Allignment Question--Paladin Deafens (sp?) Ally [Archive] - Wizards Community

Allignment Question--Paladin Deafens (sp?) Ally [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dag Hammarskjold
08-11-05, 04:53 PM Suppose the ally of a Paladin is in immediate danger of being beguiled by an enemy's overwhelming persuasion skill, such that there is a need to act immediately or lose that ally. Suppose this Paladin decides, in the split second required for that split decision, to set off a device which temporarily deafens (sp?) everyone in the area, (with an added danger of some permanent hearing loss,) thereby making the ally unable to hear the enemy's persuasive words. This might not necessarily have been the best solution, but sometimes you don't have that long to think things through, you know?

Some people who witnessed this claimed that this was not in keeping with the Paladin's allignment--that at least to some extent, deafening his ally was a betrayal of trust and was an action harming an ally, both of which would constitute the act as non-lawful and non-good. (I should mention the ally in question was eager to hear what the evil persuader had to say.)

Others argued that the motivation was purely lawful-good: to prevent his ally from being decieved, to save him from harm, to foil the evil plans of an evil character, etc.

No one thought the Paladin should be made non-lawful good, but some thought he should at least be put "on probation" so to speak.

I think there's no problem--that the action was totally in keeping with the lawful-good allignment.

But I'd be curious to know what others think...

-DaHa
Puritan13
08-11-05, 05:08 PM Suppose the ally of a Paladin is in immediate danger of being beguiled by an enemy's overwhelming persuasion skill, such that there is a need to act immediately or lose that ally. Suppose this Paladin decides, in the split second required for that split decision, to set off a device which temporarily deafens (sp?) everyone in the area, (with an added danger of some permanent hearing loss,) thereby making the ally unable to hear the enemy's persuasive words. This might not necessarily have been the best solution, but sometimes you don't have that long to think things through, you know?
I have so supposed.

Some people who witnessed this claimed that this was not in keeping with the Paladin's allignment--that at least to some extent, deafening his ally was a betrayal of trust and was an action harming an ally, both of which would constitute the act as non-lawful and non-good. (I should mention the ally in question was eager to hear what the evil persuader had to say.)
Some people are stupid.

Others argued that the motivation was purely lawful-good: to prevent his ally from being decieved, to save him from harm, to foil the evil plans of an evil character, etc.
Other people are smart.
Nidair
08-11-05, 05:32 PM While this is without doubt a good deed, it may not be a lawful deed. You are intentionally disabling an ally's hearing ability, and a church heavily relying on the paladin's code of conduct may become infuriated at this.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster
08-11-05, 05:49 PM It was the lesser of two evils, but not an evil act in and of itself. Yes, it endangerd his allies, but only to protect them from an even greater threat.
Count Arioch the 28th
08-11-05, 06:10 PM I would consider this a minor issue.

If anyone received permanent hearing loss, then the paladin should pay to have the proper spell cast to restore hearing, but a temporary loss of hearing is nothing to worry about.

I'd say your paladin made the right choice. His code would indicate that healing any permanent damage would be appropriate thought.
Orcboss
08-11-05, 06:24 PM As easy as deafness is to fix with a low level cleric, I don't see this as a big problem. Even then, it's not like it was his intent to permanently deafen his allies. It might have been a little of an overreaction if the enemy was just using the Diplomacy skill or something like that, but still hardly breaking a code.
Azzy
08-11-05, 07:20 PM Considering that it didn't harm anyone (and if it did permanently deafen any allies, the paladin would rectify the situation), I'd agree that the paladin was well within his code to use this means to protect his ally or allies. I'd say the same if the paladin tried to knock an ally unconscious to protect said ally. "Sorry, bud. It's for your own good."
Ringmereth
08-11-05, 07:40 PM I've never liked D&D's style of morality in which a paladin would lose his status if he briefly joined an evil person to save his closest friend, to save his church, to save the whole world. It's a messy, imperfect world, and no paladin is faultless-so sometimes they have to take the lesser of two evils. I believe that the paladin's code should be about the spirit in which he does actions more than the actions themselves. But enough of that rant.

At any rate, I don't see how the pally violated his code. He did not mess with legitimate authority, act dishonorably, fail to help someone in need (he did the opposite, actually) or fail to punish an evildoer. Deafening an ally for their own good isn't what I'd call evil, any more than amputating a limb to prevent infection would be evil. No problems with it here.
Otto the Bugbear
08-11-05, 09:53 PM This is what it's come down to? Really? You're not kidding? A paladin saves a party member from being beguiled (another word for charmed), and this is even a question?

Some people need to pull their head out of their exit orifice.

Sheesh! In case I wasn't clear, this was a purely LAWFUL GOOD act.

Cheers

Otto :)
EvilDuck
08-11-05, 11:29 PM I agree with the above posters. The act was not in violation of the paladin's code.
Far_Traveler
08-11-05, 11:54 PM I say it was a good act, but a CHAOTIC good act. now, because alignment change is gradual, the paladin might be walking on thin ice, but probably won't immediatly lose it. he would still need to do everything in his power to heal the deafness, but otherwise he would keep his powers for the time being
Slyde Shadowdart
08-11-05, 11:55 PM Another vote for "deafness is easy to cure, so in the end it's not even a valid question."

He prevented an evil bad dude from harming (in one way or another) an ally.

No prob, Bob.
CzarGarrett
08-12-05, 09:39 AM It might be an issue if after the Paladin did this, he refused to work with the now deaf character and wouldn't help him to recover his hearing.
BadCatMan
08-12-05, 10:21 AM I think I'll go the other way on this.

Were these beguiling words part of some sort of charming or even dominating spell? In this case, it would be perfectly acceptable to deafen the ally in order to protect them.

If it was just a part of normal conversation, then the paladin has really restricted the other character's freedom, and taken away their ability to choose. He's essentially deciding what is and what is not okay for someone to hear. Its thought control, I suppose. Forcing a character to hear only one side of the argument. It may be lawful, and may fit the paladin's own definition of good, but isn't really an overall good act, IMO.

The better paladin would have let the villian say his piece, then argue passionately against it, and ultimately prove him wrong by good deeds.
Ogre4Hire
08-12-05, 04:00 PM This is, IMO, a really weird question. I don't think that the Paladin did anything wrong, but I find it strange that the Paladin was unable to either counter the villian by pointing out his falsehoods or end results or whatever, or by taking a more direct approach and opening a can of Smite Evil on him.

I've always hated DMs who insist on super straight-and-narrow restrictions on Paladins. Heironious sees what you did and why you did it. He's a Good aligned deity, I don't think a player should be punished for doing what he thought was the right thing if he was decieved, or be in danger of losing his status because he failed a save and was Dominated, and any time he faces a no-win situation there should be some other alternative that allows him to succeed without letting someone die (like in Spiderman where he was able to save both the cable car and Mary Jane).
Pyritefoolsgold
08-13-05, 02:10 AM Imagine that there is a forest fire. A real blazing inferno of one. Imagine that for some reason, a close friend of yours is staring, fascinated, into the fire. Then they start walking towards it. You don't know for sure if they will walk into the fire. You don't know for sure what they're doing, but it looks like that's exactly what they're doing.
You don't think that you can hold them back with pure strength. You could try to convince them, but it might not work. You are running out of time. Then you see a nice big honkin' tree branch. So you crack him on the head with it, knocking him out and risking permanently injuring him.
Since the paladin seemed to see the villains words as actually dangerous, (whether they were or not, that's what he thought, and it would take a lot of context to tell us why he thought that.) what he did was, while a little rash, the best he could do. And furthermore, it is the epitome of Lawful Good. It was Good because he did it to protect his friend from what he percieved as harm. But moreso than that it was lawful, because the Paladin was taking away his friend's choice to hear the villain out. A very chaotic person would say that his friend had the right to hear the other person's argument, and that the paladin was interfering in his freedom. A fanatically chaotic person would also say that a person has a right to walk into a blazing forest fire, and that you have no right to restrict them. As a paladin is LAWFUL good, he has no such problems with taking away freedoms for what he thinks is the greater good.
Lord Ian Stark
08-13-05, 03:53 AM Wow the persecution of the Paladin gets more rediculous. :rolleyes: :P

Dag Hammarskjold I would say that if a Paladin does something that the DM says was not within his code then that's how it will go. If you're the DM then I would tell you that you are correct in thinking no code violation happened.
Tenzhi
08-13-05, 04:54 AM If the Paladin threw a blanket over a character to put out a fire thereby temporarily robbing him of sight would it be against the Paladin code? :rolleyes:
Sigurd van Norhusen
08-13-05, 05:20 AM I think this Paladin did a vile act by trying to overwhelm his friends and allies with this backstabbing tactic. In my game, this Paladin would immediatly lose all his powers and be well on his way to a CE Blackguard. Has he been contacted by an evil outsider (most likely devils which are as opressive as he is) yet? It might just be long overdue. :P

Seriously now, why is this even an issue? Smack those who don't want Paladins with brains upside-down the head and continue playing.
Slyde Shadowdart
08-13-05, 05:46 AM A fanatically chaotic person would also say that a person has a right to walk into a blazing forest fire, and that you have no right to restrict them.

As an aside, I would say this would be neutral, not chaotic. ;)
Dalar Ragnos
08-13-05, 08:05 PM I'd say this Paladin was acting in a LG manner.

It was Lawful because not only was he willing to make the choice for his ally (since the ally couldn't do it themself), he was also willing to take measures to prevent the ally from having any choice in the matter. That would fall under the "trustworthiness" and "reliability" factors of the Lawful alignment. He was acting in the best interest of his ally, even if the ally couldn't see it for themself.

It was Good because he was protecting his ally from possible use as a pawn of Evil; if the ally joined the wrong side, they might be harmed when the party went after the BBEG/LBEG. Furthermore, it was Good because he acted in the least possible damaging way, and it would be easy to cure any permanent hearing loss.
----------------------------------

It would've been either Chaotic or Neutral to let the ally listen, then try to persuade them. By doing so, the Paladin would've been neither trustworthy nor reliable, and thus not Lawful.

It would've been Evil if he'd struck his ally for lethal damage to prevent them from joining the Evil guy; that's when a change to Blackguard would have been in order.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dag Hammarskjold 08-11-05, 04:53 PM	Suppose the ally of a Paladin is in immediate danger of being beguiled by an enemy's overwhelming persuasion skill, such that there is a need to act immediately or lose that ally. Suppose this Paladin decides, in the split second required for that split decision, to set off a device which temporarily deafens (sp?) everyone in the area, (with an added danger of some permanent hearing loss,) thereby making the ally unable to hear the enemy's persuasive words. This might not necessarily have been the best solution, but sometimes you don't have that long to think things through, you know? Some people who witnessed this claimed that this was not in keeping with the Paladin's allignment--that at least to some extent, deafening his ally was a betrayal of trust and was an action harming an ally, both of which would constitute the act as non-lawful and non-good. (I should mention the ally in question was eager to hear what the evil persuader had to say.) Others argued that the motivation was purely lawful-good: to prevent his ally from being decieved, to save him from harm, to foil the evil plans of an evil character, etc. No one thought the Paladin should be made non-lawful good, but some thought he should at least be put "on probation" so to speak. I think there's no problem--that the action was totally in keeping with the lawful-good allignment. But I'd be curious to know what others think... -DaHa
Puritan13 08-11-05, 05:08 PM	Suppose the ally of a Paladin is in immediate danger of being beguiled by an enemy's overwhelming persuasion skill, such that there is a need to act immediately or lose that ally. Suppose this Paladin decides, in the split second required for that split decision, to set off a device which temporarily deafens (sp?) everyone in the area, (with an added danger of some permanent hearing loss,) thereby making the ally unable to hear the enemy's persuasive words. This might not necessarily have been the best solution, but sometimes you don't have that long to think things through, you know? I have so supposed. Some people who witnessed this claimed that this was not in keeping with the Paladin's allignment--that at least to some extent, deafening his ally was a betrayal of trust and was an action harming an ally, both of which would constitute the act as non-lawful and non-good. (I should mention the ally in question was eager to hear what the evil persuader had to say.) Some people are stupid. Others argued that the motivation was purely lawful-good: to prevent his ally from being decieved, to save him from harm, to foil the evil plans of an evil character, etc. Other people are smart.
Nidair 08-11-05, 05:32 PM	While this is without doubt a good deed, it may not be a lawful deed. You are intentionally disabling an ally's hearing ability, and a church heavily relying on the paladin's code of conduct may become infuriated at this.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 08-11-05, 05:49 PM	It was the lesser of two evils, but not an evil act in and of itself. Yes, it endangerd his allies, but only to protect them from an even greater threat.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-11-05, 06:10 PM	I would consider this a minor issue. If anyone received permanent hearing loss, then the paladin should pay to have the proper spell cast to restore hearing, but a temporary loss of hearing is nothing to worry about. I'd say your paladin made the right choice. His code would indicate that healing any permanent damage would be appropriate thought.
Orcboss 08-11-05, 06:24 PM	As easy as deafness is to fix with a low level cleric, I don't see this as a big problem. Even then, it's not like it was his intent to permanently deafen his allies. It might have been a little of an overreaction if the enemy was just using the Diplomacy skill or something like that, but still hardly breaking a code.
Azzy 08-11-05, 07:20 PM	Considering that it didn't harm anyone (and if it did permanently deafen any allies, the paladin would rectify the situation), I'd agree that the paladin was well within his code to use this means to protect his ally or allies. I'd say the same if the paladin tried to knock an ally unconscious to protect said ally. "Sorry, bud. It's for your own good."
Ringmereth 08-11-05, 07:40 PM	I've never liked D&D's style of morality in which a paladin would lose his status if he briefly joined an evil person to save his closest friend, to save his church, to save the whole world. It's a messy, imperfect world, and no paladin is faultless-so sometimes they have to take the lesser of two evils. I believe that the paladin's code should be about the spirit in which he does actions more than the actions themselves. But enough of that rant. At any rate, I don't see how the pally violated his code. He did not mess with legitimate authority, act dishonorably, fail to help someone in need (he did the opposite, actually) or fail to punish an evildoer. Deafening an ally for their own good isn't what I'd call evil, any more than amputating a limb to prevent infection would be evil. No problems with it here.
Otto the Bugbear 08-11-05, 09:53 PM	This is what it's come down to? Really? You're not kidding? A paladin saves a party member from being beguiled (another word for charmed), and this is even a question? Some people need to pull their head out of their exit orifice. Sheesh! In case I wasn't clear, this was a purely LAWFUL GOOD act. Cheers Otto :)
EvilDuck 08-11-05, 11:29 PM	I agree with the above posters. The act was not in violation of the paladin's code.
Far_Traveler 08-11-05, 11:54 PM	I say it was a good act, but a CHAOTIC good act. now, because alignment change is gradual, the paladin might be walking on thin ice, but probably won't immediatly lose it. he would still need to do everything in his power to heal the deafness, but otherwise he would keep his powers for the time being
Slyde Shadowdart 08-11-05, 11:55 PM	Another vote for "deafness is easy to cure, so in the end it's not even a valid question." He prevented an evil bad dude from harming (in one way or another) an ally. No prob, Bob.
CzarGarrett 08-12-05, 09:39 AM	It might be an issue if after the Paladin did this, he refused to work with the now deaf character and wouldn't help him to recover his hearing.
BadCatMan 08-12-05, 10:21 AM	I think I'll go the other way on this. Were these beguiling words part of some sort of charming or even dominating spell? In this case, it would be perfectly acceptable to deafen the ally in order to protect them. If it was just a part of normal conversation, then the paladin has really restricted the other character's freedom, and taken away their ability to choose. He's essentially deciding what is and what is not okay for someone to hear. Its thought control, I suppose. Forcing a character to hear only one side of the argument. It may be lawful, and may fit the paladin's own definition of good, but isn't really an overall good act, IMO. The better paladin would have let the villian say his piece, then argue passionately against it, and ultimately prove him wrong by good deeds.
Ogre4Hire 08-12-05, 04:00 PM	This is, IMO, a really weird question. I don't think that the Paladin did anything wrong, but I find it strange that the Paladin was unable to either counter the villian by pointing out his falsehoods or end results or whatever, or by taking a more direct approach and opening a can of Smite Evil on him. I've always hated DMs who insist on super straight-and-narrow restrictions on Paladins. Heironious sees what you did and why you did it. He's a Good aligned deity, I don't think a player should be punished for doing what he thought was the right thing if he was decieved, or be in danger of losing his status because he failed a save and was Dominated, and any time he faces a no-win situation there should be some other alternative that allows him to succeed without letting someone die (like in Spiderman where he was able to save both the cable car and Mary Jane).
Pyritefoolsgold 08-13-05, 02:10 AM	Imagine that there is a forest fire. A real blazing inferno of one. Imagine that for some reason, a close friend of yours is staring, fascinated, into the fire. Then they start walking towards it. You don't know for sure if they will walk into the fire. You don't know for sure what they're doing, but it looks like that's exactly what they're doing. You don't think that you can hold them back with pure strength. You could try to convince them, but it might not work. You are running out of time. Then you see a nice big honkin' tree branch. So you crack him on the head with it, knocking him out and risking permanently injuring him. Since the paladin seemed to see the villains words as actually dangerous, (whether they were or not, that's what he thought, and it would take a lot of context to tell us why he thought that.) what he did was, while a little rash, the best he could do. And furthermore, it is the epitome of Lawful Good. It was Good because he did it to protect his friend from what he percieved as harm. But moreso than that it was lawful, because the Paladin was taking away his friend's choice to hear the villain out. A very chaotic person would say that his friend had the right to hear the other person's argument, and that the paladin was interfering in his freedom. A fanatically chaotic person would also say that a person has a right to walk into a blazing forest fire, and that you have no right to restrict them. As a paladin is LAWFUL good, he has no such problems with taking away freedoms for what he thinks is the greater good.
Lord Ian Stark 08-13-05, 03:53 AM	Wow the persecution of the Paladin gets more rediculous. :rolleyes: :P Dag Hammarskjold I would say that if a Paladin does something that the DM says was not within his code then that's how it will go. If you're the DM then I would tell you that you are correct in thinking no code violation happened.
Tenzhi 08-13-05, 04:54 AM	If the Paladin threw a blanket over a character to put out a fire thereby temporarily robbing him of sight would it be against the Paladin code? :rolleyes:
Sigurd van Norhusen 08-13-05, 05:20 AM	I think this Paladin did a vile act by trying to overwhelm his friends and allies with this backstabbing tactic. In my game, this Paladin would immediatly lose all his powers and be well on his way to a CE Blackguard. Has he been contacted by an evil outsider (most likely devils which are as opressive as he is) yet? It might just be long overdue. :P Seriously now, why is this even an issue? Smack those who don't want Paladins with brains upside-down the head and continue playing.
Slyde Shadowdart 08-13-05, 05:46 AM	A fanatically chaotic person would also say that a person has a right to walk into a blazing forest fire, and that you have no right to restrict them. As an aside, I would say this would be neutral, not chaotic. ;)
Dalar Ragnos 08-13-05, 08:05 PM	I'd say this Paladin was acting in a LG manner. It was Lawful because not only was he willing to make the choice for his ally (since the ally couldn't do it themself), he was also willing to take measures to prevent the ally from having any choice in the matter. That would fall under the "trustworthiness" and "reliability" factors of the Lawful alignment. He was acting in the best interest of his ally, even if the ally couldn't see it for themself. It was Good because he was protecting his ally from possible use as a pawn of Evil; if the ally joined the wrong side, they might be harmed when the party went after the BBEG/LBEG. Furthermore, it was Good because he acted in the least possible damaging way, and it would be easy to cure any permanent hearing loss. ---------------------------------- It would've been either Chaotic or Neutral to let the ally listen, then try to persuade them. By doing so, the Paladin would've been neither trustworthy nor reliable, and thus not Lawful. It would've been Evil if he'd struck his ally for lethal damage to prevent them from joining the Evil guy; that's when a change to Blackguard would have been in order.