Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xerxal 09-21-04, 06:51 PM	My group's paladin had a recient hiccup from grace. He, of course, disagrees with my ruling, so I've come here looking for a third opinion. The player himself was just reciently introduced to the DnD game (by me), and we've played two sessions. The party is as follows: Bard 4 ("I don't care" Type) Psychic Warrior 4 ("Quiet" Type) Necromancer 4 ("Steal your soul/crazy evil" Type) Sorcerer 4 ("Drinkin' and Whorin'" Type) and the 4th level Fallen Paladin (of Tyr, if it matters) Now, before I tell you how he lost his Paladinhood, understand that I've explained many times to this player that playing in a group like the one above would be difficult, if not impossible, for a paladin to undertake. But he is persistant on playing the paladin class (He likes the archetype and he likes the idea of protecting people) Anyhow, here's the story. The party is hired by the local Harper's Guild to go troll hunting along a mountian pass. They would recieve a bounty of 100 Gold for each troll head they return with. But when they get to the pass, the trolls they encounter are heavily weakened and starved. They find a solitary, weakened troll sitting by a campfire, roasting his own severed arm for food. The bard and the paladin are able to get some information out of the troll and even convince it to join with them for a while. Turns out that the trolls in the area have been rounded up by a particularly nasty Shade and are being turned into shadows. The trolls they had encountered were the lucky few that escaped their cages. The party agrees to help the troll free it's bretheren and it leads them to the Shade's lair. All the while, the party planned only to learn the location of a nice collection of caged troll heads. In the shade's lair, the troll fought bravely and saved each member of the party's lives at least once (the troll was chaotic neutral, bridging on good, he told them his ordeal had made him rethink his lifestyle as a raider/pilliager) When it came time to free the captive trolls, the party slaughtered the defensless ones and surrounded the one that had helped them. I considered this a serious, honorless, act of betrayal, and the paladin fell immediately. The paladin seems to think that "they were just trolls", and killing them was the right thing to do for the protection of the nearby city. But I believe the situation could have been handled differently. So what do you think? Was I justified in revoking his paladinhood? If so, in what way could he atone, if he can atone at all? If not, how would you have handled the situation differently? Thanks in advance.
Kainy 09-21-04, 07:08 PM	Troll: Alignment: Usually Chaotic Evil. He had justification. He was destroying monsters. He wasn't a freaking paladin of Ilmater. It's not such a black and white thing as you seem to think. Now, the trolls had been cooperating with them, which is VERY against all that chaotic evil is about... so if he didn't even use his evil sense on them to confirm whether they were baby-eating trolls, then you have more of a case. However... yeah. You're assuming that you're right. It's extremely annoying when DMs do that, and you may well cost yourself players. Try and DISCUSS it with him, rather than TELLING him.
magicbehere 09-21-04, 07:12 PM	Ignore Kainy from what you said you are completly right, if they were my players I would be very sick with them for acting that way unless it was suposed to be an evil game.
ImmortalBlueMage 09-21-04, 07:13 PM	Killing the caged trolls was iffy. The question I think most important was this: If he had freed the trolls, would they have posed a danger to him or to others? If the answer is "yes", then killing them was probably justified. However, in doing so, he broke his word to the allied Troll, which is something a Paladin should never do. On top of that, he betrayed and murdered a comrade, a creature whom he had every reason to believe was no longer evil (not the least indicator of which being his own flipping Detect Evil ability). Reprehensible behavior, I'd have stripped his powers away too.
DougC 09-21-04, 07:21 PM	Troll: Alignment: Usually Chaotic Evil. The key word here is usually. ;) I don't know about the trolls in the cages, but Xerxal tells us that the one who had helped them had decided to change his ways, which could indicate a change in alignment. Alignments change. If PC alignments can change, it stands to reason that monster alignments should be able to change also. (At least IMO. :)) I'd say that if the caged trolls hadn't changed as the free one had, then the party and the paladin were justified in killing them, but the free one? That's a different matter alltogether. In his case, you are right about the paladin falling from grace (again, IMO). In either case, "Try and DISCUSS it with [players], rather than TELLING [players]," is good advice for any DM. :)
Xerxal 09-21-04, 07:26 PM	Kainy, Of course I'm assuming that I'm right, just as you're assuming you're right in your assertion that I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with assuming oneself correct, it just means that it's the obligation of those that disagree with me to prove me wrong. And, no, he never used his detect evil power, he seems to forget it exists when he needs it. Even if he had used it, none of the trolls would have detected as evil, since they were too busy thinking about how hungry/weak/screwed they were to think about eating babies or kittens or whatever. I did discuss it with him, summing up his arguement above. And by the way, when there's a paladin in the group, everything becomes a "black and white" issue.
Xerxal 09-21-04, 07:39 PM	I'd say that if the caged trolls hadn't changed as the free one had, then the party and the paladin were justified in killing them, but the free one? That's a different matter alltogether. In his case, you are right about the paladin falling from grace (again, IMO). Yeah, the caged trolls were a gray area, since they were more than likely evil, which is why I told the paladin he would be allowed to atone. But slaying helpless trolls for their 100 gold bounty strikes me as a stain on the paladin's honor.
DougC 09-21-04, 07:51 PM	But slaying helpless trolls for their 100 gold bounty strikes me as a stain on the paladin's honor. I can definitely see how this is a gray area. I don't have a lot of experience with paladins, having run only one 2e game with a paladin PC in it, years ago. However, from what I understand about paladins, he (personally) could have seen killing the caged trolls as ridding the world as evil instead of slaying helpless trolls (which, to me, is a bit different than slaying helpless innocents) for money. If I were you, I'd certainly stick my guns about his treatment of the troll that allied with them, but I'd want to know his reasoning for killing the caged ones. If it was for the money, then I'd make attonement a bit harder for him to achieve. :)
Perseus 09-21-04, 07:52 PM	-Leaving the issue of troll slaughter aside for a moment. I think that if the paladin really gave his word to work with a troll and to help him free the others, then yes, you made the correct ruling. The normal alignment of trolls is not an issue. It doesn't matter if the caged trolls were evil or not, or helpless for that matter. -The core issue is the paladin's betrayal of his own code of honor. The troll is really a secondary issue. The paladin betrayed his own code of honor by breaking his word. He gave the troll his pledge to assist him and then killed the creatures he promised to help free. A paladin's code just simply doesn't allow for such lies and betrayal. -If the party came across the helpless trolls on their own, without the aid and subsequent pledge of help to the troll. There'd be no problem killing the rest. Even if they were helpless.
Vegeta8472 09-21-04, 08:00 PM	Here's what makes or breaks the case: If the troll said, TO the paladin, that he was rethinking his lifestyle, you're right. The greatest thing a paladin can do, even above immediate protection of the helpless, is convert evil to good. If the paladin was aware of the troll's willingness and desire to change, then that player wasn't attentive and poorly roleplaying. Strip him of all powers for his crime against the forces of good. If the troll said something off-hand that the paladin might not have heard, then killing the troll that had been cooperative is iffy at best. He has only the case that he thought he was only going along with evil to ultimately help the greater good by slaying each and every one of the monsters. Remember, kids: evil for good = good. But, as the above poster pointed out, he broke his word. Insta-fall.
Shadowmagyk 09-21-04, 08:04 PM	This is why DMs should create situations that are black and white. Doing this prevents the Paladin's player from having to struggle with moral and ethical issues. While it is true that the Paladin should have to do this, it is based upon what the DM thinks is the correct path. There are many viewpoints to the same argument, which is why there should never be evil babies, or evil monsters with an alignment change, unless it is specifically implied that this particular monster is not of the evil alignment. If the monster is CE, then it is okay to for the monster to make a deal with the PCs: #1 he is chaotic, so he can go back on his word, and #2 he is evil, so he wont care about going back on his word. This is what should hae happened in the first place. The CE troll knows that the PCs can help defeat a larger foe. Once this foe is defeated, the next threat is the PCs themselves, so he commences to betray the party once the cages are opened. In short, I am going to say that this is DM error for putting the paladin in this situation in the first place. Yes, the paladin could have said no, but it seems to me that the way that this troll was portrayed showed no signs of evil. Yes, he could have used detect evil, but he is new. New players need to be constantly reminded of what their character can do, and cannot do. He should have been reminded, even if the troll was LG. This way, the paladin is reminded that he has an ability, and when and why it is used. While the DM is not a babysitter, he has a certain responsibility to the players.
Sucineri 09-21-04, 08:17 PM	Paladin broke his code of honor and lied/betrayed a comrade. This is a good reason alone to strip him of paladinhood..atonement possible. Paladin using "detect evil" as a means to justify murder is wrong. I know you said he didn't use his ability..so can't say anything more than "detect evil =/= murder" Killing defenseless creatures who obviously don't bear any threat at the moment. Murder is an evil act, another good reason to strip Paladin of his status..atonement slightly less possible. To sum it up, the group halted when it came with killing the pathetic weakened trolls outside the cave even though that's what they were being paid to do which shows mercy, and is a chaotic good act and promised to help one of these trolls free his allies. Then they proceed to kill his defenseless allies and himself (although he was proving himself to be a good creature and worthy of respect) in cold blood which is a chaotic evil act . So I would have to say..you are fully right in stripping the paladin of his powers and forcing him to atone to his actions..and atoning should be pretty tough since he committed murder and broke his own code of honor. It's like tossing a stick to a 14 year old kid then shooting him in the head with a gun because he was armed..that is a totally evil act.
crazysamaritan 09-21-04, 08:43 PM	This is why DMs should create situations that are black and white. Doing this prevents the Paladin's player from having to struggle with moral and ethical issues. And why posters should read all of the post before replying. this paladin is doing something that puts him on the edge of losing his powers, without anything to do with the trolls at all. Aside from the fact that dwarves are usually lawful, no one has a problem with caotic ones. So why do you have a problem with a CN troll? Actually, my advise is to forbid atonement, instead, I'd like to suggest you open your DMG to page 182, and show him his new class. It will definetly fit his/group style play better. Mercy is part of the good alignment, and has nothing to do with caotic. The lawful good thing to do was kill the shade, and bring the troll tribe to live with the town. They never said that the heads had to be separated from the body. :schemes:
Xerxal 09-21-04, 08:48 PM	Shadowmagyk, Yes, maybe it was a mistake of my own to subect a new player to such a moral conflict. But my intention was to test this player's judgement/morality, while at the same time showing him an example of my own view of how a paladin should be played. I'll go into greater detail a bit later.
shift244 09-21-04, 08:58 PM	from what i've read, i agree to the falling of the paladin, for the same reasons. though, as it was a conlicting of grey areas, i'd think an atonement is very possible, and nothing that would be too difficult either.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-21-04, 09:14 PM	In my humble opinion, the paladin in question should be escorted to the nearest church by memmbers of his cult/clergy 'til he got a trial for his crimes agaisnt innocent and defenseless vicims (even if they were CE Trolls). Then be judged, and IF the verdict is gulty, he should have some punishment. Oh and don't give him his powers back yet, insist on how it is wrong to have betrayed the holy warrior code. It may sound a bit harsh and cold, but thats what I'd do if I were in your shoes.
Enalung 09-21-04, 09:17 PM	Most of what has to be said has already been said, but I would like to add that you should let him atone. It's a learners mistake, we all make mistake when we learn and the game should not stop just because of that. Work around it, talk with him but make sure he knows why you've suspended him as a paladin so that he does not make the same mistake twice. Also, that necromancer makes me uncomfortable with the paladin. Let him know that sparks are possible there as well. I'll give one exemple of a conflic, in this case, it applies to my cleric, but the basics are the same. I called a disciple of Heironeous a coward (don't do that it's extremely dangerous) because he was attacking a badly wounded anymal that was running away. My Diety being Ehlonna, this obviously went against my code and that of my diety. Give him exemples like that, make sure he know that conflict will happen and that his character will have to make choices that he might find hard, choices that could make or break his alignment his diety and his class.
Polymorph 09-21-04, 09:17 PM	I must really side with kainy here. He is absolutly right. The Paldain is already one of the "weaker classes", taking away his powers makes him the most useless thing possible. Most DMs think that paladins act like robots, acting honorable and truthful at any time fighting side by side with anything that can smile. Paladins are often betrayed, because everyone, the bad guys too, know that Paladins can't do a thing against them, if they say "i've changed my ways, look, i am giving cookies to cute children!". Paladins should be knights of devotion, not just plain dumb. Anybody can hide his alignment using a spell, or an item so the paladin can't detect them. Paladins know that, and experience told them that evil monsters can not be trusted, no matter what they say. As long as a Paladin sticks to his code as good as he can, I would NEVER take away his powers. Betraying someone is not a nice thing and it's against the code, but if he did not do it, his friends might be killed because of him and even worse, the innocent people of the town might die too. So a Paladin who risks loosing his powers (the love of his god, the most important thing for him) to save friends and innocents, looses his powers in your campaign? You should think about that again...
Sucineri 09-21-04, 09:38 PM	So a Paladin who risks loosing his powers (the love of his god, the most important thing for him) to save friends and innocents, looses his powers in your campaign? You should think about that again... Even though there was no evidence of betrayal..and the troll was helping and even saved their lives constantly.. That's exactly like saying "I am going to kill you even though you helped that little kid get away from the dragon..because that other guy of your race over there looked at me funny". You talk about paladins not being robots..yet you come up with the view that a paladin should be slaying evil all over the place just because that's what paladins do. WE are saying that paladins should uphold truth, innocence, and honor in whichever form is takes. So basically you are saying that it is "okay" if a ancient wyrm gold dragon going into a village and kills a bad goblin in the middle of a town full of good people by blowing fire all over the place..just incase the goblin tries to get away? It's for the greater good isn't it? I mean a goblin is bad news..there is no way it can live..and as long as you killed the bad guy it doesn't matter how many innocent lives were lost..right? The Paldain is already one of the "weaker classes", taking away his powers makes him the most useless thing possible. Well, it's his fault for breaking the rules of being a paladin. He can be a fighter and have the same ideals as a paladin..and he doesn't have to worry about losing his "powers" if he does things wrong. But this player CHOSE to be the character who is supposed to be the bastion of all that is right and good in the world. To me it sounds like the player should possibly be better suited towards a character of chaotic good or chaotic neutral.
CzarGarrett 09-21-04, 09:45 PM	Paladins are rigidly put into the LG alignment. A little deviation, alright, I can see that. In fact, I'd probably encourge it. Being LG doesn't mean you have to be exactly good and exactly lawful 100% of the time, even as a Paladin. However, this Paladin willingly went along with killing weakened and tortured creatures. Definately not good, and most likely not lawful. As far enough removed from at least good that the loss of Paladin abilities is justified. It seemed like the troll that helped them wasn't killed? If so, I suggest, as a possibility of redeeming the Paladin and regaining abilities, would to train this troll and bring him from CN to CG or NG in some way. And then help him to establish a 'good' troll clan (I forget their general organization). This would be done without pay, without any treasure (being that any treasure should go to outfit this CN/CG troll and possibly any comrades he finds).
Father Dale 09-21-04, 09:47 PM	Actually, my advise is to forbid atonement, instead, I'd like to suggest you open your DMG to page 182, and show him his new class. It will definetly fit his/group style play better. too funny Oh, the DM was right, paladin broke his word. Let him atone as a warning. Next time, no atonement.
crazysamaritan 09-21-04, 09:51 PM	The way that it is presented here, and I agree, it is a biased opinion, is that the player agreed to a pact with the troll, who was having doubts about his lifestyle. Then, when it was beneficial, turned around and killed him. Then he procedded to slaughter trolls that had been in pens and unable to fight back. It sounds CE to me, not even within alignment. If you thought the troll would betray you, my advice is, THEN DON'T WORK WITH IT! I fail to see the trouble people seem to have with that... Okay, maybe I jumped the gun a bit since the player is new.... That would be my fault. I just now noticed my posts were looking a bit gripy, and I should probably drain some of that off.... But the way it is presented, the paladin had a stronger love for money than he did for his god. I would mention that just because a bard usually tells stories, a rogue usually steals, a fighter usually kills, a priest usually follows the faith of a god, a paladin is usually the one who stands for "truth justice, and the LG way", doesn't mean that it has to be. A person who protects people, defends justice, and delivers it to evil-doers is not always a paladin. Heck, it's not always a good guy, can be evil. I don't consider the paladin class a class for sissies. That's why I don't play one, I can't be anything other than a blowhard when it comes to that (srry for the curse). I've seen it done, and I can tell when the paladin is a cool person who upholds the precepts of LG, but All I can do is be a jerk that disrupts party harmony (unless everyone else is also LG, and accepts my code). I don't play a paladin since I can't do it right, but I do play LG fighters, monks, and clerics.
Dash Branaghan 09-21-04, 10:13 PM	I kinda stopped reading other people's posts, but here is my stance. Stick to your guns. The paladin is fallen. First of all, the one troll not only proved his worthiness, but also acted in a distinctly untroll-like way. AS well, had the Paladin detected evil, there would have been none in the troll. He just slaughtered him, betrayed him, betrayed his trust. Pretty simple. Even if the paladin had not killed him, but left it to the party to do it while standing back and doing nothing, I would have had him fall. Why? Because the troll did nothing at that point to deserve it. The ones in the cage...as iffy as it might be, I wouldn't have allowed him to kill them, simply because they were no threat. Leave them caged, trap them in the cave...the one troll showed them that these trolls would survive by eating themselves, relying on their regeneration to survive...so they could block them in the cave, leaving them in cages to fend for themselves. There was no need to slaughter them, nor anyone to protect from them. I have seen the suggestion to discuss as opposed to tell the player. As far as I'm concerned, the result you can tell him. The paladin is fallen. If he wants to discuss why, then you can discuss that with him, but the result is not up for discussion. I'm being a bit of a hardass here, but I stand by it. There is, from the sounds of it, absolutely no justification for this action. Period. Dash
Sucineri 09-21-04, 10:28 PM	Dash..me and you always seem to see the same shade of grey :P
Frodo Lives 09-21-04, 10:36 PM	Kill the trolls? Sure, they are monsters, even in a weakened state they are still monsters. I wouldn't find cause to make a paladin fall, I'd call it good luck to face a dangerous enemy in a weakened state. This is if there was no individual troll whom you had made a deal with. Kill the individual Troll? Nope. This was no longer a monster, he was an individual who has proven his worth and has proven to be trustworthy. Futhermore, you gave him your word to help. He held up his end of the bargian, the paladin willfully neglected to hold up his and acted in an extremely evil fashion. It's attonement time! I also find it hard to believe that a paladin would travel with a group of adventurers like these. A paladin never travels with anyone (especially long term) who is evil, and at least one or two members of the party are, and from the sounds of their playing style they all might be, regardless of what it says on their character sheets.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-21-04, 10:46 PM	Thats right, I don't see how a Paladin would accept to travel with an evil person in the first place, specialy a Necromancer, since they're reputed to have the bad habit of raising armies of undeads to do their biding, when they're powerful enough(and if someone haven't slayed them, before they can accomplish their evil goals/deeds).
Sucineri 09-21-04, 10:54 PM	A paladin never travels with anyone (especially long term) who is evil That's a little upto the DM though. If they allow "detect evil" to work as a free pass to slaughter evil kobold babies, then you are right. But I like to think that a paladin can go ahead and be in a group full of evil characters as long as he isn't aware that they are evil through actions. Kill the trolls? Sure, they are monsters, even in a weakened state they are still monsters. I wouldn't find cause to make a paladin fall, I'd call it good luck to face a dangerous enemy in a weakened state. This is if there was no individual troll whom you had made a deal with. I am gonna have to bring a reality-based argument in here, pardon me for it. Your government sends you to war..they want you to kill everyone of a certain skin color who seems threatening. You end up in a village with your squad where there has been a chemical weapon used..everyone is starving, can barely walk around..but they are the skin color you are supposed to go after. One of the sickly people turns towards you flailing his arms asking for help. Do you: A) Kill this person and slaughter the village just because they are all of the skin color and aren't aggressive. B) Kill this person for possibly seeming threatening (possibly you misunderstood what was happening) and tell everyone to move back. C) Let the person come to you and try to help him and all his people? If it were me I would choose B. The reason why is because it is an honest mistake..he might speak a language I don't understand and I might think he will blow himself up or something. But I won't just kill everyone else, because they are not threatening. I would not choose A because genocide is evil. I would not choose C because in war you have to be cautious about things like that. MAYBE if the guy had no shirt or anything and you could tell he didn't have anything strapped on you might toss him to the ground and straddle his back, but you wouldn't just let him come upto you and touch your face and all that stuff. What I am trying to say is this..this paladin basically went with decision A. Killing trolls for the sake of killing trolls is wrong. They were put at a disadvantage by one that is a mutual enemy..and if anything the paladin should have stuck to his word then tried to get it worked out for the trolls to leave the area and never to return.
Supercilious 09-22-04, 12:20 AM	In NWN: SoU a Paladin of Mystra slays a defensless orc baby because it would become evil inevitabley if not destroyed. Being a Paladin is Lawfull Good, not Lawful Stupid. A troll is a deceitful evil creature, the Paladin had no reason to trust it. And Chaotic Neutral is a self-centered alignment, moreso then LE IMHO, and I would have slain that and the other trolls for the good of man kind. Waiting for an UD to attack you because it has yet to swing so it might be friendly is just as stupid as waiting for the trolls to backstab you.
darczero 09-22-04, 01:17 AM	In my opinion as a DM, there is no question about it; the paladin not only betrayed someone that he had agreed to help, but he also killed a defenseless creature that was asking (directly if I'm not mistaken) for a chance to redeem itself and turn from its evil ways. The patron deity is irrelevant, as is the fact that the trolls themselves were evil. Besides, what is a paladin doing hunting creatures for gold anyway? That in itself is a non-Good act, although not necessarily evil. The paladin should have been willing to do it just to protect the local populace from the trolls, or donated his share of the reward to a charity or something like that. Take his paladin status away, and point out the Blackguard prestige class. While you're at it, play through warcraft 3; Arthas (the paladin/later death knight in the game) goes through almost exactly the same thing.
Dash Branaghan 09-22-04, 01:40 AM	Waiting for an UD to attack you because it has yet to swing so it might be friendly is just as stupid as waiting for the trolls to backstab you. Well, there is the consideration that paladins can detect evil at will. Since CN is not an evil alignment, the paladin has no justification to kill the creature. Consider Drizz't Do'urden as another example. He comes from a race that is chaotic evil, so therefore if a paladin were to slay him, it would not be a bad thing. :rolleyes: Just because a group has a general tendency is irrelevent...there are always individuals amongst a group. As I stated, you don't have to kill something to neutralize it as a threat. You could have a rogue who kills someone and is lawful evil. The paladin could destroy that rogue if he had to, but what if he could capture it? Would it not be better to let the law be dispensed, and judge him for his crimes, rather than his potential crimes? Part of the paladin's ethos is to vanquish evil, but only a single minded hack and slasher is going to automatically translate "vanquish" into "kill." You can vanquish evil by leading those who follow it onto the path of righteousness, you can vanquish it by capturing and rehabilitating it, you can vanquish it by locking it away as a form of punishment OR you can vanquish it by destroying it. There is room for variance in exactly what vanquish means. Remember, the key to the paladin now is lawful and good, and law is open. Defeating evil...lots of room for interpretation. But to say that a creature known for being evil in a general sense is automatically labelled evil is ridiculous. Since the paladin is able to detect evil, he should be detecting evil before his sword flies out against unprepared creatures. Dash
Master Agnald 09-22-04, 02:20 AM	The way I see it, the paladin was seeing the troll as evil, so he killed him (if he didn't see it as evil, and killed it anyway, it's even worse), but if he considered it evil from the beginning, then why did he even party with the troll in first place? if I'm not mistaken, it's against a paladin CoC to party with evil creatures... so either way he loses his powers... he should have either spared the troll's life (as a result of seeing the troll as good) or never partying with him to begin with (as a result of seeing the troll as evil). Now, about killing the rest of the trolls... well, this is a different story... perhaps seeing their old friends dying and becoming shadows would make them too change their ways? so, the paladin should've spared them because it'd be a coward act to kill defenseless creatures... perhaps give them a warning... maybe the trolls would have some consideration and have some respect for him and obey him... or their troll friend could convince the others... either way, I guess the paladin acted wrongly, and should be stripped of his powers.
General Dorsey 09-22-04, 03:38 AM	I think I'm going to be in the minority here, but here goes anyway. If this player had been gaming for quite some time, then I would feel no guilt for stripping him of his paladinhood. However, he had been gaming for two sessions. That isn't really enough time to understand what roleplaying a paladin is all about. You even mentioned that he tends to forget about his detect evil ability. Perhaps he can be given another chance. Forget the atonement for the time being. Tell him that in the future, you will help him understand what his character can do. There is a lot to absorb. The character sheet alone is a huge jumble of numbers. Throw in spells, combat tactics, skills, feats, and other characters, and things get a bit overwhelming. I doubt that many people would be able to remember every thing about their character. I know that I have to write it down because I can't remember it all. He may have gotten so caught up in the gaming, that he forgot to look at his sheet. This is where you, as DM, could have mentioned something like: "Most paladins would find a troll to be an evil creature. If you had some way to detect evil, you may be able to attain more information." This is a gentle reminder to him that he has a special ability and what it is. Now it is up to him. The group can also remind him. If he was a more experienced gamer, I would say that his warrior is not going to be much fun anymore. He might want to create a new character. However, that isn't the case here.
Sucineri 09-22-04, 03:55 AM	In NWN: SoU a Paladin of Mystra slays a defensless orc baby because it would become evil inevitabley if not destroyed. Being a Paladin is Lawfull Good, not Lawful Stupid. Just wanted to point something out. What you say is true about NWN: SoU. BUT if your character is a paladin themself and ask the npc "what kind of paladin are you?" Then she says something to the tune of "you are wise, I think I understand now" because you say something about being merciful or something. If you wanna check it out yourself..just get into the game real quick, make a paladin character..do everything as recommended stats and then go into the first conversation.
GaffeR 09-22-04, 04:39 AM	wow... I have to pipe up on this one. new player and all, but seriously! Offenses: 1. Breaking an oath to help free the trolls comrades 2. Killing creatures that: a) Were defenseless, and b) Had "surrendered" 3. Being driven by greed to do the above! IMO this is grounds for "insta-fall". The only reason he MIGHT be atoned is because they COULD be evil and it's a new character... and that's stretching atonement.... ALOT! Teach him a harsh lesson and send him on some sort of MEGA-atonement quest or something
RainCloud 09-22-04, 05:49 AM	The party is as follows: Bard 4 ("I don't care" Type) Psychic Warrior 4 ("Quiet" Type) Necromancer 4 ("Steal your soul/crazy evil" Type) Sorcerer 4 ("Drinkin' and Whorin'" Type) and the 4th level Fallen Paladin (of Tyr, if it matters) Sounds as if he's the only sensible one in the entire group :confused: The party is hired by the local Harper's Guild to go troll hunting along a mountian pass. They would recieve a bounty of 100 Gold for each troll head they return with. It probably doesnt matter, but would a Paladin accept a bounty for that? I mean, if its for the good - the paladin would do it anyway and refuse reward. When it came time to free the captive trolls, the party slaughtered the defensless ones and surrounded the one that had helped them. I considered this a serious, honorless, act of betrayal, and the paladin fell immediately. WTF?! If the guy didnt kill the troll right away based on the semi-metagaming judgement that all trolls are CE, there is certainly NO!!! reason to kill it now. WHAT AN IDIOT!
Naeron 09-22-04, 06:42 AM	You were wrong in considering killing the Troll captives an evil act if they had been raiding farms and killing people as the mission suggests. Punishing evil creatures that have harmed innocents is equally valid whatever the situation that they happen to be in when you actually catch up with them. If the Paladin had promised to let the captured Trolls go free then he has broken the honour component of his code but lying is not evil. Its still a Paladin Code violation though. Killing the "friendly" troll after the paladin had obviously agreed to work with it was almost certainly a gross violation of the code and as it had evidenced a desire to repent from its previous ways it was also an evil act. Killing unrepentant peasant eating trolls is fine for paladin (even if they are imprisoned or asleep), killing one that has shown a desire to change and become non-evil is a very bad thing because good people should want to redeem evil beings. So that paladin should fall because they willingly committed an evil act (killed the friendly, honourable and repenting troll) and for grossly violating his code of honour (going back on his promises). If it a new player I would probably allow atonement on a "one, and only one, chance to show you are worthy" basis. And, no, he never used his detect evil power, he seems to forget it exists when he needs it. Even if he had used it, none of the trolls would have detected as evil, since they were too busy thinking about how hungry/weak/screwed they were to think about eating babies or kittens or whatever. I did discuss it with him, summing up his arguement above. And by the way, when there's a paladin in the group, everything becomes a "black and white" issue. You are playing Detect Evil wrong in 3rd Ed, which may be why your paladin isnt using it very often. It is no longer Detect Evil Intent but the detection of the evil alignment. To have an evil alignment a being must have done evil acts willingly. SRD: "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life". So if the Trolls have been coming down from the mountains and eating farmers they will have an evil alignment and will detect as such. Those caged Trolls should have detected as evil. Parties with paladins in them are very black and white, this is because the very nature of a paladin is to refuse to compromise with evil or to not do good. This removes a lot of grey areas.
DinubaBear 09-22-04, 08:09 AM	You're wrong if you had him fall for killing caged trolls. Paladins are free to assume freeing them would unleash evil & horror on the world, even if you assume they are too hungry at the moment to be evil. (And that's an 'iffy' concept). However, I would let him fall if he gave his word to the troll he befrended and then broke it, dealt with the troll in a sneaky backstabbing manor or for peasably travaling with & cooperating with an evil Necromancer!? You have evil PCs in you group & you allowed a Paladin to travel with them? How about making him a Blackguard instead?? There are 2 major schools of thought on playing Paladins. The Lawful Moral Athority like Paladins of Pholtus were, or Heronius, or perhaps the newly Aligned St. Cuthbert, and the Mystra example of killing the Orc Baby. It is a harsh LG, allowing no Mercy (which would be valuing Good over Law), killing evil before it is allowed to do harm is viewed as a good thing. And from its point of view, what it is doing is for the greater good. Think of the Spanish Inquisition or writings of Ann Coultier for a modern example. The Other view is Naive Good. The loving, trusting soul, who believes everyone is capable of redemption. He would believe the troll, and protect it from the group. And if he happened to eat the gnome in the group, but cried & profusely appollogized, saying he couldn't help it - he was hungry, the Paladin would either try a detect evil on the troll, or consider forgiving him & telling him not to do it again. These paladins tend to do well in mixed groups because they assume everyone in the group is good. They wouldn't be his friends otherwise, now would they? And of course, Good is more important than Law to them. I prefer the paladins from group 2, but allow them from group 1 as well. Which is what it seems the newbie was playing. Eventually these paladins come to blows with someone in the group or something tougher than it. So it is actually from the Paladin's point of view if he didn't make an agreement with the helpful troll, and he is the Lawful Jerk Paladin. After all, he was ridding the world of a potential evil, and it shouldn't be too long before he feels the need to rid the world of their Necromancer, to make the world a safer place.
amethal 09-22-04, 08:59 AM	I can only go on the situation as it was described, and at no stage are we given the paladin's motivation. It is also not clear to what extent the DM helped out the new player (although the answer appears to be "not at all"). Since the post incldued a request for information on how other DMs might have handled it, here's my (long!) version. Paladins are within their rights to talk to trolls. No problem there! The party makes an agreement with the troll to rescue his brethren. The other PCs have no intention of keeping this agreement, but its not clear whether the paladin feels the same at this stage. This is where as the DM I would have wanted to talk to the player. At this stage he is either :- a) associating with an evil creature in order to rescue other evil creatures, or b) entering into an agreement with the intention of not keeping his side of the bargain, which could well result in the death of the other party to the agreement New players need help playing paladins, and given that we all have different slants on what the paladin's code requires in any given situation, I believe even experienced players are entitled to know the DMs view in advance of their actions. The paladin would then have given his reasoning. Unfortunately, we don't know what it was! If we assume that it was a), then as the DM I am going to say "I am sorry, but in my campaign world paladins are not allowed to go on missions with evil creatures to rescue other evil creatures, as it is considered to be furthering the cause of evil. It is your character, and I'm not telling you how to roleplay him, but I ought to warn you that what you are proposing will cost you your paladin status." If it was b), then I can make a case for accepting that sometimes in order to do good and defeat evil you have to commit unlawful acts. If the paladin views that it would be "Lawful Stupid" to kill this troll and look for the others without his help then as a DM I accept that. After all, I am the one who has created this moral dilemma for him in the first place, so it would be harsh to take away his paladin status as a result of the tough choice he has been forced to make. Whilst travelling with the troll, the party learn that he is apparently a reformed character. At this point I would drop the inexperienced player a hint about his detect evil ability. The troll might say "I swear I am giving up my evil ways. Is it true that paladins are able to tell when someone is evil?" I would also try and prepare the paladin's player for what is about to happen. The character will surely be agonising over what is going to happen when they find the caged trolls, so I would ask the player if he's thought about how his character is going to react. As the DM, I've have had plenty of time to come up with my moral viewpoint on the situation - expecting the player to come up with the morally perfect answer in the heat of the moment is unfair, as the character has had time to think about it on the journey. There's a big massacre at the end. The paladin's player explains that, as unpleasant as it may be, his crusade against evil requires him to slaughter the trolls. (If I'm really lucky, he has remembered to use his detect evil this time without any prompting, and they register as evil - I think from the actual post that they might not have, but I think 20 reformed trolls is a bit much to swallow!) Ideally, the paladin does not attack the reformed troll, and he tries to stop the others from doing so. If the reformed troll attacks the party, then the paladin is in the unenviable position of trying to subdue him. The troll has proved a valuable member of the party, is not evil and should not be slaughtered by his former comrades. If the paladin does attack the troll, or does nothing to help him against the rest of the party, then the paladin has committed another chaotic act, which is arguably evil as well. I would ask the player for his motiviation (e.g. "my loyalty to my friends outweighed my loyalty to this newcomer, and although I'd prefer not to have had to choose, I came down on the side of the party). I'd take away his powers, but let him, get them back through penance and atonement - he has had a very hard day, and whilst this does not make his behaviour correct (he still loses his powers) it does make it possible for him to atone. This assumes his motivation wasn't "I needed the XP from killing that last troll, and the 100 gp reward would be nice as well".
Hayabusa 09-22-04, 09:04 AM	I say that paladin would have serious issues to face in my world, most likely bounty hunters hired to arrest him. After that, trial, disgracing ceremony, execution. What the paladin did was evil, no question about it. He and the party betrayed a creature and then massacred several trapped members of his species. I know some of you are saying that he shouldn't fall, but what if they trolls were human raiders? Would you still say that he shouldn't fall? Just because a troll is listed as "Usually chaotic evil" the first troll had shown signs of not wanting to harm the party. If he was in full health, who knows?
green_yawgmoth 09-22-04, 12:17 PM	The necromancer was/is obviously evil. Paladins cannot work alongside obviously evil people. Strike one. BoVD says that betrayal is one of the most evil things you can do, since it's essentially lying in order to kill someone or take advantage of them. Strike two. BoED says that the most good thing you can do is turn someone away from the path of evil; the paladin took a nice steaming dump on that opportunity. A big swing and strike three. Tell your paladin player to jump out from behind the cookie cutter and play a different class for once. People who only play one class get tiresome and soon lose any ability to play anything other than what they've been playing. http://photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Shadowmagyk 09-22-04, 12:30 PM	Shadowmagyk, Yes, maybe it was a mistake of my own to subect a new player to such a moral conflict. But my intention was to test this player's judgement/morality, while at the same time showing him an example of my own view of how a paladin should be played. I'll go into greater detail a bit later. This should have been done before the game started. If you have a certain perception of how things should be, then you should have told him. This way, he does not have to worry about what is "right," and you dont have to worry about his moral/ethical standpoint.
Supercilious 09-22-04, 12:45 PM	I still believe that if every other member ofa certain group/tribe/cult/club/nation was a lyinch scum sucking traitor then why trust this one? Paladins are good, and lawful, but stupid is nowhere in their alignment. If the Paladin constructed a trap that dropped a net from the ceiling that was weighted so as to trap the trolls, and then killed them with a bow from afar, would that be an evil act?
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 01:40 PM	You have been completly right in your judgement. I may add that if an experienced player commited an act like this (I mean accepting the company of the one troll, and killing it afterwards), in my game, I would allow no Atonement. I suggest you also make it somehow visible to him (for example, have the priest say 'What you've done is the blackest of evil, and only your youth and inexperience makes me to sway to giving you another chance". Killing the cadged trolls is a lighter issue. Unless the one troll had pleaded for them, the paladin was under no particular obligation towards them. (I assume they were raiding the lands nearby since the Harpers hired the PCs). Killing them while helpless can be seen as 'chaoctic' act, and, if the paladin was somehow bound to act 'knigtly', an offence against his code. But not all paladins have to be 'knightly'. Another way of thinking: Paladins can execute condemned villains, and don't have to duel with them. The trolls have been proven to be villains, and have been condemned. The paladin accepted this sentence by agreeing to the Harpers' plea (mony being no issue - I hope he had no reasons to doubt the Harpers' judgement, and was not convinced solely by the money). Killing them helpless was a legitimete execution. A paladin of Tyr - god of justice did not have to think that they 'may' be redeemed if they were doing nothing towards their own redemption and paying back for their crimes. But, again, the first troll was.
Defcon4 09-22-04, 01:43 PM	Paladins are good, and lawful, but stupid is nowhere in their alignment. Lazy, thick-headed, clay-footed, and ethically fickle is nowhere in their alignment either. When did the path of righteousness become "what's the easiest path" to some folk? No one ever claimed doing the right thing would be easy and obvious. A Paladin doesn't get the go ahead to kill Troll babies because 90% of the time they'll become evil. The 10% chance they won't is enough to stay his hand. If the Paladin lives long enough to see the Troll baby grow up to become a murderous monster then he'll take care of business with a heavy heart. Compassion is not stupid. Having faith in redemption is not stupid. A Paladin kills in defense and to deliver justice. He doesn't kill because "theres a good chance that being did great evil so i'll kill him just to be sure." A Paladin will deliver justice if the being is caught in the act or there is enough evidence to prove the evil was done. Lying to an evil being is still lying. Fighting along side an evil being (something a Paladin wouldn't do anyway unless circumstances demanded it) and then turning on the evil being WHO HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG THE PALADIN HAS SEEN is so blatantly against the ethics and code of a Paladin it's astonishing. Genocide is not the edict of a Paladin. Killing evil that has done nothing wrong in his presence or anyones elses is not the Paladin way. How can the evil being be redeemed if not given the chance? And wanton killing monstrous races for generally being evil is accepting genocide as a holy endeavor and it's just wrong. Not to mention over-looking Detect evil is reckless and criminal when it costs the life of another being. Someone mentioned how there are ways around detect evil. Yes there are. So again, we go back to taking the easy path, the "kill everything and let god sort them out." Lazy, reckless, uncaring. Not the face of a Paladin at all. Be a religious fighter if the path is too hard for you. A paladin stands for more.
zodiki 09-22-04, 02:27 PM	The whole adventure seems to have been designed to make the paladin fall, and/or force him to choose a different class of PC to play - since the "moral" dilemma presented doesn't affect any of the other party members and forces the Paladin to either go along with the plan and fall, or not go along with it and either get killed himself or leave the party. Not allowing the Paladin in the first place (despite the player's wanting to play one) was the only good choice to make. If it was my character I'd probably aim for the blackguard PrC and then kill as many of the DM's NPCs as I could get a hold of until I was destroyed -- right after I took care of any of the neutral PCs in the party.
Dash Branaghan 09-22-04, 02:43 PM	I need to summarize a number of things that I mentioned earlier (and I think DefCon mentions above me) just for clarification. #1) A paladin CAN travel with evil characters IF it promotes the cause of good. Case in point...Lawful Evil is still lawful, and still has a code (hence honorable) that they follow. A LE character is not that far from a paladin (just far more selfish and not above certain dark acts to achieve their ends), and a paladin could travel with them IF circumstances dictate. That is not to say the Paladin would not be watching the evil character all the time...he would. But would he instantly kill him? No. Would he betray him? No. The evil character would have to be caught doing something evil in the presence of the paladin to warrant the paladin turning on him, and even then the paladin SHOULD attempt to defeat (see my previous post on the expansive connotations of the word defeat) the character in whatever way is applicable (read: Killing is not the only option). #2) Detect Evil does not detect intent, correct. This causes some problems among those who think that having an evil flag over their heads is automatic justification for execution. I believe someone mentioned (sarcastically) that paladins should be slaying orc babies because, as their race is generally evil, they must be as well. For those who missed the point, do you honestly think that genocide is an acceptable solution for paladins? :confused: #3) The paladin may accept a reward for deeds done. There is nothing wrong with that. If he spends it whoring and drinking, you might decide their is a problem (depending on whether, as a DM, you frown on the sort of thing), but what if he takes the money and gives it to the local orphanage to improve their status, and let them hire a teacher or two that will make the kids that much more likely to be productive citizens? Maybe he donates it to the church. There is nothing that says a paladin could not accept a reward. #4) Despite #3, a paladin is not going to kill for money. That is the job of the executioner. It is questionable for the paladin to go out and kill creatures that he has no evidence are doing anything...sure, there might be evil in their hearts, but there are other ways around it. In most cases, we as players are attacked outright by creatures, so killing them is self defense, no big deal, no moral conundrum. But the paladin is more akin to Superman than Batman (and I refer to the original gun-toting and killing Batman here, not the softened version of later years)...he will use his great powers to neutralize evil. Note: Neutralize does not equal kill in this case. #5) Part of being lawful is having a code (whether it is a legal code of the kingdom, a personal code like Bushido or Chivalry, or whatever) and sticking to it without exception (barring massively extreme situations, which have to be judged on a case by case basis). If the paladin accepts lying as something within his code, fine...if the qualifier to the lawful aspect is evil. The minute it becomes good, we don't accept lying. We don't accept backstabbing, reneging on your word, intentional deceipt, or momemts of kill happy slaughter. #6) The player is new. So what? I hardly think that is a justification, and before people start flaming me, let me explain why. This is the PERFECT chance to learn the aspects of RPing the game. The paladin has done something wrong, suddenly his powers are gone. IC he starts to wonder what he has done, and the DM nudges him towards a cleric of similar alignment or faith. The cleric can explain that he has to atone (and in this case, the atonement quest should be a "Don't Judge a Book By It's Cover" type quest where they have to find a goblin seeking the shining path or something similar, or maybe even finding the dust of the troll they destroyed and having it raised so it can be a productive member of society) and send him about. Not only could this atonement lead to his restoration as a paladin, but it might possibly turn the party, or lead to retiring the newly restored paladin since he'll realize he can't travel with this party anymore...they make questionable decisions, and he doesn't need this grief. It is time for him to go on his own and develop a closer relationship with his god...or maybe it is now his duty to stay with the party and show them the light of the way. Either way, it comes down to a perfect chance to roleplay the situation while explaining something valuable about the paladin class to the new player. Anyway, I wanted to (rehash) make these points clear to those who are trying to justify the paladin's actions. There is no justification. He is fallen, but not terribly so...maybe he was overzealous, but an atonement and quest will be required. Dash
Krelios 09-22-04, 02:45 PM	So much of this situation just screams "STUPIDITY!" at the top of its lungs that I'll have to take it bit by bit... 1) A Paladin will NOT willingly associated himself with evil creatures. The necromancer (which you described as "crazy evil") would fall into that category so the Paladin choosing to adventure with him would immediately fall. This has the side effect of solving the problem--either he's an ex-Paladin from the beginning, or he's making a new character. 2) Helping the troll should have required a Detect Evil from the very beginning, and common sense would require a Sense Motive check too. Before any Paladin decides to help a typically evil creature, he should be as sure as possible that he has changed or has no ill intentions for him. 3) I assume they dispatched the shades (the unquestionably evil creatures in this scenario). At this point the Paladin would have to release the trolls in cages to keep his bargain to the "non-evil" troll. However, that was a stupid bargain to make since the caged trolls could have very well been evil and then he'd be forced to choose between good and law--almost never a fun choice. In your example you were quite generous in saying that none of the trolls were actually evil, so when the Paladin checked (which he should have) he could have the easiest solution possible--let them go. 4) The Paladin doing any of the following things would cause him to fall immediately: - Adventuring with an evil character (the necromancer) - Killing the non-evil Troll simply for being a Troll - Killing the caged Trolls simply for being a Troll Breaking his word to the Troll by sparing him but slaughtering his companions would probably result in a 24 hour loss of powers if the Trolls were in fact, evil simply because he broke his word. Any of the above would require atonement--and very few churches would allow a Paladin capable of commiting such an obviously evil act back into Paladin-hood.
Krelios 09-22-04, 02:51 PM	Dash, I agree with everything you said, except for this... A paladin CAN travel with evil characters IF it promotes the cause of good. Case in point...Lawful Evil is still lawful, and still has a code (hence honorable) that they follow. A LE character is not that far from a paladin (just far more selfish and not above certain dark acts to achieve their ends), and a paladin could travel with them IF circumstances dictate. That may be nice to think, but it's not kosher according to the core rules... Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Dash Branaghan 09-22-04, 02:59 PM	The whole adventure seems to have been designed to make the paladin fall, and/or force him to choose a different class of PC to play - since the "moral" dilemma presented doesn't affect any of the other party members and forces the Paladin to either go along with the plan and fall, or not go along with it and either get killed himself or leave the party. That's rather spurious reasoning if you ask me. That is like saying a quest to recover an item that turns out to be a Holy Avenger is designed to have the wielder kill all the evil party members in the group. The other thing to keep in mind is that some DMs plan their games out and have the players make characters, then fit them into it. It isn't designed around characters, merely a chain of events and the players react accordingly. And moral dilemmas that affect a paladin may rarely affect a party. Not allowing the Paladin in the first place (despite the player's wanting to play one) was the only good choice to make. Really? Maybe it is the only good choice if I took a "Path of Least Resistance" attitude towards my PC parties. However, I don't limit myself because roleplaying will be difficult. Case in point, I have a new player who joined our group who, in my campaign, is playing a Lawful Evil Ranger, despite the long standing presence of a paladin in the game. I told him several times that there was a paladin, but I never once said he couldn't be the evil alignment. It has made gaming interesting, but we have managed just fine (the ranger is actually tracking the party, and jumped into the fray to help them a couple of times). Not allowing the paladin was a choice. Period. To say it was the only good choice is ridiculous, especially since you know nothing of the gamers themselves. If it was my character I'd probably aim for the blackguard PrC and then kill as many of the DM's NPCs as I could get a hold of until I was destroyed -- right after I took care of any of the neutral PCs in the party. You'll have to excuse me for saying this, but that is single-handedly one of the most immature statements I have seen on the boards here. Why would you not seek atonement? Your statement carries (to me anyway) and image of a petulant child who, after losing his toy, decides to smash the toys of all the other children. (Note: This is an image...I am not saying it is you). It sounds like what I mentioned above...path of least resistance style gaming..."Oh, I tried to be a paladin, but it didn't work out, so now I'm going to become evil and kill everything that moves. That will make the game so much better." I certainly hope you were either being sarcastic or that your statement in no way reflects your usual gaming style. Dash
Dash Branaghan 09-22-04, 03:01 PM	Dash, I agree with everything you said, except for this... That may be nice to think, but it's not kosher according to the core rules... Yeah you're right there Krelios. Guess I get so wrapped up in my house ruling on that decision that I forget that it is a house rule. :D Dash
Supercilious 09-22-04, 03:35 PM	If an Ithillid said: "I wanna be your friend noble paladin, give me a hug, I will turn from my evil ways," would you do it? Or would you take that chance to finish him off and save the world (and yourself) from his evil brain eating ways? The naive fool would waver in his duty and fail to slay the Ithillid. Sadly, however, after reading through "right and wrong" in the BoED I see that TECHNICALLY a paladin would be obligated to accept the Ithillids surrender, even if said Ithillid and just slain the ENTIRE party in front of his eyes in the exact same manner. I say let him alter his alignment to Chaotic Good and be one of those paladins...
Dash Branaghan 09-22-04, 03:56 PM	If an Ithillid said: "I wanna be your friend noble paladin, give me a hug, I will turn from my evil ways," would you do it? Or would you take that chance to finish him off and save the world (and yourself) from his evil brain eating ways? The naive fool would waver in his duty and fail to slay the Ithillid. Holy Strawman Argument, Batman. First of all, you Detect Evil. Then you decide whether you want to hug the Illithid. There is nothing saying that Illithids are incapble of being good, but there are mitigating factors that will help adjudicate a decision either way. And there is nothing to say that you can't leave the Illithid to himself to see if he is planning on becoming good...you don't have to witness it or be around if the Illithid is lying. Besides, most Illithids mindblast prey immediately...if one doesn't do so but initiates communication, I would be up for listening it. Hugging no, listening, yes. Supercilious, your response is a poor one in this case, but does that make all your responses poor? Not at all...you've made some excellent posts in the past. But if I were to make a generalization about your posts like you have above, one would have to assume that all your posts are equally poor. And that is wrong. Since the troll in this example would have registered as non-evil, your argument is completely and utterly moot. Since there are more ways to defeat evil than merely kill it, your argument is moot. Since slaying evil creatures is one option, not doing so is not a failure, therefore your argument is moot. Dash
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 03:57 PM	zodiki The whole adventure seems to have been designed to make the paladin fall, and/or force him to choose a different class of PC to play - since the "moral" dilemma presented doesn't affect any of the other party members and forces the Paladin to either go along with the plan and fall, or not go along with it and either get killed himself or leave the party. I cannot believe what I'm reading. First, I fail to see any grand moral dilemma here. Not slaying the person who just saved your hide is called 'minimal decency', or even less. I do not see here even the glimpse of the high standards imposed on paladins in general. And if the paladin was never expected to face any moral dilemmas, than what's the reason of playing paladins at all? This nice bonus to hit/damage a few times for day, and saves from the roof? In my experience, plus the opinions of the persons I've had the privilege of gaming with, the appeal of paladins lies in the moral standards expected from them. And by no means this is a straightjacket: I've seen paladins as different as day and night. Still, paladin (and, to an extent, druid) are the only classes under current edition rules, that are defined first not by game mechanic issue, but by roleplaying issues. If those are neglected (either by the player who does whatever his whims are, or by the DM who imposes no consequences), then why to play apaladin at all? Domain cleric/ fighter works better (domain cleric, since following any god implies a dose of moral standards too). Sorry for a rant. But this subject has been beaten to death by many posters better than me (I admire your persistence Dash). So if it returns again, it must obviously be undead. I detect evil... Smite!
Dash Branaghan 09-22-04, 04:03 PM	Sorry for a rant. But this subject has been beaten to death by many posters better than me (I admire your persistence Dash). Thanks Lord Stigius. I live in this fantasy world where common sense prevails, and sometimes I'm just too immersed in it to realize I'm back in reality. :D Dash
jasper 09-22-04, 04:59 PM	First I disagree with you view of detect evil. Second both of you and the player need to work on a code of conduct. Third my standard. Jasper Paladin thoughts DMs must come up with a code of conduct for paladins. And allow the player to make adjustments. This needs to be done before the character is created. The Detect Evil ability of paladins is not a problem. Detect Evil targets creatures, objects and spells. Humanoid are classified as creatures. A character with an evil alignment at tenth or lower level would have a faint aura of power. Up to twenty-fifth level a moderate aura. A priest of evil god who class level is one has a faint, second to fourth a moderate, strong at fifth to tenth, and overwhelming after that. Detect Evil is divination with V, S, Df, how ever it is spell like ability which has no components. Can the detect evil spell like ability be detected? Depends on the Dm handles spell like abilities. And if there are any spells up on the patrons. So Paladin casts a spell in crowded bar and in eighteen seconds knows at table four there is one overwhelming aura, and three faint traces. He charges! After slaying the evil he is beheaded for murder. Next paladin. A paladin is just another adventurer who can be cast into jail for violating the local laws. However paladins are not cops. Ex. Lawyer, Excuse me Bucky the Wonder Paladin, did you say halt I’m a Paladin before you attacked Orcus in the town square. Bucky, No he was EVIL! Dm, Boom There it is! No more paladin powers for you since you violated the law. If this were to happen in a game the dm does not understand paladins. Also a paladin is not smite on sight sword slinger. Ex. Bucky the Wonder Paladin while giving a class on justice, decides to detect evil on the Springfield Elementary fourth grade class. Suddenly he rushes over and starts choking Bart Simpson. With the aid of Ned Flanders, Principal Skinner was able to subdue Bucky. Bucky is now doing five to ten in the local pen. Hey that is it. Sideshow Bob is a paladin. A paladin liberally using his Detect Evil every five rounds isn’t smart either and he is being tacky. Bucky the Wonder paladin arrives on noon stage coach to Tatoonie. He wanders into Jabba’s Bar and Grill (slogan we have good deals). Boom detects evil. He draws his sword. (sfx of mass blaster fire). A small droid rolls out of wall and vacuums up the ashes. The bartender adds another hash mark to paladins’ wasted wall. What Bucky should do is something like this. Bucky the Wonder paladin and party are stop by Mr. Haney the road side vendor. While Mr. Haney goes into his pitch, Bucky detects evil and receives a faint aura. Bucky, “It sounds like a good deal on the +3 vorpal Ginzu set but I do not trust Mr. Haney. Mr. Haney are you sure this is a good deal?” etc. Bucky then notes Mr. Haney as a person to keep an eye on in the future. Are paladins the law, Judge Dread of the land? Ask your Dm. IMC it varies with kingdom whether they are the law enforcement office. Now I once had a Paladin chase the party half way across the continent. Once she caught up with party and learned the facts of jail break, she charged them with the jail break. Fined them and made them pay the wergild for the slain guards. Then cut them loose since the party was fighting greater evil than the violation of kingdom laws. Would Bucky the Wonder Paladin back stab Orcus in the back, when Orcus is shopping at Wal-Mart? It depends on the level and code of conduct of paladin. At first level just as he was going for his sword his cell phone would beep. Bucky, “Hello, Bucky speaking.” Voice, “do not do it. You are not good enough yet.” Bucky, “but he is EVIL!” Voice, “the boss does not employ stupid paladins. Help is on the way so just sit still and don’t get yourself nuked!” Bucky, “What’s a nuke?” Voice, “Never mind that!” click. Now if Bucky was twentieth level, and Bucky was shopping for some new Underroos and spied Orcus in the shoe dept and he did nothing. His cell phone would beep. “Bucky here. How may I help you?” Voice, “Clean up on aisle five.” Bucky, “Can’t you see I am shopping in peace here?” Voice, “Clean up on aisle five, now.” Bucky, “Hey I am on vacation! Can’t you get someone else?” Voice, “Clean up on aisle five, right now! Or how long can you tread water!” Bucky, “Ok I’m going can’t take a little joke.” Click. I allow paladins to drink, smoke, flirt etc depending on their CoC. Hey they can have gas if they want to. The CoC for each god is not necessary the same to give each religion and each paladin some style. Also the player decides on how evil aura appears to the paladin. One player uses the taste of crisp bacon for faint, to burnt bacon, to spit it out. Another uses smell and still another uses color yellow, orange, then red. A dm must never set up a no win dilemma for paladin. So no coming to intersection and having to choose between saving Grandpa Jones from the wolf or running into the burning hut to save Baby Huey. A dm should give a clear warning that a propose action will result in lost of paladin hood. Either Bucky the Wonder paladin gets a cold shiver as he starts to plan the bank robbery. Or the dm speaks, “Jasper I will pull the paladin status of Bucky if you keep it up.” The warning should be clear enough for player to take five and decide to continue with the action or not. A player needs to clearly understand how the dm views the CoC. Accept the fact that some players do not get along the dm’s views and play another class. Now to srd A Willing commit an evil act. Respect legitimate authority. I sorry of Great Evil Mucky Muck but I must respectfully ask you step down from the throne. I have to lop off you head to pay for the thousands of people your secret police assassinated on your orders. No problems with this one. Help the needy in good ways. Punish those who harm others, or threaten harm. Act with honor (No lying, no cheating, no poison use, insert dm views here). Ok here is where you need your dm’s input. Do I tell the border guards the truth, I here to toss Orcus off his throne or just say personal business? Is a bluff a lie? Can I cheat a con man and win back the orphanage’s Christmas goose fund? Can I use sleep poison to bring in Bad Bart for trial, or do I just hack him up when he is down for the count?
Sucineri 09-22-04, 05:20 PM	If an Ithillid said: "I wanna be your friend noble paladin, give me a hug, I will turn from my evil ways," would you do it? Or would you take that chance to finish him off and save the world (and yourself) from his evil brain eating ways? If I were the Paladin in this circumstance I would detect evil..and if I didn't sense evil I would accept what the Illithid had to say. I would not however give it a hug..unless I am wearing an anti-mindflayer helmet or something :P Basically I am saying that even though I would accept one's apology or accept that one says they will be good from now on doesn't mean I am going to hand them all my money and then go skipping through the countryside singing "la ladi da". That is just stupid.
Supercilious 09-22-04, 05:36 PM	Holy Strawman Argument, Batman. First of all, you Detect Evil. Then you decide whether you want to hug the Illithid. There is nothing saying that Illithids are incapble of being good, but there are mitigating factors that will help adjudicate a decision either way. And there is nothing to say that you can't leave the Illithid to himself to see if he is planning on becoming good...you don't have to witness it or be around if the Illithid is lying. Besides, most Illithids mindblast prey immediately...if one doesn't do so but initiates communication, I would be up for listening it. Hugging no, listening, yes. Supercilious, your response is a poor one in this case, but does that make all your responses poor? Not at all...you've made some excellent posts in the past. But if I were to make a generalization about your posts like you have above, one would have to assume that all your posts are equally poor. And that is wrong. Since the troll in this example would have registered as non-evil, your argument is completely and utterly moot. Since there are more ways to defeat evil than merely kill it, your argument is moot. Since slaying evil creatures is one option, not doing so is not a failure, therefore your argument is moot. Dash I would like to point to BoED, page 7, segment headed "Mercy," paragraph 2. "A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy no matter how many times villians might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept that surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible." So really, if aforementioned Illithid offerd to surrender, even if it had just raped and then skinned your parents/children/party alive, you have to accept that surrender, and then proceed to expose yourself to the mind powers of said Illithid, which will result in your death (All but an epic character will fail a will save some time from the place of capture to hte place of return). And an even more morally ambigious question: If a paladin captures a villian, and then turns him over to the proper authorities, even if he knows the villian will be put to death is that an evil act? If that is not an evil act, then why is carrying out that punishment a vile act? Those trolls would be killed by the town milita eventually anyways... EDIT: I suppose that the paladin should fall from grace, and lose his abilities, but it just does not seem right...
Sucineri 09-22-04, 06:13 PM	If that is not an evil act, then why is carrying out that punishment a vile act? Those trolls would be killed by the town milita eventually anyways... You are a civilian and witness a car hijacking where an old lady is thrown from her car onto the sidewalk and some "ethnic" guy jumps in the car. You follow the car, drive beside it and shoot the guy in the face from your car, killing him and the car slows down and stops. I mean the police were going to give chase and he might have flipped his car or run other people off the road and possibly killed them..so why not take the law into your hands? You are just being a good guy right? Idiot.
Timely Drought 09-22-04, 06:48 PM	You are a civilian and witness a car hijacking where an old lady is thrown from her car onto the sidewalk and some "ethnic" guy jumps in the car. You follow the car, drive beside it and shoot the guy in the face from your car, killing him and the car slows down and stops. I mean the police were going to give chase and he might have flipped his car or run other people off the road and possibly killed them..so why not take the law into your hands? You are just being a good guy right? Idiot.Except that in this case the paladin was given authorization to take the law into his own hands by the community. But anyway, I think the DM screwed up. He should not have allowed the player to have a paladin in this group. And he should not have presented moral dilemmas without discussing in depth the code of honor with a new player. I think atonement would be a cruel joke, since the paladin cannot follow the code in this group. He either breaks it again or the group turns against him when he annoys them too much with showing mercy to their enemies etc. Making him a blackguard seems a good solution if the player is ok with it.
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 07:18 PM	Supercilious So really, if aforementioned Illithid offerd to surrender, even if it had just raped and then skinned your parents/children/party alive, you have to accept that surrender, and then proceed to expose yourself to the mind powers of said Illithid, which will result in your death I seriously hope you've been sarcastic in that case. There is a huge difference between 'sparing someone's life' and trusting to him blndly. A PC who has succesfully fought an illithid probably knows about its powers and has some means to protect himsef. Also, there are reasons for paladins having Detect Evil in unlimited supply, later getting the Discern lies spell. And IMHO the most fortunate of all rules changes between 3,0 and 3,5 was giving paladins Sense motive as class skills. IMC I had houseruled it this way from the very beginning. One thing more: People are prone to assuming that a paladin is a modern day cop. This is not the case. Paladins are neither modern, nor the cops. And being lawful DOES NOT mean that they have to take every single villain alive and bring him to the 'local authority' to be executed there. This may make some sense only under special circumstances: 1) The paladis has been specifically ordered to bring the said person alive, 2) The paladin has some serious basis to doubt his own judgement or knowledge, and therefore the ability to judge the person in question (for example, the man he has just caught is said to have murdered a merchant, but according to other relations the merchant was actually a slave trader trying to capture this man - the paladin does not know which is true, but the townspeople will know). Sparing captured villains is about mercy and forgivness (relying on the paladin's judgement, which itself is based upon his faith, ethics, principles, code, personality etc). Not about bringing them to justice and getting rid of the judgement problems. My golden rule: If you do't like morality plays, don't play paladins.
Sucineri 09-22-04, 08:57 PM	You know, I really don't care if you are new to the game or not..when you read in the PHB about the Paladin class it pretty well tells you "don't lie, cheat, steal, or break your word". That's like an argument of reading that a giant looks like a human then getting a quest to kill a giant who has been killing villagers..only to kill a halfling who also looks human..and you say "well, in relation to an ant, a halfling is a giant human". It isn't REALLY that hard to play a Paladin..really it isn't..and your "newbieness" shouldn't affect anything. The paladin is like THE easiest archtype to play. You are the goodliest of the good..you don't do what is "bad". And to almost all societies lying, cheating, stealing, and breaking your word is "bad". Here is another argument..can use real life as well. Olympics, target rifle shooting: There is one competitor who wins every single rifle event and has so for the past 10 olympics (yes, I know that is 40 years)..so you are in the event and you decide to kill this guy in the middle of the arena (or wherever they do their shooting). I mean it was for the greater good right? Nobody else could compete with the guy, so let someone else get the gold for once..right? RIGHT?? I just don't like when people say "he's new, pitty him". If he didn't grasp the concept of the game he should have just played a fighter of good alignment.
A Flying Buddha 09-22-04, 09:08 PM	Ok, I only read the first page, but here's my take. It is important for players who play paladins to realize that they aren't simply playing the knight who rides around and decides what *he* thinks is right. A Paladin is divinely inspired, and should be close to his god or code. This means he needs to rise above the petty mortal excuses for the things we do. "It's ok because they're trolls/kobolds/goblins" is a very simple concept. ITS RACISM. A paladin works for the forces of good, which in its most ultimate sense, is working for the well being of *all things* (rocks too), but most importantly the forces of good want all sentient beings to aid them in spreading the doctrine of goodness. This means the paladin in question should have fought pretty damned hard to save that troll, not to mention the ones that were locked up. I will admit that this is still gray, but if his best answer was "It's ok cuz they be monstaz..." Then the Great God of His Paladinship should come hammering down on his tiny little insignificant mortal crown. Or he should at least lose his powers. Fight racism! Save the baby Kobolds! They could all grow up to be like Deekin!
Sucineri 09-22-04, 09:25 PM	"It's ok because they're trolls/kobolds/goblins" is a very simple concept. ITS RACISM. A paladin works for the forces of good, which in its most ultimate sense, is working for the well being of *all things* (rocks too), But if we don't destroy the rocks, they may evolve into boulders which will roll over towns and destroy lives! :tantrum:
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 09:38 PM	But if we don't destroy the rocks, they may evolve into boulders which will roll over towns and destroy lives! Kill baby message boards trolls before they mature and eat us! Seriously, unless the DM very seriously changes his setting, goblinoid children are just children, most likely just as evil as human children may be. They have no inherent alignment. Fiends are another matter, but then, you do not encounter baby dretches... And by the rules a good orc is just as likely as an evil elf. Saying that something may become evili does not justify killing it proactively, before it is even able to commit any crime. What about slaughtering the children of enemy nation then? The metaphore of destroying rocks gave me rather hilarious mental picture of a shiny armoured paladin climbing up the cliff over the town and smashinng the rocks hanging there with his warhammer. The outcome is quite easy to forsee... :D
Sucineri 09-22-04, 09:52 PM	The metaphore of destroying rocks gave me rather hilarious mental picture of a shiny armoured paladin climbing up the cliff over the town and smashinng the rocks hanging there with his warhammer. The outcome is quite easy to forsee... Man..that would suck, lol Oh, and the comment I made before about the rock evolving..I was not meaning to be a board troll..I was just making a joke.
Frodo Lives 09-22-04, 10:04 PM	I don't know how there is any debate over wether the paladin would travel with an evil character, it states right in the PHB that he would never do so. There is no buts, ifs, or ands it states very clearly that he would never associate with evil people. The group described would certainly be in that catagory, detect evil or not. As for killing the "helpless" trolls :rolleyes: I personally don't subscribe to the theory of making the paladin so worried about what is the right thing to do that he can barely leave his home for the fear that he might step on a bug. If the paladin can make a convincing case that he did what he did to further the cause of law and/or good without knowingly comminting an evil act or violating his CoC as described in the PHB then he is fine. I would hardly call killing monsters, no matter what their condition, "knowingly" commiting an evil act, but breaking his promise and attacking the reformed troll is. Killing monsters should not be a moral crisis after all that is what adventurers do, and everything should not be a "what if" dilemma. Sure those trolls could be good, but they have been eating farmers, so I don't think that the paladin is hurting himself by assuming that they aren't. Paladins should be tough to play and their morals and CoC take LG to the next level. This is where not attacking the reformed Troll would make him fall, heck he probably (if played properly) should have defended the troll from his other party members as he has proven himself. But it should not be so difficult as to make the class all but unplayable. There have been a lot of explainations of what a paladin can and can't do that are simply not in the PHB and are only what the traditional paladin is thought of, which isn't a bad thing, but not the only way to play one.
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 10:07 PM	That's OK, Sucineri, in fact I didn't consider this statement a trolling attempt. It was all the matter of my personal thought association. In fact I was thinking rather about the first poster who brought here the immortal 'paladin and goblinoid babies" motives. I've seen more than a few recurring discussions about them on these boards ending in flamewars, no matter the intentions of the original posters. I consider myself somewhat combustible on that matter... ;) Simply wanted to combine in one post the comment on goblin babies, and on the rocks. Sorry for messing up.
Xerxal 09-22-04, 11:18 PM	First of all, I appreciate all of the replys to my problem. Most of you have been very constructive, and even if I disagre with you, your suggestions have been noted. Some of you have sniffed out that this may be a problem with me, and I agree with you to an extent. I have been DMing for several years, (since late 2nd edition) but I have very little experience with DMing a party this size. In the past, I've only played with my sister and cousin, but I've had a recient wave of friends and acquaintances wanting to learn the game. I also have no experience DMing, or playing, a paladin. Thus, all of your suggestions have been very helpful. I'm going to try to clarify a few issues people have had by going into greater detail on the areas of the adventure that seem to be causing the most trouble. Namely, paladin working as a mercenary, the problem of the necromancer, the initial dialogue the paladin had with the allied troll, the circumstances of the murder of the allied troll, and the palain's justification for the slaughter. 1. The group had been initially sent to the Harper's Guild to learn more information about a semi-unrelated adventure they completed in the first session. The Guildmaster of the Harpers told them of the recient increase in troll sightings in the area, and that a number of caravans had been attacked along the mountain pass. The 100 Gold bounty per head was included for two reasons: to nudge the more self centered members of the group toward the adventure, and to tempt the paladin in the end. This adventure was NOT designed to make the paladin fall, but it was designed to make the paladin think, and possibly take the risk of appearing unpopular with the rest of the group. 2. The Necromancer is crazy evil, but most of the "crazy evil" in his personality is displayed out of character. He displays his in character personality as a sly, powerhungry mage. The Paladin seems to think he can redeem the necromancer to justify their working arrangement, though the necromancer's player claims that the only thing that can redeem his character is "a really hot good chick". I decided I would let the two play what they wanted and just see how it plays out. 3. The Paladin was the first character to notice the distant campfire of the allied troll (hereafter referred to as "Glok", for simplification purposes). Glok prepared to flee when he saw the Paladin, since he was in no shape for a fight. The Paladin saw that the troll was preparing to eat his own arm, so he offered him several days worth of rations. It took the bard's diplomacy, a few more days worth of rations, and a mule to fill Glok's appetite and earn his trust. It was then that Glok explained his situation and told the bard and paladin that he had reformed. Glok was originally unwilling to return to the Shade's Lair, but then the Necromancer got the bright idea to use the troll to lead them to more troll heads. The necromancer told Glok the party would help him free his captive brothers, and Glok happily agreed. The Paladin stays quiet, but he never seemed too happy about having the troll around. 4. When the party came to the chamber with the caged trolls, they pulled out their flasks of acid and alchemist fire. The paladin did not actively participate in the slaughter, but again, he stayed quiet. Glok, however, did not stay quiet, and he became enraged at their betrayal. I told them to roll initiative agianst Glok. They did not attempt to subdue him, they threw flasks of alchemist fire and he was dead in less than two rounds. The Paladin participated in killing Glok. PCs chop off his head, seal the neck-line with acid, and threw it in the bag with the rest. I thought about the situation for a few moments, discussed it the players over a cigarette, and concluded that the Paladin would need to atone to regain his powers. 5. The player's justification for his actions and lack of action struck me as very weak. He believed that they were just trolls, and apparantly below his threshold for compassion. His other arguement was that Glok had gotten the highest initiative roll in their fight with him, making his actions self-defense. However, I don't like speaking for him, so I'll get in touch with him tommorow and ask if he'd mind posting his feelings on the situation for you to see.
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 11:42 PM	Having got these details, I stand by what I said. By being passive when the necromancer was convincing the troll, the paladin accepted the necro at the party's spokesman, and should hold on to the promise given. Really, the player sounds as if he were better off with a fighter. Playing a paladin requires some dedication and activity. While he does not have to be the party leader in all situations, he cannot hesitate from voicing his opinions. He believed that they were just trolls, Either he is brand new to the game (not only to playing pallies), in which case you should explain to him the difference between 'usually evil' and inherently evil creatures (agreed, fiends could be well beyond any hope of redemption) Or, he is one of those persons who indeed perceive paladins as sets of nice numbers and have difficulties with using in game the concepions such as honour, mercy etc? In that case he should be kept away from playing a paladin. No offense for your player intended here, I myself have a player of this kind: great guy who wold do anything to help you in reality, and is a really good and imaginative player in game, but having him play a paladin would be a crime against the class. Have you ever suggested him playing a blackguard? One would far better mix with this group than a paladin. Frankly, I do not see for him any serious hope of converting the party. Explain to him that a blk does not have to be a cackling mad cultist. He could be a respectable mercenary, a noble-bearing and aloof knight doing in general all the 'normal' RPG stuff, like killing evil monsters for the good employers. Blackguard is completly allowed to have relationships with the 'good guys".
Xerxal 09-22-04, 11:48 PM	My reason for taking his paladinhood away was mainly due to the betrayal and not standing up to the rest of the group. The caged trolls were a wild card that might've made him think twice about taking money for their heads, but it was only a small part of his fall. I liked Strahd's suggestion about giving him a trial since that fits in well with Tyr's faith. Someone posted that I should make the punishment fit the crime, and I'll defintely use that if he's found guilty. So I'd say I'm pretty well covered in what to do with him. As for improving on my own DMing skills, I intend to write up a list of how the CoC applies in my campagin, and what I expect from paladins so we never encounter confusion again (hopefully). Again, I thank everyone that has responded and I'll take all the input here to heart.
Frodo Lives 09-23-04, 12:20 AM	When good men do nothing, evil prevails. This seems to be what happened here, I don't buy the whole non commital routine when playing a paladin. Allowing evil to be done in your name (and if he is part of the party what they are doing is partly in his name) and doing nothing is just as offensive as performing those acts himself. If he made a deal or allowed a deal to be made with Glok, then he is honor bound to keep it. Doing nothing when your party mates are breaking that same deal is not an acceptable way out of that agreement for a paladin.
Shadowmagyk 09-23-04, 01:01 AM	1. The group had been initially sent to the Harper's Guild to learn more information about a semi-unrelated adventure they completed in the first session. The Guildmaster of the Harpers told them of the recient increase in troll sightings in the area, and that a number of caravans had been attacked along the mountain pass. The 100 Gold bounty per head was included for two reasons: to nudge the more self centered members of the group toward the adventure, and to tempt the paladin in the end. This adventure was NOT designed to make the paladin fall, but it was designed to make the paladin think, and possibly take the risk of appearing unpopular with the rest of the group. The Harpers are an orginization that worry more about protecting people from fears, and protecting the balance of power; almost like a Druid. It also seems like they are correlating events that are not correlating. "Caravans getting attacked + Troll sightings= Trolls are attacking" With certain groups, the Paladin will be dead, as should be the case with this group. 2. The Necromancer is crazy evil, but most of the "crazy evil" in his personality is displayed out of character. He displays his in character personality as a sly, powerhungry mage. The Paladin seems to think he can redeem the necromancer to justify their working arrangement, though the necromancer's player claims that the only thing that can redeem his character is "a really hot good chick". I decided I would let the two play what they wanted and just see how it plays out. A paladin will not work with one who continually offends his code, especially an evil one. 3. The Paladin was the first character to notice the distant campfire of the allied troll (hereafter referred to as "Glok", for simplification purposes). Glok prepared to flee when he saw the Paladin, since he was in no shape for a fight. The Paladin saw that the troll was preparing to eat his own arm, so he offered him several days worth of rations. It took the bard's diplomacy, a few more days worth of rations, and a mule to fill Glok's appetite and earn his trust. It was then that Glok explained his situation and told the bard and paladin that he had reformed. Glok was originally unwilling to return to the Shade's Lair, but then the Necromancer got the bright idea to use the troll to lead them to more troll heads. The necromancer told Glok the party would help him free his captive brothers, and Glok happily agreed. The Paladin stays quiet, but he never seemed too happy about having the troll around. The paladin should not have done this. His first thought, upon seeing a troll, should be Detect Evil. (To be proper, if he is going to try to parley with it.) If the troll gets away, then he gets away. It almost seems as if the paladin was told to talk to the troll (out of character). I am not saying that you did this, but it seems VERY fishy that any character will talk to a troll, or any monster for that matter, before trying to kill or hide from it. If the paladin decided to kill this monster on sight, like any normal person would do when seeing a monster, it would have still landed him a fall from grace. If Glok was really a good creature, he would have tried to speak first, then run away. Upon hearing the Necromancer offer aid, the paladin should be thinking, "Hey, I am finally getting through to this guy!" 4. When the party came to the chamber with the caged trolls, they pulled out their flasks of acid and alchemist fire. The paladin did not actively participate in the slaughter, but again, he stayed quiet. Glok, however, did not stay quiet, and he became enraged at their betrayal. I told them to roll initiative agianst Glok. They did not attempt to subdue him, they threw flasks of alchemist fire and he was dead in less than two rounds. The Paladin participated in killing Glok. PCs chop off his head, seal the neck-line with acid, and threw it in the bag with the rest. I thought about the situation for a few moments, discussed it the players over a cigarette, and concluded that the Paladin would need to atone to regain his powers. The paladin should have left the party immediately. I can see his error, but again, he is a new player, and may not have known that this is possible in a campaign. He may have been worried about what level his new character would be. There are many factors, but if he was revelling in it, then I can see a fall. Of course, I would have told a new player, that this course would cause him to fall. Sometimes, hints are needed, especially when you do not set the ground rules at the beginning of the game. 5. The player's justification for his actions and lack of action struck me as very weak. He believed that they were just trolls, and apparantly below his threshold for compassion. His other arguement was that Glok had gotten the highest initiative roll in their fight with him, making his actions self-defense. However, I don't like speaking for him, so I'll get in touch with him tommorow and ask if he'd mind posting his feelings on the situation for you to see. He could have used the full defense action, the flat of his blade, or left the party. Of course, he would have probably fallen for not helping innocent victims. They are monsters, and people are biased in that respect. It is only natural. My reason for taking his paladinhood away was mainly due to the betrayal and not standing up to the rest of the group. The caged trolls were a wild card that might've made him think twice about taking money for their heads, but it was only a small part of his fall. I liked Strahd's suggestion about giving him a trial since that fits in well with Tyr's faith. Someone posted that I should make the punishment fit the crime, and I'll defintely use that if he's found guilty. So I'd say I'm pretty well covered in what to do with him. As for improving on my own DMing skills, I intend to write up a list of how the CoC applies in my campagin, and what I expect from paladins so we never encounter confusion again (hopefully). Again, I thank everyone that has responded and I'll take all the input here to heart. Okay, he is falling because he went back on something about which he never agreed. Granted, he should have walked away multiple times, but again, he is new, and was not given specifics as to how the CoC works in this world. Yes, he did make some stupid decisions, but everyone does. As far as a trial- Who is his deity? His deity should be the one to decide if his powers are revoked. If he does not have a deity, then he may have an interpretation of the code that allows him to do what he did. It is almost like the Cleric being able to cast spells and pick domains without a deity. If he does not have a deity, then it should be his interpretation of the CoC (within the limits of the DM), as to whether his code is violated, which is why this should always be discussed before the game begins. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with what he did. There was nothing that screams "evil." The closest that I can see to anything within the CoC is "help those in need... punish those who harm or threaten innocents." I am speaking of the "innocents" only because they were caged and he did not Detect Evil. He never made the deal with Glok, so he should not be punished for a "betrayal." You are going to say "act with honor." Yes, acting with honor is believing what the Necromancer said. The paladin was fooled along with the troll. He never detected evil, so he believes the monster to have been lying, as well as the Necromancer. However, the troll, being a good troll, should have tried to verbally stop the party from killing his comrades before attacking. There are many thoughts that could be going through this guy's head at this time. Overall, these are just newbie mistakes, both on the player's and DM's part.
Crossover-Chronicler 09-23-04, 02:32 AM	A troll is a deceitful evil creature, the Paladin had no reason to trust it.Actually, a troll is a stupid, uncharismatic, and aggressive creature with only the vaguest idea what "self-preservation" means. The fact that the Troll in question does not fall into this mold should have been the Paladin's first clue that something was up. Further, had there been any doubt (which there was), the character could have used his detect evil ability to ensure that this remakrable troll was in fact evil. He killed without even checking, so I'd say he Falls. I suggest your paladin look at the PHB, p.44, under "Associates." Either he was wrong for teaming up with the Troll, or else he was wrong for killing it. Either way, he's no longer a Paladin because he's either knowingly associated with evil or else killed a creature he believed to be non-evil. Looking again under "code of conduct," agreeing to free the Trolls with the intent of killing them probably falls under deception. There goes paladin-hood again.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-23-04, 02:34 AM	Well thank you for taking my suggestion for a trial into consideration. But there's something that have been bothering for a while now, how in the nine hell of Baator could the Troll ''not be in a good enough shape'' to fight the Paladin, when they first met Glok at his campfire ? I mean, if you use standard Trolls, they have their regeneration ability active all the time ('cept when they're at full HP, I believe). Now that I know the whole story, I say he is even more gulty then before, for letting the Necromancer speak in the name of the party, and for NOT doing something to block his team-mates from making a huge mass muder of the weakened Trolls (were they not suppose to regenerating too ? Unless, the process which was slowly turning them into shadows had already begun) ? My final suggestion would be (if you apply the trial option, that is) to send him at the end of the continent/worl in whatever campaign setting your using. For example if your playing on Faerun, send him in the middle of the desert of Anauroch (damn, I bet I mispell it again!) to retreive an ancient item/artifact in name of his god, to pay for his crimes against his own code of conduct ! And, if you want to be a real sadistict, send him ALONE ! Removing the option of the other party member to aid him in such a quest, could prove to be quite difficult, not to mention extremely challenging, but hey thats what you get, when your break out your own code/oath of service !
RainCloud 09-23-04, 03:52 AM	IMHO: The problem at the very core of this argument is the stigma assoc with DnD. ANYTIME you ask a PC to roll init, they invariably kill EVERY ugly thing in sight. It just so happened you asked them to roll init when an NPC was near. They think they did nothing wrong, because they followed the #$&*@$# stigma.
Chasmodai 09-23-04, 09:00 AM	I haven't ran games for many paladins - just two in recent years, IIRC. But I do not believe in the line in the PHB that says 'a Paladin never willing associates with evil creatures...', simply because it feels rather close-minded and well, stupid. Let us take a more modern day, easily associated example (which also happens to be my favorite example): Batman and Superman. Batman would have killed the trolls, helpless or not. Batman is one cold SOB and he definitely isn't a Paladin. He might have betrayed the redeemed troll, Glok, but then again, he might have not. At the very least, Batman might have trussed up them trolls and presented them to the local authorities, still alive. Superman, on the other hand, would do neither of these things. Neither would Captain America. Why? Cos they're Paladins, the both of them. They stand for 'truth, justice and the LG way' (kudos to the guy who posted this earlier). It isn't justice for them to kill the caged trolls or Glok. It definitely isn't LG either. If this was my party, I'd have insisted they all fall to evil alignments, regardless of their class. It isn't just slaughter, its also racism, bigotry and unjustified hatred. Evil. If you say otherwise, then I ask you: what about Hitler?
markhaus 09-23-04, 09:46 AM	He loses his powers. Not b/c of the caged trolls but b/c of his comrade who he slaughtered (if he promised the caged trolls freedom he should lose his powers for THAT not killing them, he doesnt know they wont kill the villagers once they get out) he should kill the evil necromancer to redeem himself (yes he can stab his evil friend in the back and not lose his paladinhood) just my two bits. P.S. Animate Dead is always considered an evil act. Eating your own arm instead of the tasty villagers is a non-evil act.
Defcon4 09-23-04, 09:46 AM	Batman would have killed the trolls, helpless or not. Batman is one cold SOB and he definitely isn't a Paladin. He might have betrayed the redeemed troll, Glok, but then again, he might have not. Nice post but i have to correct you here. Tim Burtin not withstanding, Batman doesn't kill. He'll break bones and leave you in traction for months, but he will not kill you. Period. At least not sentient beings. Batman is also a man of his word. He says he'll do something, you better believe that's what he's gonna do.
Crossover-Chronicler 09-23-04, 11:44 AM	Well thank you for taking my suggestion for a trial into consideration. But there's something that have been bothering for a while now, how in the nine hell of Baator could the Troll ''not be in a good enough shape'' to fight the Paladin, when they first met Glok at his campfire ? I mean, if you use standard Trolls, they have their regeneration ability active all the time ('cept when they're at full HP, I believe). Now that I know the whole story, I say he is even more gulty then before, for letting the Necromancer speak in the name of the party, and for NOT doing something to block his team-mates from making a huge mass muder of the weakened Trolls (were they not suppose to regenerating too ? Unless, the process which was slowly turning them into shadows had already begun) ?Well, there's this description of Regeneration from the SRD:(emphasis mine)A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage. The creature automatically heals nonlethal damage at a fixed rate per round, as given in the entry. Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal lethal damage to the creature, which doesn’t go away. The creature’s descriptive text describes the details. A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace. The attack cannot be of a type that automatically converts to nonlethal damage. Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts; details are in the creature’s descriptive text. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally. A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.Even the escaped troll seemed extremely hungry, and any ability damage or negative levels they may have received would remain.
Supercilious 09-23-04, 12:38 PM	I just think that exacting the laws of your church upon the trolls should not be considered an evil act, he was bettering humanity. Although in the party dynamic that appears to be present a Paladin is not a good class to choose, give him a blackguard, or better yet, make him a warrior of darkness. And besides, Batman is LE.
Chasmodai 09-23-04, 01:15 PM	And besides, Batman is LE. Actually, dude, his alignment would be the same as yours. Y'know, Lawful Zealot :D. Tim Burtin not withstanding, Batman doesn't kill. He'll break bones and leave you in traction for months, but he will not kill you. True. The Batman of canon does not kill. However, I was thinking more along the lines of Batman in Dark Knight Returns, or Kingdom Come. But I shall stop taking this thread off topic. Back to Paladins and trolls and such. :)
Supercilious 09-23-04, 01:28 PM	Batman is way cooler than Paladins (And the series where gotham is abandoned in a similiar fashion as the Kurt Russel New York is EXCELLENT)... I still think killing an evil creature is a good act, no matter what.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-23-04, 05:13 PM	So, if there's a Necromancer crawling at your feet, in a half-dead state beging you to spare his life, your gonna kill him ?
markhaus 09-23-04, 05:28 PM	You dont kill a necromancer when he begs for his life... you capture him, judge him, and execute him. Yeesh, you'd think you guys had never played a paladin (if you are going for exalted consult your god before judging and executing)
StrahdVonZarovich 09-23-04, 05:32 PM	I've gotta admit, that I've rarely played Paladins (Maybe 4 or 5 times in 10 years of d&d), but you don't need to execute him, well not 'til the verdict is guilty that is. And besides, what if he's either a) lawful-good (or any other good alignment) or b) lawful-neutral ? Its not ALL Necromancers that are evil !
crazysamaritan 09-23-04, 05:56 PM	Alright, that's better. With the new information, I can safely say that the player was being reactionary. Purely because he is new, too. Nothing wrong with that. It's also easy to see that your views of a paladin are constrained (mine are too, so don't take offense). My suggestion? Yeah, atonement. Against any obvious evil (such as a troll that has detected as evil), the paladin has full power. Against anything else (such as a price-gouging mildly evil merchant), he has no powers. THat's how it will be until he is atoned. As part of the atonement process, the two of you can work out a code that the player will follow. This way, you have a reference the next time the situation comes up, and the player can know when to act vs. react. Make it clear that it will be an ethic defining adventure. No alignment change possible, just a complex discussion on how ethics should work for the paladin. That was the problem from my read. When the player saw a helpless creature, he thought, oh, he's starving, I should help! But then he was brushed aside by the other players (unintentionally, I'm sure) and reduced to a glorified NPC role. He settled into a "react to everyone around me" role. When he was attacked, he did the first thing that poped into his head, fight back. An experienced player, I would punish. However, due to inexperience, I advice the two of you to use the atonement as a code-building exercise. IMO, a much better way to learn his morality/ethics than forcing him in a bad situation. I also suggest a short ethic-question quest, the result of which will define his paladin's ethics in the world. That means if he chooses to kill the goblin baby, then that's how his code works. If he choses to raise it himself, he is personally responsible for a creature's alignment change. If he brings it back to his order's temple, then he should try to convert any enemies he reasonably can. Your player and party should get along better after that, nd your campagin can then proceed smoothly.
Crossover-Chronicler 09-23-04, 06:04 PM	I just think that exacting the laws of your church upon the trolls should not be considered an evil act,So being a member of the Church of Nerull gives me a free pass for murder? Point is, in D&D morality is distinct from religious doctrine. Alignment dictates the tenets of a religion, not the other way around.he was bettering humanity.Actually, a redeemed Troll (especially one as uncharacteristically intelligent as this one seemed to be) could have become an irrepressible juggernaut for the forces of good, for a much greater net benefit to humanity.Although in the party dynamic that appears to be present a Paladin is not a good class to choose, give him a blackguard, or better yet, make him a warrior of darkness.Here, I agree. Or even something suitably LN like Kensai or Knight Protector (both of which retain the "knightly" archetype the DM mentioned as a motivation for the PC to select Paladin). Though all of these require that they be above level 4. Maybe the Samurai base class from Complete Warrior?
Supercilious 09-23-04, 06:14 PM	Oh well, I think that slaying evil monsters is a GOOD thing to do, and others seem to disagree.
crazysamaritan 09-23-04, 06:30 PM	Oh well, I think that slaying evil monsters is a GOOD thing to do, and others seem to disagree. That's right, I do.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-23-04, 09:15 PM	That's right, I do. And, I do as well !
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 09-23-04, 09:41 PM	Oh well, I think that slaying evil monsters is a GOOD thing to do, and others seem to disagree. Holy crap! Every single denizen of the Lower Planes is good! Who'da thunk it?
Chasmodai 09-24-04, 12:51 AM	Oh well, I think that slaying evil monsters is a GOOD thing to do, and others seem to disagree. Well, it wasn't about the fact that he was slaying evil monsters, its about the fact of how he was slaying the evil monsters. You dig?
Sucineri 09-24-04, 03:38 AM	Well, it wasn't about the fact that he was slaying evil monsters, its about the fact of how he was slaying the evil monsters. You dig? That's not complete right either. It was about the fact that he DIDN'T slay evil monsters because of what race they were, but because his "friends" did it and he had to join in. And it is ALSO about how he went about slaying these NON-EVIL monsters.
Supercilious 09-24-04, 04:54 AM	A troll is evil. FIN. (And slaying evil creatures is good if you do it for the betterment of humanity, and not just yourself).
Sucineri 09-24-04, 05:10 AM	A troll is "USUALLY" evil. And that isn't even the highest degree of possibility in this game! The highest is "ALWAYS"! "Often" means 40%-50% "Usually" means "more than 50%" (which could be 51%) "Always" means that someone is born with the alignment, but rare exceptions do occur. It says so on page 305 in the 3.5 Monster Manual under "Alignment". A troll's alignment is "Usually Chaotic Evil" based on page 247 of the 3.5 Monster Manual. So it is completely justified that it truly is possible that this entire group of trolls was NOT evil at any part of their lives. So there is your answer. The Paladin used racism (which is evil if one uses it as an excuse aka "trolls are evil, kill them") and broke his word.
Ratheus 09-24-04, 05:16 AM	I hope I can live the rest of my life without hearing the troll vs. racism remark again. 3.0 Monster manual - trolls are always chaotic evil. 3.5 Monster manual - trolls are usually chaotic evil.
Sucineri 09-24-04, 05:22 AM	Trolls CAN be evil..doesn't mean they ARE evil. It says so in the freaking monster manual! You guys seem to just be plugging your ears with your fingers and shouting "LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA!" or something to that extent. I would totally be agreeing with you guys IF a Troll was listed as "Always Chaotic Evil" but they aren't. These specific trolls were NOT evil. And the Paladin didn't even bother to find out using his 24/7 ready ability either. He saw the jocks punching the geek and had to get his hits in, not even caring that the geek is in fact his younger brother..but just that he would look uncool with his peers if he didn't act.
markhaus 09-25-04, 12:31 PM	In defense of the paladin: It is not racism if you kill a rattlesnake before it bites your children. It is taking preventative measures to safeguard the wellbeing of you children. Much the same as a paladin clearing out trolls that have been eating villagers (yes they are being changed into shades NOW but in the past they were probably eating villagers) On the other side: He had travelled with Glok and knew him to be a decent troll. He really should have helped Glok, or at least spoke with him about his party then killed the party. After learning the horrors he committed maybe Atonement is the best route. If a player feels bad about what he did this spell restores his Paladin powers. (killing the party before or after atonement may score points with your god!) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=4473902&posted=1#post4473902 and just a reminder, in this thread you get the players account.
Troll Slayer3 09-25-04, 01:20 PM	Hey all, its me billy, the paladin. In defense of myself, i wasnt really even paying attention when the whole killing of the trolls in cages was happening, id rather let em leave and if they attacked us then id fight em. And the one i killed, i wasnt RIGHT there when the first blow from the Bard happend, all i saw as i saw the fight was a Troll, witch is known for bein evil, is attackin my party, and in defense of my group, i attack the troll, killing it. When i found out what happend i was happy cuz it could regen, but the nec bein a basterd torched the body. In defense of the troll, i never did use detect evil, it did say it was gonna change to be good, and i didnt really care when its brethren, that i was with the troll to save but with my group to kill, were bein slaughtered where they stood. Also i was the one who talked it into joinin our group, so i shoulda never either tried to talk it into joining us, or taken part in the battle. Thats my defense :weep:
The_EvilDungeon_Master 09-25-04, 01:50 PM	In NWN: SoU a Paladin of Mystra slays a defensless orc baby because it would become evil inevitabley if not destroyed. Being a Paladin is Lawfull Good, not Lawful Stupid. A troll is a deceitful evil creature, the Paladin had no reason to trust it. Ok first of all... No, a baby orc would NOT inevitabley become evil. Actually, the greatest good you could do would be to raise the baby orc to BE a good person. :D "A troll is a deceitful evil creature, the Paladin had no reason to trust it." Funny... A) Not all trolls are evil. B) The Paladin killed in so it wouldn't betray it? Did not the Paladin betray the troll? The answer "Its' a troll" or "It's a paladin" does not work. You still lose. Slaying the defenseless, in ANY Case, is a chaotic evil act. Hey, let's see here, which is more likely to be evil? A troll... A Shade... Or the "PALADIN" that kills everyone?
Troll Slayer3 09-25-04, 02:00 PM	I did'nt kill everything, I just killed the troll that was attacking my friends, but I didn't know which one was doin the bad, so that was my wrong in not doing detect evil spell, but I didn't deceit him so I could kill him later.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-25-04, 03:15 PM	Its not a spell, its an ability which is suppose to be always active around you, just like some kind of aura. And when there's someone evil which enters this aura, THEN your Dm is suppose to tell you that, this person and/or monster is evil. Your aura of good also function like this as well, I believe. My personal 2 bucks on this case.
Sucineri 09-25-04, 03:43 PM	Well, from this new evidence it doesn't look like the Paladin did anything wrong. He might have been kinda stupid when he saw his party leave a room with 10 troll heads and not knowing what happened (which is not evil, he was stupid..he didn't realize what was happening there). In the next room the only thing he saw was his party being attacked by the partner troll so he attacked it in the party's defense. The paladin ALSO left his "prey" (if you will call Glok that now) alive enough to regenerate and asked everyone to just leave. The necromancer disrespected the Paladin's wishes. If anything atonement should be REALLY easy, AND the Paladin needs to leave the party. Troll Slayer3 - Thanks for showing us your view on what happened..but I would highly suggest going for a different character type. You actually seemed to handle your character quite well, but this group you are with won't ever stop being against the paladin's code and will just lead you further toward the path of evil. StrahdVonZarovich - Actually the "detect evil" ability is not always active. That's why I said it was a 24/7 READY ability. Meaning that at any time you can turn it on. It takes time for it to tell if there is evil in the area, then it takes more time to tell in which direction..and even more time to specify who/what is evil.
StrahdVonZarovich 09-25-04, 03:57 PM	Seem's I was wrong...I stand corrected ! Though are you sure they describe it just like this, in PHB (v3.5 of course) ?
Sucineri 09-25-04, 04:03 PM	Page 218 PHB 3.5: 1st Round: Presence or absense of evil. 2nd Round: Number of evil auras in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present...more stuff.. 3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. In an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location. Also deals with the power of the aura and all that stuff as well.
Darth K'Trava 09-27-04, 07:36 PM	The key word here is usually. ;) I don't know about the trolls in the cages, but Xerxal tells us that the one who had helped them had decided to change his ways, which could indicate a change in alignment. Alignments change. If PC alignments can change, it stands to reason that monster alignments should be able to change also. (At least IMO. :)) I'd say that if the caged trolls hadn't changed as the free one had, then the party and the paladin were justified in killing them, but the free one? That's a different matter alltogether. In his case, you are right about the paladin falling from grace (again, IMO). In either case, "Try and DISCUSS it with [players], rather than TELLING [players]," is good advice for any DM. :) What he did was definitely a justifiable cause for losing paladinhood. Breaking your word is something any paladin should NEVER do! Nor killing entrapted, defenseless creatures which these were. I know my DM would strip my paladin if she ever did a stunt like this. I know that Tyr would take those powers away in a quick heartbeat for that. If the caged trolls were still evil, then they should've been let go so they can properly defend themselves. The freed troll that helped them could've been a new recruit for the church of Tyr. That's like our last session where our Tyrian cleric/paladin, forced to give mercy to a bugbear that asked for it, started preaching to it, with help from my Tyrian paladin. We soon had a friendly bugbear who could become a new worshiper of Tyr in the future. We let him go with armor and weapons and told him to not attack any bipedal in the future.
Darth K'Trava 09-27-04, 07:41 PM	Kainy, And, no, he never used his detect evil power, he seems to forget it exists when he needs it. Even if he had used it, none of the trolls would have detected as evil, since they were too busy thinking about how hungry/weak/screwed they were to think about eating babies or kittens or whatever. I did discuss it with him, summing up his arguement above. And by the way, when there's a paladin in the group, everything becomes a "black and white" issue. We had a guy in one game that, in a four month real-time period, only used his paladin's detect evil ONCE. ONCE. That was pathetic. That and he never used his spells either. And acted rather chaotically and ignoring his deity's tenets (he worshiped a god of protection) and rushing off by himself, leaving the party behind to cope for themselves. The DM, on several occasions, threatened to start stripping his powers, one by one. And this player claimed he'd played paladins before.... :rolleyes: Heck, my cleric of Torm (during this time) used Detect Evil more times than he did, and she had to cast a freakin' spell!!!! :uh-huh: And when I started playing the Tyrian paladin, I used the ability much more, only forgetting when I was tired from work and another player reminded me.... but I have probably used it a hundred times or more in the game.... now vying with another paladin in using it. :D And "Black and White" only comes into play if it's Michael Jackson! :P
Darth K'Trava 09-27-04, 07:42 PM	Yeah, the caged trolls were a gray area, since they were more than likely evil, which is why I told the paladin he would be allowed to atone. But slaying helpless trolls for their 100 gold bounty strikes me as a stain on the paladin's honor. It definitely would stain my paladin's honor! She wouldn't have gone for it to start with.
Darth K'Trava 09-27-04, 08:38 PM	Its not a spell, its an ability which is suppose to be always active around you, just like some kind of aura. And when there's someone evil which enters this aura, THEN your Dm is suppose to tell you that, this person and/or monster is evil. Your aura of good also function like this as well, I believe. My personal 2 bucks on this case. The DM only tells you something's evil if you ASK HIM. He's not going to assume that you're always detecting evil unless you tell him so. Detecting evil is basically concentrating on it to see if it has an evil aura. It doesn't have an aura of its own nor is it always "on" either.