually has a tax on income which goes to feeding the poor. After all, having a good reputation is a valuable asset.

Also, I would argue that a paladin in a Grimdark setting can make for a great story. So long as they are able to be morally flexible enough to survive, what could possibly be more heroic than a champion for good in a world where good seems to have utterly departed, who nevertheless continues to do the right thing anyway.

[King of Nowhere]

Also, I would argue that a paladin in a Grimdark setting can make for a great story. So long as they are able to be morally flexible enough to survive,

here, I think this answers you.
You say that a paladin is not consequentialist in his morality, but I say that's too strong a stance. a paladin shuns the extremes of consequentialism, but that does not mean he will disregard the consequences of his actions. not only it's stupid, but it will quickly end up with paladins being exterminated because of their making everyone angry.
being a paladin is not about being a lawful stupid doormat. being a paladin is about helping people. and you're not helping anyone if you get yourself killed for no reason or uf you accidentally burn down a city in the process.

So, if that paladin believes the war is right, he may not make too much fuss about it. he may try the whole "talk person into redemption". He may stay around and try to reduce the atrocities. he may leave and try to do good elsewhere that does not conflict with his conscience. he may start a public campaign to persuade the army that pillage and rape should not be done.

there is also the fact that pillage and rape is extremely common in a gritty realistic setting. so why is the paladin taking this specific case so much at heart while most everyone is doing it? either the paladin executes the entire army, or he should not execute his friend but let other soldiers be.

[Lord]

here, I think this answers you.
You say that a paladin is not consequentialist in his morality, but I say that's too strong a stance. a paladin shuns the extremes of consequentialism, but that does not mean he will disregard the consequences of his actions. not only it's stupid, but it will quickly end up with paladins being exterminated because of their making everyone angry.
being a paladin is not about being a lawful stupid doormat. being a paladin is about helping people. and you're not helping anyone if you get yourself killed for no reason or uf you accidentally burn down a city in the process.

So, if that paladin believes the war is right, he may not make too much fuss about it. he may try the whole "talk person into redemption". He may stay around and try to reduce the atrocities. he may leave and try to do good elsewhere that does not conflict with his conscience. he may start a public campaign to persuade the army that pillage and rape should not be done.

there is also the fact that pillage and rape is extremely common in a gritty realistic setting. so why is the paladin taking this specific case so much at heart while most everyone is doing it? either the paladin executes the entire army, or he should not execute his friend but let other soldiers be.

He's taking this particular case to heart because this is his oldest friend. And also because he believes her disturbed nature is just as unhealthy for her as it is for others. Her love of blood and death is a way of coping with the trauma of her experience, and it is gradually consuming her. Their friendship probably does have a stabilizing effect on her.

Basically it isn't so much her deeds, that sort of thing happens all the time. Rather it is him realizing that it is one of his oldest friends doing those deeds. Which, in turn, could make for a very good character arc. Having spent his life blinded to the excesses of the war, he is forced to confront them in the form of his oldest friend.

[doctor doughnut]

Well, it does depend on what the paladins code is, of course.

You are on the right track by not thinking about 21st century western Earth way of thinking.

When your talking about say a ''13th'' ish or so century ANY place on Earth except the western part of the world...then you have a VERY different view of Good and Evil.

So the question is: is the paladin a ''cop'' that walks around with a law book from Nation A or does he serve a higher, more 'cosmic' good?

Is the paladin a holy slayer murderhobo? Can he just say 'you are evil' and kill someone? Does he need ''proof''? If so what kind of proof and who does he need to prove it too? Just himself? A judge? Have a whole trial?

And things like ''murder'' really have no meaning before ''modern'' times: If a paladin kill anyone EVER, you could ''call" to murder. After all, take the most evil bad guy ever, if the paladin attacks and kills them: it's murder. For one way of thinking is only NOT murder IF the paladin is attempting to stop a vile attack/killing. So if a bad guy is like one second from attack an innocent, then and only then can the paladin use deadly force. Any other time, the paladin must just ''capture and take them to a fair trial".

Of course, the above is just silly: the paladin could never ''do" anything.

[PaladinX]

The only thing the paladin can do is help his friend remember the ways of the righteous. Also i want to point out that the friend doesnt seem all that evil.

[Zenzis]

I would say in this hypothetical it is up to the paladin's personal philosophy whether they want to be consequentialist or not, but a lawful good paladin definitely shouldn't be considering someone who is raping people and who "lives for carnage" their friend. They should probably be using any means to stop this person be it by trying to send them down the right path or trying to send them to the grave. If they really think it would cause more evil to stop them then they don't have to. But examining your reasons to avoid putting them down:

1."you've just condemned to death every single adventurer who ever destroyed a nest of orcs" Not really. Probably ones who rape and kill orcs for fun.
2. "you have started a blood feud between the paladin's family where once there was a genuine friendship" I don't think a lawful good paladin can have a "genuine friendship" with someone who rapes and kills for pleasure. A paladin holds their moral code very core to their identity.
3. "there is going to be even more blood and death with plenty of rape and pillage to go around" This is a matter of how your paladin feels about consequentialism.
4. "you've destroyed the reputation of your family" Being good a paladin they should be willing to make this sacrifice to put down such a great evil.
5. "there are problems dozens of other people just like her who won't stop what they are doing" I don't see how this is relevant? If I clean up trash in a park there are still going to be thousands of parks with trash in them.
6. "lingering guilt of killing your oldest friend for what amounts to empty principle" Killing someone who is going around murdering and raping people is not empty principle.
7. "you aren't going to be able to do much knight errantry when you're a wanted outlaw who killed an upstanding citizen" Once again the good choice would be to make this sacrifice.
8. "Or maybe you could keep things quiet." This is often a conflict with being lawful, but not always. Usually a lawful paladin's moral code will contain something about facing enemies in a fair fight though.

Now if we are talking about two PCs I would give a totally different answer. But that is because talking about players at a table I feel like a good DM allows everyone to play the character they want to play as long as it doesn't ruin everyone else's fun, so I generally dislike moral police characters. Of course I would never let any of my players rape either, but that would get you kicked out of the table not whacked by a paladin.

[Hackulator]

Save a lot of money, buy a scroll of Sanctify the Wicked, use it on your friend.

Save a lot of money, buy a helm of opposite alignment, put it on your friend.

Save a lot of money, buy a scroll of atonement, convince your friend to let you cast it on her.

Find a good Evangelist, have them use convert the unfaithful on your friend, convince them to stay good.

Being a Paladin isn't easy. I once killed an undead monster I tracked into a slum. I hadn't taken the time to learn about it, and it turned out it had a death scream which I easily survived but all the level 1 commoners within like 200 feet did not so they all died, and in a densely packed slum that was a LOT of people. My Paladin went to the magistrate and turned himself in for mass murder.

[Phhase]

1. Is the Paladin's friend his superior, or are they equals? What's the rank situation here?

2. Are they still on "active duty"? What does their job as paladins look like right now? Are they in the thick of it, or do they have a while to themselves?

3. Do any peaceful, unsullied places remain?

I ask because it sounds like the paladin's friend needs to rest. She's gotten in deep, and is piling on more and more blood to avoid really thinking about any of it. She needs to slow down, be away from conflict for a while (if such a thing is even possible). It may be difficult to convince her to take a "vacation" as it were, but if one was to frame it as a secret mission to retrieve a precious artifact from a sanctified cove, or other paladin-y quest that doesn't involve mass murder or conflict. Hell, in a Nobledark world, the search for a nice place to rest might be a difficult and epic quest in and of itself. Perhaps the "mission" is to scout out a safe place to send refugees from the war.

And lastly, there needs to be some way to hold up a mirror for her. A really cool way to do that might be by causing a revenant to haunt her. It could just be a simple farmer from a village she burned. A complete nobody, become nightmare. Perhaps the victim had begged for mercy, or had been innocent of any wrongdoing, but was butchered anyway. Think Vietnam. The revenant doesn't even need to be powerful. It just needs to keep coming back, with no way of stopping it. And every time she strikes it down, it condemns her, reveals a little more about who he was, about what she did. Humanizing himself. A poetic way to be free of the curse and allow the revenant rest would be for her to shed a genuine tear for the fallen, and acknowledge her sins.

Iunno, spitballing.

[Lord]

1. Is the Paladin's friend his superior, or are they equals? What's the rank situation here?

2. Are they still on "active duty"? What does their job as paladins look like right now? Are they in the thick of it, or do they have a while to themselves?

3. Do any peaceful, unsullied places remain?

I ask because it sounds like the paladin's friend needs to rest. She's gotten in deep, and is piling on more and more blood to avoid really thinking about any of it. She needs to slow down, be away from conflict for a while (if such a thing is even possible). It may be difficult to convince her to take a "vacation" as it were, but if one was to frame it as a secret mission to retrieve a precious artifact from a sanctified cove, or other paladin-y quest that doesn't involve mass murder or conflict. Hell, in a Nobledark world, the search for a nice place to rest might be a difficult and epic quest in and of itself. Perhaps the "mission" is to scout out a safe place to send refugees from the war.

And lastly, there needs to be some way to hold up a mirror for her. A really cool way to do that might be by causing a revenant to haunt her. It could just be a simple farmer from a village she burned. A complete nobody, become nightmare. Perhaps the victim had begged for mercy, or had been innocent of any wrongdoing, but was butchered anyway. Think Vietnam. The revenant doesn't even need to be powerful. It just needs to keep coming back, with no way of stopping it. And every time she strikes it down, it condemns her, reveals a little more about who he was, about what she did. Humanizing himself. A poetic way to be free of the curse and allow the revenant rest would be for her to shed a genuine tear for the fallen, and acknowledge her sins.

Iunno, spitballing.

Roughly speaking, the paladin is her superior in terms of rank, in the sense that his family is more powerful. However, the paladin is roughly equal in terms of military rank. Both report to the same person, who in turn reports to the paladins father. That said, there are a good number of people who are genuinely concerned for his friend. The catch is that the friend sort of has a sort of seniority. And their superior prefers to be left to run things his way.

At present the war is in the midst of a truce with the main enemy. However there are various smaller conflicts cropping up.

So it would be quite possible to get the friend assigned somewhere less bloody. Certainly somewhere where the enemies don't have any villages to destroy.

I like the revenant idea. Thanks.

[Lord]

Sorry, I accidentally double posted.

[Phhase]

My pleasure .

[Marcotix]

I don't see why the laws of the land are so far out of sync with what is good that it can be seen as legal to rape folks, war time or no. Does good exist in this world as a tangble force, al la most dnd?

Anyway, seems kinda contrived that a paladin would have a modern sense of right and wrong but the laws would have such a historical notion of it. Makes for good drama I guess?

[Pleh]

If the paladin follows the typical set of oaths and conduct (which I assume to be the case lacking any contrary information given)

The Paladin is compelled to stop their friend by any means necessary. If a simple dialogue will work, that is optimal, but psychological trauma isn't going to heal overnight without magic. If magic healing of mental attribute damage will rectify the situation, make accomodations with a willing cleric.

More likely, the Paladin will be forced to relieve their friend from duty and incarcerate them, so at least they can prevent the friend from spiraling out of control (or taking others with her when she does). Without deeper knowledge of the politics of such a maneuver in this instance, it's hard to predict the likelihood of success.

In any case, the paladin must be prepared to kill their friend if it becomes necessary. This is about fulfilling their oaths to protect the innocent and destroy evil. It is their highest calling. If the Paladin is concerned that this may ultimately cause more harm than good, then you pull the last punch to make it nonlethal and take the evil friend prisoner, if barely alive.

You can't let the machinations of demons dictate your actions. You have a course already charted for you and detours will only give your enemies the advantage. Of course the demon will use whatever leverage he has, that's what demons do. The next thing you do is make sure the world knows (you tell everyone who will listen) that the demon is not a necessary evil. He's not necessary in any way and will be removed from the world by any means necessary (preferably by your own blade).

Because that's what a paladin essentially is. They are the blade that cuts through politics, culture, and the flesh of the wicked all the same. When you tell them they have no choice but to move, they look you dead in the eye and insist that you're the one who has to move.

We're talking about MCU Captain America with Bucky (in a case where the friend was redeemable) and/or Obi Wan with Anakin (in the case where the friend essentially wasn't redeemable).

[D+1]

The paladin figures out after a bit that his friend's alignment has shifted from neutral good to chaotic evil.

Okay.

But, and here is the crux of the issue, the paladin's old friend has not done anything illegal. Or even wrong by the standards of her society.

This is irrelevant. The paladin adheres to standards that may or may not be treated differently in different societies - but EVIL IS EVIL. It is actually in some ways WORSE if it is not just EVIL but sanctioned or unopposed by a particular society.

The paladin finds her actions distasteful, but rape and murder are just part of war in this world.

Evil is not "distasteful". PERIOD. EVIL IS EVIL and a paladin will always - always - consider it utterly abhorrent and unacceptable, not "distasteful" like wearing white after Labor Day. What is right/wrong, acceptable/intolerable is based on the paladins own beliefs, not on the attitudes of others or the laws of a given society. If a society says it's okay, but the paladin's alignment says it's wrong - then IT'S WRONG as far as the paladin is concerned and the society is at best disfunctional if not itself evil.

As a result, he doesn't have the same horror at her actions that we in the modern day have

If he wants to still be a paladin - YES he does have unrelenting horror at her actions.

Her wicked deeds only have the enemy nation as a victim, whom she regards much like D&D regards orcs. Faceless monsters whose destruction are a good act.

Destruction is one thing, but you said "ATROCITIES". Well either those deeds are NOT atrocities or they ARE. There is no such thing as "okay" atrocities. Certainly not to a paladin. The attitudes of her society are IRRELEVANT. HER DEEDS ARE EVIL because you defined them as EVIL and she must be dealt with as such.

So, bearing all this in mind, what should the paladin do to stop her evil deeds?

Whatever he can. Whatever is necessary. Tell her to stop. FORCE her to stop if possible (though how that would be done would be a neat trick for a paladin in D&D: charm, wish, helm of opposite alignment, maybe just applying a cure for insanity if it can be attributed to that). Capture her by some means and lock her in a cell for the rest of her life as rightful punishment for the evil she's already done and prevention of doing more.

However, ultimately, a paladin would be faced with probably needing to just kill their FORMER (!) friend. And that would certainly be an easy option to end that friends further slide into evil and insanity. It would be an awful thing to have to do - but so is killing your faithful but rabid pet dog and driving a wood stake through the undead heart of the woman you were going to marry before she became a vampire.

I suppose the paladin could say, "I refuse to consider her actions as unacceptable," and thus lose their paladinhood, but that sort of makes the question moot.

[Frozen_Feet]

There's no dilemma there. Just a bad guy or several to stop, by force if they don't listen to reason.

Yeah yeah, dark fantasy world, rape & murder are everywhere, blah blah. Listen: the very first thing it takes to be a paladin is genuine belief that the world doesn't need to be that way and by acting correctly, you can make it stop being that way. If that means going to war with the all the people in the entire world because they're all set on being evil, then that's that. Paladins are armed champions of Lawful Good. They have the right and duty to condemn others for their actions and oppose them with lethal force if they do not repent. A blood feud? Judging adventurers for being as bad as the orcs they rape, kill and loot? That's another day at work.

[Lord]

Okay.
This is irrelevant. The paladin adheres to standards that may or may not be treated differently in different societies - but EVIL IS EVIL. It is actually in some ways WORSE if it is not just EVIL but sanctioned or unopposed by a particular society.
Evil is not "distasteful". PERIOD. EVIL IS EVIL and a paladin will always - always - consider it utterly abhorrent and unacceptable, not "distasteful" like wearing white after Labor Day. What is right/wrong, acceptable/intolerable is based on the paladins own beliefs, not on the attitudes of others or the laws of a given society. If a society says it's okay, but the paladin's alignment says it's wrong - then IT'S WRONG as far as the paladin is concerned and the society is at best disfunctional if not itself evil.
If he wants to still be a paladin - YES he does have unrelenting horror at her actions.
Destruction is one thing, but you said "ATROCITIES". Well either those deeds are NOT atrocities or they ARE. There is no such thing as "okay" atrocities. Certainly not to a paladin. The attitudes of her society are IRRELEVANT. HER DEEDS ARE EVIL because you defined them as EVIL and she must be dealt with as such.
Whatever he can. Whatever is necessary. Tell her to stop. FORCE her to stop if possible (though how that would be done would be a neat trick for a paladin in D&D: charm, wish, helm of opposite alignment, maybe just applying a cure for insanity if it can be attributed to that). Capture her by some means and lock her in a cell for the rest of her life as rightful punishment for the evil she's already done and prevention of doing more.

However, ultimately, a paladin would be faced with probably needing to just kill their FORMER (!) friend. And that would certainly be an easy option to end that friends further slide into evil and insanity. It would be an awful thing to have to do - but so is killing your faithful but rabid pet dog and driving a wood stake through the undead heart of the woman you were going to marry before she became a vampire.

I suppose the paladin could say, "I refuse to consider her actions as unacceptable," and thus lose their paladinhood, but that sort of makes the question moot.

A paladin who adopts the policy you have suggested will never achieve anything. He will fail because he will become nothing more than a psychopathic detect and smite junkie. A self-righteous monster who goes around hacking the heads off every man who cheats at cards. A hypocrite who ignores both the law and the context of every situation in pursuit of extra-legal murder. A man who regards his own judgement as tantamount to divine mandate. Ultimately spreading only death, and achieving nothing, doomed to fall for his dishonorable and monstrous actions. No better than the very person he passes judgement on.

A paladin is not a chaotic good rebel. He is a LAWFUL good knight. He cannot simply throw aside the law when it is not convenient. He must do everything in his power to prevent evil. But he must at least try to keep it within the context of the law if possible and maintain honorable conduct. In addition, you have ignored the possibility of redemption.

What you want isn't Lancelot of the Lake. It's Captain Walker from Spec Ops the Line.

[hamishspence]

A paladin is not a chaotic good rebel. He is a LAWFUL good knight. He cannot simply throw aside the law when it is not convenient. He must do everything in his power to prevent evil. But he must at least try to keep it within the context of the law if possible and maintain honorable conduct. In addition, you have ignored the possibility of redemption.

This:

Whatever he can. Whatever is necessary. Tell her to stop. FORCE her to stop if possible (though how that would be done would be a neat trick for a paladin in D&D: charm, wish, helm of opposite alignment, maybe just applying a cure for insanity if it can be attributed to that). Capture her by some means and lock her in a cell for the rest of her life as rightful punishment for the evil she's already done and prevention of doing more.

acknowledges the possibility that certain forms of evildoing are a kind of insanity, which can be cured.

But what makes a paladin a paladin, is that, while LG, they place Good over Law. That's why they have a strong aura of Good but not a strong aura of Law, and why they have Detect and Smite Evil, not Detect and Smite Chaos.

When evil is legal, or accepted - a paladin will still oppose it.

The code demands that a paladin punish those who harm or threaten innocents. It doesn't make exceptions for those who do so legally.

[Phhase]

What you want isn't Lancelot of the Lake. It's Captain Walker from Spec Ops the Line.

Oooooh, good one. Yeah, likewise, I respect those who want to play paladins as super zealous evil/good smiters, but I deride the notion that it's the ONLY way to play them somehow.

[hamishspence]

There are ways to oppose evil that don't involve actually killing the evildoers - but the opposition itself, is compulsory.

[Lord]

There are ways to oppose evil that don't involve actually killing the evildoers - but the opposition itself, is compulsory.

Sure. My point was merely that he was oversimplifying the situation. Paladins are allowed to pursue justice in the way they see fit. He could challenge her to a duel to the death on legal grounds, thereby removing her from the equation honorably. Or he could try to talk her down. Or he could try any other kind of means.

I never disputed that he should try to stop her from what she was doing. My inquiry was more tactical in nature. What means should be used to halt her evil deeds, and punish/redeem her? Should he defy the society in a public fashion? Attempt to change things gradually from within? Reassign her quietly to a front where nothing was going on and let her twiddle her thumbs for the rest of the war?

What I don't accept as an answer is the Helm of Opposite Alignment. That is basically violating her free will in order to force her to take on the traits he desires from a person. I would count deliberately using such an artifact as an evil act, unless the stakes were truly massive.

[hamishspence]

Dominate Person spells violate free will and do not have the [Evil] tag. "Violation of free will" is not an intrinsically Evil act in a D&D context.

[Frozen_Feet]

That's because, for Lawful Good, life and greatest good for the greatest number trump over individual freedom. From a Lawful Good perspective, denying someone's individual will can be justified to save lives (etc.), including that person's own. For example, it would not be at all odd for a paladin to use Dominate (etc.) to stop a depressed person from committing suicide.

Preserving individual freedom at all cost is Chaotic, not Lawful. For contrast, a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral person might see the above use of Dominate (etc.) to be hideous, because it undoes the target's own will and decision of their life. In 1st Edition AD&D DMG, this is explicit: it's outright stated that to a Chaotic Neutral entity, "death is a desireable end, because life itself can be seen as law and order". Life has no value on its own, only to the extent it can be used as a tool to "combat order", practically meaning doing what one wills.

[Koo Rehtorb]

A paladin who adopts the policy you have suggested will never achieve anything. He will fail because he will become nothing more than a psychopathic detect and smite junkie. A self-righteous monster who goes around hacking the heads off every man who cheats at cards. A hypocrite who ignores both the law and the context of every situation in pursuit of extra-legal murder. A man who regards his own judgement as tantamount to divine mandate. Ultimately spreading only death, and achieving nothing, doomed to fall for his dishonorable and monstrous actions. No better than the very person he passes judgement on.

Cheating at cards is not evil. Nor is every evil act worthy of the death punishment. But yes, being judge, jury, and executioner is indeed part of the paladin's job at times. Paladins do, actually, have a divine mandate.

He cannot simply throw aside the law when it is not convenient. He must do everything in his power to prevent evil. But he must at least try to keep it within the context of the law if possible and maintain honorable conduct.

If the law is evil, then the law is illegitimate in the eyes of a paladin. A paladin would prefer to reform such evil laws through lawful means if possible, but is under no obligation whatsoever to respect the law if it stands in the way of performing his sacred duty.

Yes. Being a paladin is hard. You won't fix the world, and you will probably die in the process of trying.

[Lord]

That's because, for Lawful Good, life and greatest good for the greatest number trump over individual freedom. From a Lawful Good perspective, denying someone's individual will can be justified to save lives (etc.), including that person's own. For example, it would not be at all odd for a paladin to use Dominate (etc.) to stop a depressed person from committing suicide.

Preserving individual freedom at all cost is Chaotic, not Lawful. For contrast, a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral person might see the above use of Dominate (etc.) to be hideous, because it undoes the target's own will and decision of their life. In 1st Edition AD&D DMG, this is explicit: it's outright stated that to a Chaotic Neutral entity, "death is a desireable end, because life itself can be seen as law and order". Life has no value on its own, only to the extent it can be used as a tool to "combat order", practically meaning doing what one wills.

A Lawful good person can still value freedom. America is, in theory, a Lawful Good society, and freedom is an essential aspect of its ideology. They just believe that the best results come from order. They should want people to choose to obey the law of their own will. Not because somebody forced them to. A Lawful Neutral person might decide that mind controlling the populace is justifiable. But a Lawful Good person would not want to use such methods except in the most serious of crisis.

In regards to the Dominate person analogy, the two are completely different. Using a dominate person spell to get someone to fight for you, or to prevent someone from committing suicide is one thing. It is a temporary suspension of their freedom for an advantage or to save a life. Using a Helm of Opposite Alignment is completely different. It is a much more extreme use of domination magic. It is not being used for a temporary tactical advantage, or to prevent someone from harming themselves. It is suspending the free will of a sentient being on a permenant basis because you do not approve of their actions.

And once the precedent is set, when does it stop? If you're willing to override the free will of one evil person, why not do it to them all? You can have magical reeducation camps where all citizens are legally obligated to attend on a monthly basis.

...Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea for a villainous faction. An entire race who uses brainwashing to ensure everyone is good aligned. And intends to conquer other worlds to root out the evils of free will.

Hang on a second, I've got to write this down.