The Problem with Paladin Villains (spoilers for SoD/GDGU)

[Shadowknight12]

If a paladin never finds out that they have "harmed the innocent" - and they took "reasonable precautions" but their actions harmed the innocent anyway - then you can have a non-fallen Paladin who has harmed the innocent and never tried to redress the wrong because they never found out that innocents were wronged in the first place.

However, I doubt very much that the slayer of Redcloak's little sister qualifies as this. I wouldn't count them as "harming the innocent despite taking reasonable precautions to avoid that."

I think the key here is the "reasonable" part of said precautions. If the paladin is fed a lie from birth that goblins are inherently, irredeemably evil (which is false), and that their very existence empowers evil gods that then do their dark bidding upon the world (which isn't actually that far from the truth), what counts as a "reasonable" precaution? Question your superiors, your peers and your culture? Is that reasonable? Should every paladin automatically distrust everything they're told in case they're being fed lies about who is good and who is evil? Even their own Detect Evil isn't infallible, given the ways to prevent it from yielding results, or even fool it into yielding false results.

I think people don't realize how frighteningly easy it is to create a culture that believes false things and is manipulated into doing harm to others. This happens constantly.

[Vahnavoi]

We don't know the exact rules reason why Miko fell.

We can't know exact rules reason why Miko fell because Miko isn't an actual game character and Rich Burlew is not writing in a way strictly adherent to any specific version of D&D.

But here, since everyone wants to talk about the rules, let's talk about the rules:

The rules for D&D alignment are not complete. They are guidelines that propose a specific shape of a moral system. The exact specifics of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil for any particular setting must be decided by a living human serving as a dungeon master. The rules understand that when it comes to the players, what they consider good, evil etc. is subjective and depends on acculturation.

Alignment is prescriptive for non-player characters only. That is, a dungeon master picks an alignment for a non-player character to serve as a guideline for general behaviour of that character. If a dungeon master plays a character with known alignment in a seemingly out-of-alignment manner, either that dungeon master is relying on some information their players don't have (mind control, approaching alignment change, etc.) or they are simply bad (as in unskilled) playing that alignment.

For player characters, alignment is descriptive, that is, actual behaviour determines alignment. What alignment a player picks for their character at character creation is hence not final, it is just a pledge about what kind of character they will play. If a player fails to follow their pledge, their character's real alignment will be adjusted to match whatever alignment best fits. The dungeon master makes this determination from the position of near-complete knowledge and their ruling is final for their game, above and beyond written rules.

As an author of a story, the Giant, by their own description if you hunt down their quotes about Shojo, treats their characters like a dungeon master would treat non-player characters. That is, they picked alignment and role in a story first for their characters and have written their actions based on that choice. They did not write their actions first and then try to puzzle out which alignments would fit. From the Giant's perspective, Miko is a villain and was always a villain, because her borderline alignment and fall away from Lawful Good was predestined from the start.

So if OotS was a real game, then the exact rules reason why Miko fell would be because the Giant, as a dungeon master, predetermined it.

[hamishspence]

I think the key here is the "reasonable" part of said precautions. If the paladin is fed a lie from birth that goblins are inherently, irredeemably evil (which is false), and that their very existence empowers evil gods that then do their dark bidding upon the world (which isn't actually that far from the truth), what counts as a "reasonable" precaution?

To be fair, it never goes quite that far in OOTS:

Spoiler: How The Paladin Got His Scar

Show

Miko: I have a question. I am not a paladin yet, so I cannot call upon the blessed power of the Twelve Gods to determine which hobgoblins are evil. How shall I know which are fair to attack?
Gin-Jun: An excellent question, and I am glad you are giving these concerns the weight they deserve. It is important to remember simply that hobgoblins are usually evil, and even those that may not be so still worship an evil god, or defend an evil social order, or grow food for evil warriors, or give birth to evil children. It is enough for us to destroy their evil society, and let any who survive reflect on the path of wickedness. Never hesitate to punish evil or support for evil, or tolerance for evil.
Miko: Thank you, Master. You are wise, and I will do my best to follow your example.

However, a part of that might qualify as "a lie that Azurite paladins have been fed from birth for generations."

Specifically:

Spoiler

Show

give birth to evil children.

, given The Giant's position on humanoid alignment.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences.

[Jason]

Freedom of choice is not a trait of Good, and its lack is not Evil. That trait sits on the L-C axis. Freedom of choice can lead to choosing to do Evil, and imposing a social order upon a would-be evildoer could prevent that evil or even guide the would-be evildoer to perform acts of Good instead.

I must disagree. Valuing freedom of choice can be considered a chaotic trait, but it is also a trait of Good. You cannot reward or punish someone for making a choice if there was no actual choice. You cannot force someone to feel devotion and love. Good-aligned characters understand this, and therefore value freedom of thought and freedom of action, even when it includes the possibility of choosing evil. You must have the possibility of choosing evil in order to be rewarded for choosing good. Good cannot exist without evil also existing.
Respecting the dignity of sentient beings also requires allowing them personal freedoms, and that is a definitive good trait.

The Harmonium losing the third layer of Arcadia was an example of favoring lawfulness over good. Lawfulness can argue that enforcement of behavior leads to peace and stability. Javert is a Lawful Neutral character because he respects only justice, with no place for personal freedom or mercy.

I think Miko lived most of her life running the edge of her Paladin code, and her fall is when she finally broke through that code and her alignment.

This might be the key to my whole problem with how paladins are depicted in OOTS. They aren't trying to be good. They are motivated by pride or power or hatred and restrict their actions just enough to stay within the letter of the law in order to keep their paladin abilities or status. And they get away with it until they cross an arbitrary line and the gods decide to kick them out.
But paladins are supposed to derive their abilities from their devotion to righteousness. The whole idea of paladinhood is that they gain their powers through being genuinely good people. In OOTS paladins are allowed to game the system, and it just feels wrong. No devotion to righteousness should mean no paladin abilities, but in Stickworld you can stay a paladin as long as you are living the letter of the law.

That seems to be Rich's point in creating such characters - to show how wrong this approach is. In a metacontext he is saying "I know these aren't real paladins. That's the point."

[Kish]

According to the Atonement spell, there is such a thing as "unwilling" evil acts, or "unwitting" evil acts.

And according to the Atonement spell, paladins who commit those lose their powers until they get a spell which specifically requires them to recognize what they did wrong and repent for it, so..."willfully" not actually the loophole Shadowknight's trying to have it be.

[hamishspence]

paladins are supposed to derive their abilities from their devotion to righteousness. The whole idea of paladinhood is that they gain their powers through being genuinely good people. In OOTS paladins are allowed to game the system, and it just feels wrong. No devotion to righteousness should mean no paladin abilities, but in Stickworld you can stay a paladin as long as you are living the letter of the law.

Any god with paladin levels can grant paladin spells to worshippers of that god.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/di...tm#grantSpells

Grant Spells
A deity automatically grants spells and domain powers to mortal divine spellcasters who pray to it. Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list. A deity can withhold spells from any particular mortal as a free action; once a spell has been granted, it remains in the mortal’s mind until expended.

Though it's also true that some (not all) paladins, can gain spells from "the divine forces of law and good"

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOver...vineSpells.htm

Divine Spells
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.

And according to the Atonement spell, paladins who commit those lose their powers until they get a spell which specifically requires them to recognize what they did wrong and repent for it, so..."willfully" not actually the loophole Shadowknight's trying to have it be.

The exact wording leaves it a little vague on whether it supersedes the statements in the paladin section of the PHB about how paladins fall for willing/willful evil acts.

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


Restore Class
A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.


If a paladin's evil act is "unwilling" or "not willful" do they have to Fall? The paladin class section itself implies "no." The Atonement spell implies "yes."

[Shadowknight12]

Also to keep in mind is that the Atonement spell is not Paladin-only. It is also meant for Clerics, Druids and certain Prestige Classes, which do not necessarily work the same way Paladins do.

The ambiguity in the Atonement spell likely comes from having to cater to these diverse restrictions.

[Schroeswald]

I must say, my time on the forums have been remarkably Miko-less, the last thread about her died out soon after I joined and she’s only had one derailment in my time which seems impossible but I think is true. I’m glad that I’m getting a glimpse into Miko wars, makes me feel like I really belong.

[arimareiji]

I remember that conversation and reread it recently,

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

the distinction between antagonist and villain was already in play, The Giant is of the opinion that Miko (and Javert) are not just antagonists but villains.

One of his reasons for this is because they represent ideas of law that the author is explicitly arguing against through the story and take morally wrong actions.

Indeed:

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

I absolutely consider Javert a villain, full stop. And not in a weak, "All antagonists are villains," sort of way. I mean I find Javert's actions (and especially his inactions) over the course of the novel to be villainous.

I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?

No, I'm saying they can be villains, based on their actions. In the same way that Miko is a villain. Maybe not mustache-twirling do-it-for-the-lulz villains, but villains nonetheless.

As I recently referenced in the comic, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, and Javert went quite a bit further in the wrong direction than just "doing nothing." He supported and enforced an unjust set of laws even above and beyond what was required of him. He tricked his way into the good graces of the students with a plan designed to lead to their deaths. When Fantine dies and Javert confronts Valjean, and Valjean says he must take care of Cosette, Javert could have said, "I'll make sure the girl is taken care of if you turn yourself in." He didn't. He didn't care whether she lived or died when he easily could have without compromising his duty. The idea of mercy is so incompatible to his mindset that when he finds himself having displayed it, his only solution is to commit suicide because his world doesn't make sense anymore. When you get to the point that the idea of mercy is incomprehensible to you? You're a villain.

And "Merciless paladins" are very much a thing in 3.5's PHB2, with one of the sections on roleplaying the various paladin archetypes, saying "Do any deserve mercy? No." and "There is no mercy, there is only judgement".

Thank you both, very much. \(^_^)/

I wonder how the Giant would feel about knowing how much further Hugo went toward both explaining the good intentions of Javert, and condemning him for the hell they led to.

Spoiler: Les Miserables. May be quite painful to read...

Show

[...for those only familiar with the musical's much-gentler treatment of Fantine. All around, not just in this case. (Don't get me started on how awful Éponine has it, though it makes her scene driving off the Thenardier gang truly awe-inspiring.)

Okay, you've been warned.

Emphasis added, below. Prior context shows Hugo meant Valjean's statement to be literally true.]

  Javert stamped his foot. "And now she's started! You hold your tongue, you slut! It's a fine state of affairs when gaolbirds become magistrates and whores are nursed like countesses. But we're going to put a stop to all that, and high time too!" He turned to regard Fantine, tightening his grip on Valjean. "I tell you there's no Monsieur Madeleine here, no mayor either. There's no one but a criminal, a convict called Jean Valjean. That's the man I'm holding."
  Fantine sat upright, supporting herself on her rigid arms. Her eyes travelled from Valjean to Javert and then to the nun. She seemed about to speak, but only a whimper issued from her lips, while her teeth chattered. She reached out her arms in a gesture of anguish and with open hands groped like a person in the act of drowning. And suddenly she fell back against the pillow. Her head struck the head of the bed and then sank limply against her shoulder, the mouth open, the eyes wide and sightless.
  She was dead.
  Jean Valjean seized the hand gripping his collar and detached it as effortlessly as if it had been that of a child. He said to Javert:
  "You have killed that woman."
  "That'll do," Javert cried furiously. "I didn't come here to argue. We've wasted enough time. The escort's waiting below. March, or I'll put the handcuffs on you."

Spoiler: Hugo's description of Javert just before that scene

Show

  Yet in this outrageous St. Michael there was a greatness that could not be gainsaid. He was terrible, but he was not ignoble. Integrity, sincerity, honesty, conviction, the sense of duty, these are qualities which, being misguided, may become hideous, but they still retain their greatness; amid the hideousness, the nobility proper to the human conscience still persists. They are virtues subject to a single vice, that of error. The merciless but honest rejoicing of a fanatic performing an atrocious act still has a melancholy claim to our respect. Without knowing it, Javert in his awful happiness was deserving of pity, like every ignorant man who triumphs. Nothing could have been more poignant or more heartrending than that countenance on which was inscribed all the evil in what was good.

[Precure]

Miko was definitely a lawful good character, and she never was a bloodthirsty maniac as people claims. Her biggest problem is the anger management issues she had, and how everyone except Hinjo and O-Chul treated her terribly, leading to her meltdown.

[elros]

Thank you both, very much. \(^_^)/

I wonder how the Giant would feel about knowing how much further Hugo went toward both explaining the good intentions of Javert, and condemning him for the hell they led to.

Spoiler: Les Miserables. May be quite painful to read...

Show

[...for those only familiar with the musical's much-gentler treatment of Fantine. All around, not just in this case. (Don't get me started on how awful Éponine has it, though it makes her scene driving off the Thenardier gang truly awe-inspiring.)

Okay, you've been warned.

Emphasis added, below. Prior context shows Hugo meant Valjean's statement to be literally true.]

Spoiler: Hugo's description of Javert just before that scene

Show

Hugo's description of Javert perfectly captures the paladins of the Sapphire Guard that attacked the goblins. It is not a new trope, but it raises the question if someone is devoted to noble qualities of "integrity, sincerity, honesty, conviction, [and] the sense of duty" and they commit evil acts, are they worse than people who are not devoted to those qualities?
From the multiple pages demanding to see the punishment of unnamed paladins that only appeared in supplemental material, it seems that many people here are more concerned with paladins than the evil acts of other characters. That is why more people have sympathy for V, the worst mass murderer and racist in the history of OOTS, than any of the Sapphire Guard.

[arimareiji]

Hugo's description of Javert perfectly captures the paladins of the Sapphire Guard that attacked the goblins. It is not a new trope, but it raises the question if someone is devoted to noble qualities of "integrity, sincerity, honesty, conviction, [and] the sense of duty" and they commit evil acts, are they worse than people who are not devoted to those qualities?
From the multiple pages demanding to see the punishment of unnamed paladins that only appeared in supplemental material, it seems that many people here are more concerned with paladins than the evil acts of other characters. That is why more people have sympathy for V, the worst mass murderer and racist in the history of OOTS, than any of the Sapphire Guard.

It's much easier to sympathize with someone who edges closer and closer to a moral cesspit, gets a good shove, and falls in -- then realizes the true horror of what they did, and wholeheartedly repents... than it is to sympathize with someone who wallows in the cesspit, congratulating themselves on how they're the pinnacle of moral rectitude and anything they do in the name of their rightness is and will always be okay.

[Worldsong]

Hugo's description of Javert perfectly captures the paladins of the Sapphire Guard that attacked the goblins. It is not a new trope, but it raises the question if someone is devoted to noble qualities of "integrity, sincerity, honesty, conviction, [and] the sense of duty" and they commit evil acts, are they worse than people who are not devoted to those qualities?
From the multiple pages demanding to see the punishment of unnamed paladins that only appeared in supplemental material, it seems that many people here are more concerned with paladins than the evil acts of other characters. That is why more people have sympathy for V, the worst mass murderer and racist in the history of OOTS, than any of the Sapphire Guard.

Vaarsuvius never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, and once they really went over the edge they realized their mistake and tried to do better.

The paladins, especially Miko, fall in the category of 'nobody likes a self-righteous hypocrite'.

[Deathhappens]

Paladins make excellent villains, actually, by the very thing that they are: A Lawful "Good" martial class that is based around delivering violence unto "Evil". The paladin code (and any subsequent Fall it generates) is meaningless on a class whose entire purpose is to be violent and see itself as either a lofty protector or a judge, jury and executioner.

In the real world, perhaps, yes, an absolutist perspective would be rife for literary introspection- but in DnD, Evil and Good do not come in quotation marks. They are actual, quantifiable, verifiable forces of the universe in the same way as gravity and light. As such, there is very little to be gained from casting a Paladin as a villain; either his career will be exceptionally short-lived (because if he willingly commits an Evil act he will fall and no longer be a Paladin villain) or exceptionally convoluted (as you are forced to keep inventing new and more tortured ways to have him commit villainous acts incidentally or unwillingly somehow).

[Shadowknight12]

In the real world, perhaps, yes, an absolutist perspective would be rife for literary introspection- but in DnD, Evil and Good do not come in quotation marks. They are actual, quantifiable, verifiable forces of the universe in the same way as gravity and light. As such, there is very little to be gained from casting a Paladin as a villain; either his career will be exceptionally short-lived (because if he willingly commits an Evil act he will fall and no longer be a Paladin villain) or exceptionally convoluted (as you are forced to keep inventing new and more tortured ways to have him commit villainous acts incidentally or unwillingly somehow).

I don't agree. You don't need extreme convolution to manipulate and deceive a culture into holding false beliefs about other cultures/races, and for the paladins generated by that culture to be encouraged to act without thinking (worded as "trusting your heart, acting with courage and not second-guessing yourself") and to not listen to any dissent about the way they are raised and educated. Mass deception is an extremely common and well-researched tool of those in power.

[brian 333]

Why must a villain commit evil acts? A paladin who suppresses dissent may be seen as a villian to a plucky band of freedom fighters.

[pearl jam]

Seen as a villain by the protagonists and presented as a villain by the story aren't necessarily the same thing.

Also, there are some who feel that doing/being evil is implied by the use of the pejorative term villain by definition, but others do not feel that must be the case.

[Jason]

I don't agree. You don't need extreme convolution to manipulate and deceive a culture into holding false beliefs about other cultures/races, and for the paladins generated by that culture to be encouraged to act without thinking (worded as "trusting your heart, acting with courage and not second-guessing yourself") and to not listen to any dissent about the way they are raised and educated. Mass deception is an extremely common and well-researched tool of those in power.

I agree with Deathhappens. An evil action in D&D is an evil action, regardless of what you believe or what your culture teaches you is good or evil. Evil actions aren't evil because of what some diety said or because a majority of reasonable people would consider it evil - it's evil simply because that's how the universe works. Perform an evil action and you have shifted your alignment towards evil. Perform enough of them and you will detect as evil.
If being a paladin consisted of "doing things my culture considers good" or "doing things that I personally have convinced myself are good" there would be no alignment restrictions for paladins.
For paladins, the only "wiggle room" out of falling from paladinhood is whether they willingly committed an evil action. "I convinced myself that slaughtering unarmed goblin children wasn't actually evil," doesn't cover it.

[hamishspence]

There's a great deal of wiggle room in the D&D definition of "murder" though (which is treated as an inherently evil act in sources like BOVD and FC2, whereas "killing" is not.)

BOVD defines murder as the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose - so "to save/protect the world" might not count - though "because I hate their species and gain pleasure from killing them" would be nefarious.

[Worldsong]

There's a great deal of wiggle room in the D&D definition of "murder" though (which is treated as an inherently evil act in sources like BOVD and FC2, whereas "killing" is not.)

BOVD defines murder as the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose - so "to save/protect the world" might not count - though "because I hate their species and gain pleasure from killing them" would be nefarious.

What if saving the world makes you feel tingly so you technically derive pleasure from slaughtering the evil monsters threatening to destroy the world.

[Kish]

I agree with Deathhappens. An evil action in D&D is an evil action, regardless of what you believe or what your culture teaches you is good or evil. Evil actions aren't evil because of what some diety said or because a majority of reasonable people would consider it evil - it's evil simply because that's how the universe works. Perform an evil action and you have shifted your alignment towards evil. Perform enough of them and you will detect as evil.
If being a paladin consisted of "doing things my culture considers good" or "doing things that I personally have convinced myself are good" there would be no alignment restrictions for paladins.
For paladins, the only "wiggle room" out of falling from paladinhood is whether they willingly committed an evil action. "I convinced myself that slaughtering unarmed goblin children wasn't actually evil," doesn't cover it.

Yes, this.

"Paladins can be vicious fascists as long as you rewrite the words in their class description that clearly lay out why they can't" is a brilliant new insight--except for the part where it's not brilliant, it's old as 1ed AD&D, and it's not insight.

[elros]

Vaarsuvius never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, and once they really went over the edge they realized their mistake and tried to do better.

The paladins, especially Miko, fall in the category of 'nobody likes a self-righteous hypocrite'.

This is were I disagree: V has never shown any remorse for killing the dragons, only for killing the humans. V also enslaved and tortured a dominated kobold, and then sent the kobold undefended to set off traps. Even if V never cast familicide, V's killing of the child black dragon is disgraceful, and yet everyone seems to overlook that. When you factor everything else in, V is a far greater evil than any of the paladins (and is probably be worse than Xykon), and yet everyone here is obsessed with punishing the paladins.

[hamishspence]

This is were I disagree: V has never shown any remorse for killing the dragons, only for killing the humans.

V suggests that some of the dragons may not have been "ravenous killers" here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html

and that even if the amount of good done by killing bad dragons outweighs the amount of harm done by killing non-bad dragons, "for the Greater Good" is not a "call" that is for V to make.

[Jason]

There's a great deal of wiggle room in the D&D definition of "murder" though (which is treated as an inherently evil act in sources like BOVD and FC2, whereas "killing" is not.)

BOVD defines murder as the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose - so "to save/protect the world" might not count - though "because I hate their species and gain pleasure from killing them" would be nefarious.

Granted. If a specific set of unarmed goblin children really are a threat to the world's existence just by continuing to live where and when they do then killing them in order to protect the existence of the world might not be murder. But that is not normally the case, and there would have to be no possible alternatives like "placing the goblin children in a different environment where they will no longer threaten the worlds existence."
If it were the case that killing them was the only viable action, the DM might still require an atonement spell form the paladin to retain paladin status after willfully committing such a "usually evil" action.

[Worldsong]

This is were I disagree: V has never shown any remorse for killing the dragons, only for killing the humans. V also enslaved and tortured a dominated kobold, and then sent the kobold undefended to set off traps. Even if V never cast familicide, V's killing of the child black dragon is disgraceful, and yet everyone seems to overlook that. When you factor everything else in, V is a far greater evil than any of the paladins (and is probably be worse than Xykon), and yet everyone here is obsessed with punishing the paladins.

Non exacta. In this page Vaarsuvius makes it clear that they've finally realized that they had no way of knowing whether all the dragons they killed were Evil, and therefore bears guilt not only for the Draketooth family but also every dragon who they didn't give a chance to prove their innocence before killing them.

As such, Vaarsuvius has addressed the dragon slaughter issue, has acknowledged it as wrong, and has incorporated it into their attempts at doing better.

Meanwhile, Miko still self-righteous hypocrite, no redemption in sight. Also, you know, because she's dead.

[hamishspence]

Regardless of the evilness of the action or otherwise, it's going to be a violation of the code because the code demands that paladins punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Children are normally "innocents" by definition.

[Keltest]

Regardless of the evilness of the action or otherwise, it's going to be a violation of the code because the code demands that paladins punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Children are normally "innocents" by definition.

"Is actively a threat to the safety of the world" is a disqualifier for being innocent IMO, although their probable lack of understanding would make me want to try and find alternative methods of stopping them before jumping straight to violence if time and resources allow me to.

[Metastachydium]

What if saving the world makes you feel tingly so you technically derive pleasure from slaughtering the evil monsters threatening to destroy the world?

You are a soteriophile and you should feel bad about it?

[hamishspence]

In the case of Redcloak's village, it could have been a case of

"Diviner predicts that one person in this village endangers the world - cannot tell them who - with the Crimson Mantle Bearer being a possibility but not absolutely guaranteed"

Result - to kill "the one who endangers the world" they have to kill everyone, including the innocent, to ensure the guilty is destroyed.

Ruthless - but there are paladin orders besides the Sapphire Guard who subscribe to "kill everyone in village, to contain major threat" - the Order of Illumination in the D&D splatbook Complete Adventurer, for example. The example there was a demon hiding in the village.

[Shadowknight12]

I agree with Deathhappens. An evil action in D&D is an evil action, regardless of what you believe or what your culture teaches you is good or evil. Evil actions aren't evil because of what some diety said or because a majority of reasonable people would consider it evil - it's evil simply because that's how the universe works. Perform an evil action and you have shifted your alignment towards evil. Perform enough of them and you will detect as evil.

Yes, the action is evil. That's the point. That's what makes the paladin a villain, that they are committing evil actions. The point is that the paladin is not aware that their actions are evil, and therefore does not Fall or change alignment. That's spelled out in the class rules.

You only become Evil (or shift towards evil) if you knowingly and willingly perform Evil acts. That's why animals and other low-Intelligence creatures are Neutral in 3e and cannot be any other alignment: they lack the capacity to understand the morality of their actions. You cannot call a serpent Evil even if it does something that would be considered Evil if a human did it (like treacherously poisoning an innocent to death), because the serpent does not know the morality of its actions.

Yes, this.

"Paladins can be vicious fascists as long as you rewrite the words in their class description that clearly lay out why they can't" is a brilliant new insight--except for the part where it's not brilliant, it's old as 1ed AD&D, and it's not insight.

You mean the words in the class description that qualify that the paladin must knowingly commit an evil act to fall, and that a lot of people in this thread seem to omit from their reasoning and assume that any act of evil a paladin commits, knowingly or not, can cause them to fall?