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

[hamishspence]

Was the Harmonium in Planescape somewhere? I would like to look it up.
Planescape is one of the settings I'm least familiar with, because I never played in it while it was a thing.

TV Tropes's entry on Planescape Factions might be a good place to start - then maybe various wikis.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...escapeFactions

[Kish]

Both can exist under D&D rules.

Read, but don't expect me to reply to your next effort to Humpty-Dumpty the words there.

Was the Harmonium in Planescape somewhere? I would like to look it up.
Planescape is one of the settings I'm least familiar with, because I never played in it while it was a thing.

The Harmonium is...well, let's put it this way.

brian 333 approaches accuracy in one way alone: you can't actually justify a paladin villain by D&D rules, but that doesn't mean they don't show up in games and settings regularly (and not deliberately house ruled, claiming to make some kind of philosophical point). Dragonlance, in particular, is a shining example of how, if the authors want to make a childish and trite moral argument, "the embodiment of Good" can mean "hypocritical fascists."

[Jason]

TV Tropes's entry on Planescape Factions might be a good place to start - then maybe various wikis.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...escapeFactions

Oh I have the books, I just haven't read them for a long time and never really used them. I'll have to go have a look.

[Arin]

Given our new understand of the gods' general attitude towards the goblins, my headcanon at this point is that They literally just forgot to punish the paladins for their actions, because, y'know... goblins.

[mjasghar]

The homeworld of the Harmonium, this planet was once a fairly standard Prime world, filled with competing nations representing all the various reflections mortal peoples have to offer. One day nearly 500 years ago, however, a group of adventurers set out to "rid the country of chaos and bring peace to the land." And unlike most such expeditions, they succeeded; within a single generation, law had overwhelmed Ortho, and chaos had been driven out.
Today, humans, dwarves, orcs, and beholders work together under the law of the Harmonium. The more chaotic-leaning species have long since been driven out (or killed, by the tales of some); elves, gnomes, halflings, and even the fey are nowhere to be found on Ortho. Those few sorts who have traveled there describe it as a rigid place, but peaceful. The various flavors of law manage to work together in peace, with little of the conflict one may expect between the various nations of the world, good or evil.
Being a heavily religious world, Ortho's harmony and conformity is held strong by the Harmonium through its powers. Even Factol Sarin and his family come from this tradition, he a native paladin of that world and his wife, Faith, a priest and one of the faction's spiritual leaders.
Ortho is merely one of a number of Harmonium worlds in the Prime, however: an imperium collectively known as the Orthan Empire. They have been successful in spreading their message to a number of realms within and without their crystal sphere, with most high-ups in the Harmonium having their origins in one of these lands. The Harmonium are constantly seeking out other potential colonies in the Prime, always looking to spread their message to other lands touched by Chaos.
From factol manifesto

[Keltest]

The homeworld of the Harmonium, this planet was once a fairly standard Prime world, filled with competing nations representing all the various reflections mortal peoples have to offer. One day nearly 500 years ago, however, a group of adventurers set out to "rid the country of chaos and bring peace to the land." And unlike most such expeditions, they succeeded; within a single generation, law had overwhelmed Ortho, and chaos had been driven out.
Today, humans, dwarves, orcs, and beholders work together under the law of the Harmonium. The more chaotic-leaning species have long since been driven out (or killed, by the tales of some); elves, gnomes, halflings, and even the fey are nowhere to be found on Ortho. Those few sorts who have traveled there describe it as a rigid place, but peaceful. The various flavors of law manage to work together in peace, with little of the conflict one may expect between the various nations of the world, good or evil.
Being a heavily religious world, Ortho's harmony and conformity is held strong by the Harmonium through its powers. Even Factol Sarin and his family come from this tradition, he a native paladin of that world and his wife, Faith, a priest and one of the faction's spiritual leaders.
Ortho is merely one of a number of Harmonium worlds in the Prime, however: an imperium collectively known as the Orthan Empire. They have been successful in spreading their message to a number of realms within and without their crystal sphere, with most high-ups in the Harmonium having their origins in one of these lands. The Harmonium are constantly seeking out other potential colonies in the Prime, always looking to spread their message to other lands touched by Chaos.
From factol manifesto

I mean, that sounds like a lawful evil tyranny to me. Free thinkers are exiled or executed, its racist, they try to control the thoughts of its citizenry...

Is that genuinely intended to be a lawful good society?

[mjasghar]

It says they are lawful but variants
Which doesn’t make much sense when you think they must have different laws and yet at the same time have empire
And many of the leadership are paladins who seem to openly associate with Evil characters even to the extent that they have evil subordinates and superiors.

[Jason]

Okay, I read up on it.

The answer is no, they are not really intended to be seen as a lawful good society. They are a LAWFUL society that values peace, so there is a tendency towards good-alignment, but they accept any lawful members, regardless of also being good, evil, or neutral.

The paladins do not make up a majority of the group, though there are paladins in it. They also seem to be kept ignorant of the darker aspects of their plans and activities. The paladin leader on Sigil is mentioned as being ignorant of some of his faction's activities several times in the text.

The reason for the shift of the third layer of Arcadia to Mechanus appears to be not necessarily that the camps were too evil, but that they were too focused on lawfulness. "The Harmonium fouled the plane with their training camps, trying to impress a desire for the good of all on creatures by nature more concerned with smaller matters. Now, Nemausus is tainted by the Plane of Ultimate Law (Mechanus); it's an object lesson, teaching that a body can't force her viewpoint on another and expect not to suffer retribution." - Planes of Law

In other words, what I said before was correct - the lawful good alignment requires respect for free choice in order to retain the "good" aspect. Lawful neutral and lawful evil are the alignments that see free will as a problem.

The Harmonium are meant to be antagonists who are not technically evil but end up acting pretty evil, in what was the "edgiest" setting for 2nd Edition. This was the same era at TSR where the leadership of the company mostly didn't care what the designers were actually doing, so a lot of random and crazy stuff went out. Like Spelljammer. Some of it was awesome, other bits were a little too over-the-top.

[arimareiji]

Read, but don't expect me to reply to your next effort to Humpty-Dumpty the words there.

The Harmonium is...well, let's put it this way.

brian 333 approaches accuracy in one way alone: you can't actually justify a paladin villain by D&D rules, but that doesn't mean they don't show up in games and settings regularly (and not deliberately house ruled, claiming to make some kind of philosophical point). Dragonlance, in particular, is a shining example of how, if the authors want to make a childish and trite moral argument, "the embodiment of Good" can mean "hypocritical fascists."

Indeed... imo one of the main reasons they're in the story is so that Sturm can look almost saintly by contrast to the egocentric @#oles.

For the record, I don't want to go within a mile of asserting Sturm is bad. I'm saying they wanted to make him an almost-saintly figure,

Spoiler: Dragonlance spoiler

Show

all the better to punch the reader right in the feels when he sacrifices himself

.

[mjasghar]

The Paladins are still freely associating with Evil characters though
Including beholders who are notoriously evil
And there’s no suggestion they objected to forcing out elves etc
So they have endorsed evil over good

[Shadowknight12]

To be fair, the reason debate on this topic is futile is due to the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"Paladins can do evil."
"Ah, those are not true paladins."
"The setting enables it."
"Ah, that setting doesn't follow the true rules of D&D."
"The rules enable it."
"Ah, but the rules use the words 'good' and 'evil' and your definition is not the true definition of good and evil."

And so on.

[Jason]

To be fair, the reason debate on this topic is futile is due to the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"Paladins can do evil."
"Ah, those are not true paladins."
"The setting enables it."
"Ah, that setting doesn't follow the true rules of D&D."
"The rules enable it."
"Ah, but the rules use the words 'good' and 'evil' and your definition is not the true definition of good and evil."

And so on.

Scotsmen don't have defined requirements that they must meet in order to be considered Scotsmen. Paladins do have requirements they must meet to continue to be paladins.

[Shadowknight12]

Scotsmen don't have defined requirements that they must meet in order to be considered Scotsmen. Paladins do have requirements they must meet to continue to be paladins.

First of all: depending on your specific definition of a Scotsmen, Scotland is involved as a requirement somewhere in there (whether they are those who reside there, or need to have been born there, or both, or be descended from someone who did, is a matter of debate, but "Scotland" being involved is very much a requirement).

Second of all: The rules governing paladins make use of concepts that philosophers have been debating for thousands of years and have not come to an agreement on, have spawned dozens and dozens of schools of thought and ethics, and are likely to vary from person to person even within the same table. You know, like the definition of what counts as a Scotsman.

[Jason]

Second of all: The rules governing paladins make use of concepts that philosophers have been debating for thousands of years and have not come to an agreement on, have spawned dozens and dozens of schools of thought and ethics, and are likely to vary from person to person even within the same table. You know, like the definition of what counts as a Scotsman.

No they don't. Good and evil in D&D are pretty well-defined, actually, and have a DM to resolve disputes. If a DM says "you're not a paladin, anymore" then you're not a paladin anymore, regardless of whether you think your actions were evil or not.

Edit: And in a comic that runs on D&D rules, the author is the DM. If he has paladins performing actions that he obviously considers evil and he doesn't have them fall then no, the paladins aren't following the rules.

[Shadowknight12]

No they don't. Good and evil in D&D are pretty well-defined, actually, and have a DM to resolve disputes. If a DM says "you're not a paladin, anymore" then you're not a paladin anymore, regardless of whether you think your actions were evil or not.

Oh? Pray tell, are they written in extremely unambiguous legal jargon, like contracts, to avoid any possible misunderstanding? Or are they written using plain language that leaves vagaries open to interpretation?

And furthermore, are DMs not people too? Do they not disagree amongst each other as well? Isn't it well known that one DM's judgment call on whether something is good or evil may be completely different to another DM's?

And isn't this a forum where we all come to converse and not a table where one of us has the final say?

EDIT:

Edit: And in a comic that runs on D&D rules, the author is the DM. If he has paladins performing actions that he obviously considers evil and he doesn't have them fall then no, the paladins aren't following the rules.

I thought Rule Zero superseded all other rules? Is following Rule Zero not "following the rules" as well?

[pearl jam]

First of all: depending on your specific definition of a Scotsmen, Scotland is involved as a requirement somewhere in there (whether they are those who reside there, or need to have been born there, or both, or be descended from someone who did, is a matter of debate, but "Scotland" being involved is very much a requirement).

Second of all: The rules governing paladins make use of concepts that philosophers have been debating for thousands of years and have not come to an agreement on, have spawned dozens and dozens of schools of thought and ethics, and are likely to vary from person to person even within the same table. You know, like the definition of what counts as a Scotsman.

The requirements for being a paladin are behavioral. The requirements for being a Scotsman are not, but are suggested to be so by the fallacy.

[Shadowknight12]

The requirements for being a paladin are behavioral. The requirements for being a Scotsman are not, but are suggested to be so by the fallacy.

The fallacy is about things that are not Scotsmen, too.

A fallacy that only works on one specific example would be rather difficult to use, I imagine.

[Jason]

I thought Rule Zero superseded all other rules? Is following Rule Zero not "following the rules" as well?

If you are superseding rules through Rule Zero then yes, from one perspective you are still following the rules, but no, you're not following those rules.

If as DM you allow your paladins to consistently engage in actions that you consider "willful evil acts" then no, you are not enforcing the normal rules that govern paladins, even if you can excuse suspending the other rules through invoking Rule Zero.

Stickworld paladins sometimes don't follow the rules. They still follow Rule Zero, because the writer can do whatever he wants in his world, but they don't follow the normal paladin rules.

[arimareiji]

The requirements for being a paladin are behavioral. The requirements for being a Scotsman are not, but are suggested to be so by the fallacy.

Indeed. I'd think that genetic testing, birthplace, gender, and whatnot are objectively-disputable facts... but it all falls away in light of the qualifier "true", the heart of the fallacy.

Invoking this fallacy seems particularly apt. If we know there are people who will refuse to accept objective facts like "He was born in Scotland, tests as 99.44% Scottish ancestry, etc" as proof of "true", good luck getting them to agree on highly-subjective measures like "was a specific action Evil or Good?"

[Shadowknight12]

Stickworld paladins sometimes don't follow the rules. They still follow Rule Zero, because the writer can do whatever he wants in his world, but they don't follow the normal paladin rules.

But I thought you said the DM had the final say? So is the DM having a specific interpretation of the rules (or overriding them via Rule Zero) not exactly as the game was intended to be played?

[Jason]

But I thought you said the DM had the final say?

Yes.

So is the DM having a specific interpretation of the rules (or overriding them via Rule Zero) not exactly as the game was intended to be played?

Sure. But you should also tell your players when the normal rules no longer apply. "The gods your character serves determine when you fall, not whether I the DM think you're doing evil," is a pretty significant rule change for anyone wanting to run a paladin.

[Worldsong]

Yes.
Sure. But you should also tell your players when the normal rules no longer apply. "The gods your character serves determine when you fall, not whether I the DM think you're doing evil," is a pretty significant rule change for anyone wanting to run a paladin.

Unless the DM tries to define Evil acts as acts which a Good-aligned deity considers fall-worthy.

[Keltest]

But I thought you said the DM had the final say? So is the DM having a specific interpretation of the rules (or overriding them via Rule Zero) not exactly as the game was intended to be played?

Interpreting the rules as written and rule 0 are different concepts. Interpretation is necessary for the game to progress, especially in 3,5 where everything is written by different people who gave no thought to how the different systems intersected. Overriding the rules is generally not necessary, and requires that the rules have a specific understood meaning before they be overridden.

Unless the DM tries to define Evil acts as acts which a Good-aligned deity considers fall-worthy.

If im playing a paladin, and my DM tries to use a tautalogical argument like this to justify having my paladin fall, im probably throwing a book at him and leaving the table. I dont need that kind of antagonism in my games, especially from a DM.

Also, in 3.5, paladins are not powered by gods the way clerics are, but by the "cosmic forces of law and good". Requiring a god is a Forgotten Realms specific thing, though as earlier editions did have them empowered by gods, it is a tradition many tables have stuck with in their own worlds.

[Worldsong]

If im playing a paladin, and my DM tries to use a tautalogical argument like this to justify having my paladin fall, im probably throwing a book at him and leaving the table. I dont need that kind of antagonism in my games, especially from a DM.

Also, in 3.5, paladins are not powered by gods the way clerics are, but by the "cosmic forces of law and good". Requiring a god is a Forgotten Realms specific thing, though as earlier editions did have them empowered by gods, it is a tradition many tables have stuck with in their own worlds.

Not so much different from saying there's some kind of absolute concept of Good floating about. It's just that the absolute concept of Good has a face and that face is the deity you're serving.

Also tying a paladin's powers to a deity does make things a lot easier since it means the question of what is a fall-worthy act is one step removed from the eternal question 'What is Good'.

[Shadowknight12]

Interpreting the rules as written and rule 0 are different concepts. Interpretation is necessary for the game to progress, especially in 3,5 where everything is written by different people who gave no thought to how the different systems intersected. Overriding the rules is generally not necessary, and requires that the rules have a specific understood meaning before they be overridden.

The thread's original discussion point was about paladins being viable villains, which required them to do evil (or be evil, as per some interpretations). Much argument ensued, but the gist of the people saying "paladins cannot be villains" is a combination of the No True Scotsman Fallacy alongside the argument that "the DM has the final say, unless I disagree with them, in which case they're wrong."

If im playing a paladin, and my DM tries to use a tautalogical argument like this to justify having my paladin fall, im probably throwing a book at him and leaving the table.

Case in point.

[Keltest]

The thread's original discussion point was about paladins being viable villains, which required them to do evil (or be evil, as per some interpretations). Much argument ensued, but the gist of the people saying "paladins cannot be villains" is a combination of the No True Scotsman Fallacy alongside the argument that "the DM has the final say, unless I disagree with them, in which case they're wrong."



Case in point.

Ok, but paladins definitionally cant be evil. Thats one of the completely unambiguous parts of their code. They have to be Lawful Good. Committing an evil act causes them to fall, and where that line is can be blurry sometimes, but villains (as opposed to antagonists) do need to be evil, which automatically disqualifies paladins. Its not a "no true scotsman" fallacy because being Lawful Good is part of the definition of being a paladin.

[Worldsong]

Ok, but paladins definitionally cant be evil. Thats one of the completely unambiguous parts of their code. They have to be Lawful Good. Committing an evil act causes them to fall, and where that line is can be blurry sometimes, but villains (as opposed to antagonists) do need to be evil, which automatically disqualifies paladins. Its not a "no true scotsman" fallacy because being Lawful Good is part of the definition of being a paladin.

Until 5e decided to make a mess.

[Keltest]

Until 5e decided to make a mess.

I mean, yeah. But were talking 3.5, because thats the version relevant to the comic.

[Shadowknight12]

Ok, but paladins definitionally cant be evil. Thats one of the completely unambiguous parts of their code. They have to be Lawful Good. Committing an evil act causes them to fall, and where that line is can be blurry sometimes, but villains (as opposed to antagonists) do need to be evil, which automatically disqualifies paladins. Its not a "no true scotsman" fallacy because being Lawful Good is part of the definition of being a paladin.

We went over this a few times in this thread. Not everyone agrees that villains have to be evil, some believe that they can simply do evil (because not everyone that does evil is evil, just like not everyone that does good is good). Paladins are explicitly allowed by the rules to do evil without falling (we also covered this in this thread already).

EDIT: To pre-empt the obvious follow-up post: Paladins are allowed to do evil so long as they do so unwillingly and/or unwittingly. A paladin can do evil without understanding or knowing that they are doing evil, and still remain Good and not Fall.

[Worldsong]

We went over this a few times in this thread. Not everyone agrees that villains have to be evil, some believe that they can simply do evil (because not everyone that does evil is evil, just like not everyone that does good is good). Paladins are explicitly allowed by the rules to do evil without falling (we also covered this in this thread already).

EDIT: To pre-empt the obvious follow-up post: Paladins are allowed to do evil so long as they do so unwillingly and/or unwittingly. A paladin can do evil without understanding or knowing that they are doing evil, and still remain Good and not Fall.

Basically, the easiest way to make a villainous paladin is to give them absolutely atrocious INT and WIS so you can realistically claim that they're completely oblivious of the potential Evilness of their actions.

Of course, if I was a DM and I realized a player was intentionally trying to pull this off I'd probably consider it a tad dastardly.