Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dragonseth 01-13-06, 11:31 AM	In our group we have a paladin who has a very agressive personality. (In rl too). He is detect evil trigger happy and more-so with smite. And if something isn't evil, he's just itching to have it attack us so he has a reason to kill it. We were trying to explain that there's more to being LG than just destroying evil. We're not doing so hot. Our last adventure had something like... 'You see a wounded and bleeding man on the ground asking for help' 'Detect Evil' 'Um, okay. He is evil.' 'Smite' 'Hey, maybe we should(cut off)' 'Evil, I smite it' What do you guys think we should do?
Rhomphaia 01-13-06, 11:59 AM	If your renditions are accurate...evan as examples, then first of all, he should not be a paladin in the first place. Hell, he should even be barred from playing a character with an alignment that is either good or lawful. In my mind, he is really behaving more like a barbarian, a CN barbarian. Tell your DM about your concerns with the guy. For example, tell him that by killing the evil man who was wounded is an evil act. It does not matter that the man was evil. The fact was, at the time he needed help and was probably in no position to use that help for chaotic or evil ends. That is a major violation of the paladin's code. At the very least he needs an attonement, however if this behavior is consistent, then I would judge that he is now a fighter with no bonus feats, abnormally high Charisma and an unusual class list. The dectect-smite type paladin just irks the **** out of me to no end. It is these types of paladins that make playing the class right so hard for the rest of us because DMs (especially ones who peruse these boards) see paladins behaving in this way, then do everything they can to screw anyone who even thinks about playing a paladin in one of their games.
RedWizard 01-13-06, 02:51 PM	This is where I get irritated with people who can't seem to understand how a Paladin reacts to evil. Paladins are without doubt good and do not like evil. Ok. But the first part says they are also lawful. LAWful, they uphold the law. If someone is evil but has not commited any crime they can not do anything but watch that figure. Sure they might not be very nice to him and they are of course going to be suspicious of him. But they cannot act upon their suspicions without valid provocation. And they must still aid the wounded. Thats the "good" part of their chosen alignment.
WayneTheGame 01-13-06, 02:57 PM	Smack him. Hard. And take away his powers. A paladin is dedicated to stopping evil, but someone who is evil but has not commited a crime (at any rate, not one the paladin is aware of) is still innocent, and just killing them because they detected as evil is murder. Set up an encounter in a town with a begger or something, maybe a begger who is rich but begs because he's too lazy to work a real job (or he pretends to be a cripple but really isn't.) So he's evil by right of taking advantage of others for his own gain. If/When the paladin smites him, have the watch arrest the paladin for murder. No court in the world, even in D&D terms, would let him go free on the grounds that "I detected evil and he was evil!". EDIT: i see that you are not the DM in your group... well my advice is to tell your DM to do what I posted above :)
Thelandrach 01-13-06, 03:48 PM	If the characters are good (or, really, just not being evil should do), they should be reacting the same way the players, and previous posters, seem to be. This paladin is not somebody they should want to hang around with. You can cover this in roleplaying, or over the gaming table, or completely outside the situation. It would probably help if you had the specific descriptions of the alignments copied out, with all the paladin's behavioral traits highlighted, so the player sees that there's a whole lot of chaos and evil going on. If the player refuses to understand what you're telling him, there's no place for him in the campaign. There is certainly no place for him to play a paladin in it. If the player understands but refuses to change his character, he needs to either switch characters or accept that he's going to get (a) smited by his god, (b) voted out of the party, or (c) both.
madd0g200 01-13-06, 03:59 PM	It sounds ok to me. D&D is pretty black and white. If it is evil, you can kill it. It doesn't matter if it is wounded or not. Helpless baby orcs are still evil monsters and can be killed without regret. I think helping the wounded evil person is more evil than killing him. Paladins should never help evil under any circumstance. For all he knows, it could have been a foul trick to catch him off guard. Most paladins aren't goody-two-shoes. Sure they protect good, but they also should be itching to smite down anything evil with the fiery wrath of their god. I picture D&D paladins like Judge Dredd. They are lawful, but they are also Judge, Jury, and Execution. They are the law.
Gedrin 01-13-06, 04:00 PM	Guard: You're under arrest for muderer. Guy: But he's evil. Guard: What was he doing? Guy: Standing there being evil! Guard: Ahm....yeh. You're under arrest for murder.
WayneTheGame 01-13-06, 04:03 PM	Actually being the law would depend on the god. In Forgotten Realms, a Paladin if Tyr IS like Judge Dredd, if there's no other law in the area. However, a paladin is obligated to help those who need it first and destroy evil second. So a paladin would be required to help save the person's life first; if they ARE evil and trying to trick him, he then has a duty to destroy them. In any event, a paladin who goes around detecting evil on random people who are asking for aid, without ANY suspcion to lead him to think they're evil, is metagaming and should be punished for that alone. Someone can be evil aligned without doing anything to harm you, thus just killing them because "he's evil" is murder. I don't care if the D&D alignment system is black-and-white, a paladin still needs a reason to kill somebody. Just because YOU said they're evil, Paladin or no, isn't justification.
RedWizard 01-13-06, 04:31 PM	D&D is pretty black and white They have 9 different alignments. The world is not Black and White in D&D.
Rapidexit 01-13-06, 06:00 PM	You could always icly show the paladin the error of his ways.. If your at least level 7 grab the Leadership feat. Have a paladin Cohort. When the Detect-smite palidin smites evil have your Cohort smite evil the paladin back. While the Paladins alignment isnt "evil" smiteing innocents is basicaly evil and at least for a short time the paladin should be open to being Smited for his actions. If this doesnt work there are a few other prcs that let you "smite" things you think are evil even if they arnt evil. if your a spellcaster "Holy Smite" very well should work the same way. If he realises he gets hurt for being evil for a short time he should learn that doing thoes evil things over time is going to upset his god. While your paladin is busy detecting evil next time call out something like " Ah of course we will help you" try to point out that your willing to help him, and the paladin is the one chooseing to kill someone the party wants to help. It should help make it icly clearer that your party wants to do good, and the paladin is stopinging you from doing it. maybe tell deeds of the "valorus paladin" at the bar. "Yea our friend here is really good. he found this lil evil guy who had to be up to no good bleeding to death. Of course we cant go help him, its our duty to slit his neck and put him out of his misory. Now he can be a minion of evil on a lower plane"
Lincoln Hills 01-13-06, 07:18 PM	If your character is tired of it IC, react IC. Have the paladin wake up at the inn one morning only to learn that all his fellow-adventurers left early that morning. No doubt the cheeky halfling will have left a note in his belt pouch saying, "I'd have stolen all these coins but then you might take it into your head to follow me. Lathander preserve me from that. I'd rather jump naked into green slime." OK, I put it facetiously, but in honesty if your characters find this guy's attitude and actions so unsuitable they're entirely justified in ditching him. Not in assaulting or robbing him - that's just not neighborly - but if they'd rather not associate with him any more, fine. (And paladins are a lot easier to give the slip to than, say, rangers or diviners.)
deafbymetal 01-13-06, 11:17 PM	It's clear to me this guy has no clue on what a Paladin is, or what he stands for. If your example is how this guy plays, whatever God he worships should smite him. Have this kid read "The Book of Exalted Deeds", particularly the sections marked Mercy and Forgiveness. Some people can be evil their whole live and never commit an evil act, if they afraid of being caught or never having the right circumstances occur. And even if you catch someone in the act of committing a crime, your still fairly limited by his next actions. If he drops his weapon (or doesn't have one drawn in the first place), or asks for mercy, most countries have laws about a right to trial. Hell, even in countries that stone people to death or cut off their hands for stealing, they get a trial first. I'm suprised your DM has not put a stop to this yet, stripping him of his Paladin abilities. Perhaps that would be a lesson in and of itself to this guy- Atonement. Or, have him brought to trial, as many people here have mentioned. A bleeding guy asking for help is obviously of no danger- the Paladin at the very least should have used his lay on hands to keep him from dying. Maybe your character should confront his character, being puzzled by his actions? Have him justify why he killed an unnarmed man asking for help. The whole "He was evil" thing is crap, let him know IC! Ask your DM at the next session what the laws of the kingdom are as far as trials, judges, and sentences. If you don't actively pursue this, I can bet it will continue. And if the player cannot accept the limitations of a Paladins code of conduct, that's on him. Code of Conduct; A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Notice that nowhere does it say a Paladin must kill anyone they percieve to be evil. The closest it comes is the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", which the guy in your example was not doing.
Andrew_980 01-14-06, 01:04 AM	Have this kid read "The Book of Exalted Deeds", particularly the sections marked Mercy and Forgiveness. Bad idea, that book makes matters worse. Explain what good and evil are in the world (the DM i mean) and expect him to live up to that.
Feor 01-14-06, 02:15 AM	React ICly. Next time he tries to smite someone for no reason other than they detect alignment as evil, try and stop him. Kill him if neccissary. (problem solved) Alternate options: Ask him how he knows they're truly evil. There are a wide variety of spells that can falsify a detected alignment, or forcibly alter a character's alignment. And even barring those, how can he know the smitten person wasn't trying to redeem himself and was one good deed away from moving up to neutral when he was assaulted by his former comrades for his change of heart and then butchered on the side of the road by a "champion of good." If your DM agrees with your assesment and is looking for ways to cut this paladin down to size, suggest that he face the paladin against someone who has been affected by one of the above mentioned alignment altering spells. (Morality Undone from Vile Darkness is a good one, turns a target evil for 10min/caster level) perhaps with a madness type spell thrown in to make the character act chaotic and evil. When the Paladin strikes him down in the name of good, he's stripped of his powers for killing a fellow Paladin who'd come under the effects of an evil spell. Basically, killing something for no reason other than it doesn't agree with your world view (no matter how tangible those viewpoints may be) is an evil act. A paladin should only take life when he has no choice, or when doing so will preserve a greater amount of life. If a village is threatened by a band of Orcs, the Paladin will have little issue with killing those Orcs, as it will save the lives of the villagers. If he's travelling overland, and stumbles across a village of Nomadic Orcs far from any other settlements, he will likely leave them unmolested as, while their outlooks are evil, they will not likely have committed any evil acts, and they pose no threat to him. If your friend was truly a Paladin he would have rendered aid to the man on the side of the road, and offered to help him redeem himself to the path of righteousness. If the man refused the offer he would likely be brought to the nearest village where the Paladin would ask the locals to keep an eye on him, and then continue on his journey. To be perfectly honest, your friend would probably be happier playing a Paladin of Tyranny (Lawful Evil alternate paladin, in Unearthed Arcana, and over at Crystal Keep) who would be more than willing to smite someone on the pure basis that they are good, and so do not conform to the world view he believes should be enforced on the populace. Course, weather or not such a character would fit into your campaign, that's up to you guys.
Derren S. 01-14-06, 06:54 AM	To his defense, paladins can be played this way. There is nothing in D&D which says or hints that this behavior is wrong. And when you read the alignment section you will see that you have to do something pretty wicked to get an evil alignment so everyone who detects as evil has done something which deserves death or something close to it. A paladins job is to rid the world of evil, that includes any evil even evil which doesn't bother anyone. So when you want him to play differently talk to him but by D&D rules and flavor he plays his paladin correctly. Maybe its you who is the problem by giving the evil alignment to persons who don't deserve it? For example the bleeding man who detected as evil. What has he done to become evil?
King_Bulba 01-14-06, 07:43 AM	To his defense, paladins can be played this way. There is nothing in D&D which says or hints that this behavior is wrong. And when you read the alignment section you will see that you have to do something pretty wicked to get an evil alignment so everyone who detects as evil has done something which deserves death or something close to it. A paladins job is to rid the world of evil, that includes any evil even evil which doesn't bother anyone. So when you want him to play differently talk to him but by D&D rules and flavor he plays his paladin correctly. Maybe its you who is the problem by giving the evil alignment to persons who don't deserve it? For example the bleeding man who detected as evil. What has he done to become evil? I agree. But the other posts were right too that he is commiting murder and that the law should be trying to arrest him. I guess it all comes down to how much is the law important to a paladin, especially when L and G conflict.
deafbymetal 01-14-06, 10:10 AM	Bad idea, that book makes matters worse. Actually, I recommend the sections of the book that detail Lawful Good as a whole, not the game mechanics section. To his defense, paladins can be played this way. There is nothing in D&D which says or hints that this behavior is wrong. And when you read the alignment section you will see that you have to do something pretty wicked to get an evil alignment so everyone who detects as evil has done something which deserves death or something close to it. With this logic, it is alright for the USA to execute someone they think is guilty of a crime. Look at it this way: during character creation, you make a character who is LE. He has never actually done an evil act, as he has never been roleplayed as doing anything yet! LE is just his moral tendencies at this point. Sure, if a backstory is created at this stage detailing his cruelty and butchery, that is one thing- but not everyone creates back stories. Killing an unnarmed, injured man asking for help is evil, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. He is being executed for crimes he may have committed, or might commit in the future. No mercy, no chance of redemption, no opportunity to lead by example, and most importantly- no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It can be argued that Superman could be labled as LG. Lets just say, by D&D terms, he is LG and gained the ability to Detect Evil. Can you picture him walking through Metropolis incinerating everyone he thought was evil, then trying to justify such an act?
Derren S. 01-14-06, 10:49 AM	1. Don't confuse the D&D world with the real one. They are very different. 2. Don't confuse law with alignment. Doing a crime doesn't make someone evil, doing evil does. Likewise someone who has never commited a crime can be evil depending on the local law. So your example(s) are wrong in not one but two points. Its very simple. To become evil you have to do evil and evil acts are not trivial things like a litle theft. They involve worse things like murder. during character creation, you make a character who is LE. He has never actually done an evil act Ever heared of roleplaying? Characters have a backstory which explain how they got their skills and alignment. They don't simply pop up ready to start adventuring. And when an evil person doesn't ask for merc or a chance for redemption a paladin doesn't have to offer it to him, only when he does ask for it the paladin has to accept.
Feor 01-14-06, 11:44 AM	1. Don't confuse the D&D world with the real one. They are very different. 2. Don't confuse law with alignment. Doing a crime doesn't make someone evil, doing evil does. Likewise someone who has never commited a crime can be evil depending on the local law. So your example(s) are wrong in not one but two points. Its very simple. To become evil you have to do evil and evil acts are not trivial things like a litle theft. They involve worse things like murder. It's not that simple. You don't have to do an evil act to become evil, you have to be capable of an evil act. If you ran into a 15 year old drow in your adventures. He would be evil. Would he have committed any acts worthy of being put to death? Probably not, but he would still be considered evil because he would be willing to do such things. Consider a lawful evil merchant, he would have cheated his customers at every chance he got, and he might possibly have sold merchandice of questionable content/quality, but only as much as the law would let him get away with. Should he be put to death for these acts? No. But would he, if he thought he could get away with it, kill his greatest rival? Yes. Therefore he is evil. Ever heared of roleplaying? Characters have a backstory which explain how they got their skills and alignment. They don't simply pop up ready to start adventuring. And when an evil person doesn't ask for merc or a chance for redemption a paladin doesn't have to offer it to him, only when he does ask for it the paladin has to accept. The problem there, in this situation, is the Paladin is not giving the evil NPCs a chance to declare they are seeking redemption. The man is lying on the side of the road, barely able to speak enough to beg for help. Without any other consideration the Paladin simply slaughters him. For all the Paladin knows the man had been praying to Pelor the entire time he'd been lying there, promising (and meaning it) to change his ways if only the God of Healing would see fit to let him survive the ordeal. Had the Paladin actually helped him the man might have been invaluable as an ally. And while destruction of Evil is a goal for a Paladin, if he can reform evil, and save the souls of those who've fallen under its power, that's an even greater goal. The only paladins who might, and I stress might, do this would be ones who draw their power from the concept of a Paladin, rather than a diety, as none of the Paladin appropriate dieties would condone such actions. Corellon Larethian: Chaotic Good, the Good thing to do is fix the guy up, if you later determine he needs to be killed, so be it. Heironeous: Not a whole lot of Honor or chivalry in slaying an unarmed opponent who doesn't even have the strength to crawl. Kord: Where's the sport in killing someone lying on the side of the road bleeding to death, keeping him alive, now that could be a challenge. Obad-Hai: The man has done nothing obvious to transgress against nature. Pelor: Followers of Pelor are sworn to help the sick and injured everywhere first, combat evil second. And they view combating evil as helping the sick, so a Paladin of Pelor would be stripped f his powers instantly for butchering a helpess wounded man. St. Cuthbert: There is no evidence the man has done anything which would merit being put to death, only that he is capable of such acts. Therefore killing him is not Just punishment. Yondalla: No transgression against the Halfling race, no need to be destroyed outright. Bahamut might condone it, but again, the Paladin has no idea if the NPC is evil by virtue of evil acts, or by virtue of simply being brought up into such a world view and may still be redeemable, and followers of Bahamut struggle to teach other how to be strong enough to resist evil, including hte evil within themselves.
deafbymetal 01-14-06, 12:05 PM	1. Don't confuse the D&D world with the real one. They are very different. But were are taking real world definitions of evil and applying them to D&D. If your reasoning is correct, then one could just say cold blooded murder is not evil at all, and an accepted practice. This, of course, totally depends upon the campaign world/ kingdom in question- but we still generally use real world examples of good and evil to define D&D good and evil. Don't confuse law with alignment. If this is the case, why does D&D include Lawful, Nuetral, and Chaotic in alignment descriptions? Doing a crime doesn't make someone evil, doing evil does. Likewise someone who has never commited a crime can be evil depending on the local law... Its very simple. To become evil you have to do evil and evil acts are not trivial things like a litle theft. They involve worse things like murder. So theft is considered a good thing? As far as a crime itself, don't you generally have to be considered an evil person to want to willingly commit an act, before you do so? "Ooops, I accidentally killed everyone in the village with glee, but deep down I'm really a good guy." Ever heared of roleplaying? Characters have a backstory which explain how they got their skills and alignment. They don't simply pop up ready to start adventuring. But isn't the very definition of roleplaying mean the portrayal of your character at the gaming table? A back story is just that- a story that you made up to flesh out your characters motivations and history. I have never met anyone who has roleplayed their backstory. And again, as I noted before, not everyone creates a backstory. Does this mean if someone who does not create one can't have a choice of alignment, because they have nothing to base it on? And when an evil person doesn't ask for merc or a chance for redemption a paladin doesn't have to offer it to him, only when he does ask for it the paladin has to accept. And in the above example from the OP, the NPC did ask for help, and was slaughtered for it. A paladin is supposed to be a shining example of virue, justice, and purity (among other things). How is sticking a helpless man with his sword an example of this, especially after the guy asked for help? Furthermore, his alignment is Lawful Good, which implies he should follow the laws. And to kill someone without knowing what they are guilty of, and with no trial, is not very lawful. The same character that the OP mentioned seems like he would be happy to have TWF, so he could run through a room full of goblin babies like a crazed armored blender, because the babies "are evil, and may one day grow up to do evil things".
LordofNightmares 01-14-06, 12:24 PM	They have 9 different alignments. The world is not Black and White in D&D. Well, really there is 10 alignments. Becase thereare two very different extremes of Neutral that make them different alignments. Avenger of the Balance Just plain indifferent As one who prefers to play Paladins and Lawful alingmed clerics often, the paladin in question is abhorent. Your DM NEEDS to read this thread... well the first half of it. it is not lawful good to punish someone on the eventualiy will, or the lack of moral prohibition against comiting a crime. As a DM I have had a few Paladins try the Detect and Smite, and all of them ended up as expaladins at one or more points in their lives. Of course I could go into my rant about how the Detect Alignment spells and abilities are inehrently flawed, but I won't.
Derren S. 01-14-06, 12:43 PM	Feor, as paladins don't get their powers from gods your list is of little meaning. That the paladin doesn't give the man a chance to say that he wants redeem himself is a valid objecton for this case but doesn't change that the DM apparently is very lenient with the alignmetn evil. Deaf, don't twist what I and you said. You made the example of a real world person killing everyone for crimes. First you try to transfer a D&D situation to the real world which is stupid as the real world doesn't have the alignment system of D&D nor the abilities to detect it. Second you changes what I meant by equalling crime = death which is also wrong. That many evil things are also against the law is a concidence but not every crime is evil. Yes, there is a Law/Chaos axis in D&D, but this alignment is only secondary for the paladin especially that lawful doesn't mean follows the law of the region one is in but following a strict set of rules. You also seem to forget that there is also a neutral alignment (at least when it is benefiting for you) or what other reason makes you think/say that theft, when it is not evil, is good? And the man asked for help, not redemption and a paladin does not have to help a evil creature. Trial? He already had his trial before the powers of alignment and was found evil. The DM of course can use a other interpretation of alignment but then it is a houserule and he has to tell this to his players. The DM can't expect the players to act according to house rules they don't know. And just a note about paladin problems in general, most of these problems come up because the DMs don't use alignment right, in most cases by making NPCs evil for minor things which are normally still in neutral territory and then they get shocked that a paladin kills those evil NPCs believing that evil means D&D evil and not DM houserule evil.
deafbymetal 01-14-06, 01:35 PM	Feor, as paladins don't get their powers from gods your list is of little meaning. Where do you think they get their abilities from? If you have a PHB (3.5), open to page 42, Paladin description, paragraph 3 titled Characteristic: Divine power protects the Paladin and gives her special powers. Now, generally, where does Divine power come from? You guessed it- Divine beings (you know, Gods). And right below that, in the alignment description: nowhere does it say that Lawful is optional. Either you are always Lawful Good, or you lose your Paladin abilities. End of story. Somehow, killing things because they are something, not because they do, is inherently evil. Hitler killed 6 million people because they were something, not because they did something- look how we view him. He claimed Jewish people were evil by nature and acted as a monster as a result of this. He got punished for acting this way, did he not? Yes, this is a real world example- but what else do we have to compare alignment to? Show me one fantasy novel (perferably WoTC) where a Paladin slaughters an unarmed, injured man "just because he's evil". Another D&D example: Farmer A hates Farmer B, to the point that all he thinks about is Farmer B's demise. He is jealous of him, envious that his crops come out better, that his wife is better looking, and that his kids are smarter than his own. His every waking moment is filled with fanatasies of Farmer B suffering painful death and dismemberment. He looks upon his neighbors wife with lust, and imagines raping her while tilling his crop. He wishes to stake Farmer B's kids out as scarecrows in his own field, or chopping them up for fertilizer. But he never does this. He is afraid of what the local lord would do to him if he did. Is he evil? I would classify him as such. Has he done anything evil yet? Not by the laws of the local kingdom, which deem a man must commit an evil act, and be found guilty of this. So Paladin X comes through town and Detects Evil on him, and yup, he's evil alright. Paladin X then proceeds to Smite him. Is he right to do so? I would think not- the man has committed no act of evil, he just wishes he could. Does Paladin X get XP for killing Farmer A- why would he? He's weak (like the man on the side of the road) and poses no threat to him. Would Paladin X face repercussions for cutting Farmer A down in the town square with no warning or justification? You bet he would. Hell, in the OP's example, if an Astral Diva happened to fly over as he cut down the man cowering on the side of the road, too injured to walk, the Astral Diva would then be well within his rights to smash the (ex) Paladin with his mace. The Paladin is now evil, because he committed an evil act.
Feor 01-14-06, 01:39 PM	From the SRD: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. . . . Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. I highlighted the parts I felt were valid, No where in there does it say you have to kill people to be evil. The alignment system is notorious for having no way to differentiate between levels of evil. A baron who taxes his peasents until they can barely afford to feed their families (and realizes that he's doing it but continues to do so out of greed/vindictiveness/a sense of entitlement) is obviously evil, yet he has never killed or even had a third party kill someone. Is he as evil as someone who rampages through a defenseless village killing everything with a pulse? No, but he is still evil. The difference comes not in action, but in attitde towards those actions. A man about to commit the first meuder of his life, standing over his victim with a dagger can be evil. If he believes that killing them is for a greater cause (the victim is evil, for example) then he can be good, if he is quaivering over a cold blooded killing, but will likely go ahead anyway, he's neutral. If he's going to kill them, he wants to see them bleed to death and hear their final breath as they leave the Prime Material for whatever fate awaits them, then he is evil, even if he has not yet killed the person. The difference between the above about-to-be killer, and someone who'se already murdered is how far they have to go to redeem themselves. Someone who's killed people for fun several times, if something makes him realize the error of his ways, will have to really prove himself and should have a long hard road fighting against his own desires to turn his life around. The about-to-be killer, if he's stopped from committing that murder and realizes that what he was about to do was wrong, will likely only have to beg forgivness of the person he was about to wrong to drag him self up as far as neutral. The DM of course can use a other interpretation of alignment but then it is a houserule and he has to tell this to his players. The DM can't expect the players to act according to house rules they don't know. And just a note about paladin problems in general, most of these problems come up because the DMs don't use alignment right, in most cases by making NPCs evil for minor things which are normally still in neutral territory and then they get shocked that a paladin kills those evil NPCs believing that evil means D&D evil and not DM houserule evil. That isn't a houserule, that's an interpretation of a very broadly defined set of rules put forth in the PHB. The alignment guidelines were specifically left open so that DMs could acknowledge that even in a world where good and evil are tangible forces, there's still room for shades of grey. The evil character trying to turn his life around, the good who'se seen one too many horrors and is slowly slipping from grace, etc.
HammerHeart81 01-14-06, 01:53 PM	If anyone in the group reads Dragonlance,they should know that kind of thinking was what brought the cataclysm. The Kingpriest of Istar thought like your paladin in that anyone who just comes up evil on DE must be killed right off. So down came the fiery mountain.
LoricDAHPaladin 01-14-06, 02:52 PM	In our group we have a paladin who has a very agressive personality. (In rl too). He is detect evil trigger happy and more-so with smite. And if something isn't evil, he's just itching to have it attack us so he has a reason to kill it. We were trying to explain that there's more to being LG than just destroying evil. We're not doing so hot. Our last adventure had something like... 'You see a wounded and bleeding man on the ground asking for help' 'Detect Evil' 'Um, okay. He is evil.' 'Smite' 'Hey, maybe we should(cut off)' 'Evil, I smite it' What do you guys think we should do? I am not altogether certain that what he is doing is NOT, in fact, evil as well. Evil comes in many forms, and not all of it destructive. The wounded man could have been merely greedy. There are teirs of evil and there are also evil ( subtypes? ) beings who have a neutral or even good moral grounding. I have come across this many times. I think you should revoke Paladinhood. He is clearly not playing a Paladin but a zealot. A good Paladin is not an unfeeling zealot.
LoricDAHPaladin 01-14-06, 02:56 PM	killing things because they are something, not because they do, is inherently evil. With rare exception, I agree. Quoted for truth.
Thoras 01-14-06, 07:26 PM	Perhaps on creation the DM allowed this player to create his own moral code of conduct in which ridding the world of evil ranks above saving random people. There's no reason this can't be done, as deviations from the standard code have been precedented in the variant paladins, ie., the Paladin of Tyranny. I really doubt that such a paladin has the same code of conduct as the regualr PHB paladin, and if they are playing in a homebrew world, and the DM allowed it, killing the man by the roadside could indeed be not only allowed, but necessary for the paladin to retain his paladin status; for if his code was such that he could not suffer evil to live, then not killing the man would have dropped him from his deity's grace.
Rhomphaia 01-14-06, 07:57 PM	On the point with the wounded man. Regardless of evil act or no, the paladin made a gross disregard for the code of conduct as listed in the PHB. Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. See the underlined. He was not going to aid the wounded man, who was clearly not in a position to use the aid for evil or chaotic ends. The point in itallics is a more secondary point, but even if the man was evil, what proof does the paladin have that he harmed innocents? He also had no indication to believe that innocents were in immediate jeopardy. He should not have killed the wounded man. At least he should have used a Heal check to bind the wounds, then take him to the nearest town. I would require an attonement for this, and that is if this was not part of a pattern (which it apparently is). I would look to the past behavior as described by the OP. This guy is overly aggressive and zealous, which is to be expected with fighting types. However, this is coupled with a PALADIN practically frothing at the mouth HOPING something attacks him or his allies just so he has an excuse to kill it. This is no longer good. He maybe be lawful, but definately not good. I would say that at best, he is LN at this point from that fact alone. I would say he is more like CN though. To me, no matter which way you cut it, this guy is not playing a paladin. He is playing a barbarian in paladin's clothing.
LoricDAHPaladin 01-14-06, 10:20 PM	Perhaps on creation the DM allowed this player to create his own moral code of conduct in which ridding the world of evil ranks above saving random people. There's no reason this can't be done, as deviations from the standard code have been precedented in the variant paladins, ie., the Paladin of Tyranny. I really doubt that such a paladin has the same code of conduct as the regualr PHB paladin, and if they are playing in a homebrew world, and the DM allowed it, killing the man by the roadside could indeed be not only allowed, but necessary for the paladin to retain his paladin status; for if his code was such that he could not suffer evil to live, then not killing the man would have dropped him from his deity's grace. No. That is called Moral Relativism. I believe in moral absolutes. No matter how you spin it, attacking a person not fully able to defend himself is wrong. Done and done.
Thoras 01-15-06, 12:37 AM	Perhaps the paladin viewed it not as an attack, but rather the excercise in divine judgement wherein he was but the executioner of the evil yet wounded man. And what would happen then, if his code was such that he had to destroy all evil he encountered, yet if he killed the evil wounded man, he lost his Good status? So if attacking someone not fully able to defend themselves is wrong, do you penalize rogues for using sneak attack? The very condition to be able to sneak attack is that the target cannot fully defend themselves.
Feor 01-15-06, 02:06 AM	If his code of conduct was such that he was required to kill all evil he encountered, regardless of circumstances or why they are evil, he would no longer be a standard LG paladin. He'd have to be a variant paladin, probably Chaotic Good.
spectralphoenix 01-16-06, 05:19 AM	Actually, I'd call him LN. Maybe even LE, though for that to work he wouldn't be able to detect himself. Why is it that people think that CG is somehow "less good" than LG or NG?
Gilfalas_Elaandrin 01-16-06, 05:36 AM	Actually being the law would depend on the god. In Forgotten Realms, a Paladin if Tyr IS like Judge Dredd, if there's no other law in the area. Actually I am going to disagree with this. They CAN be Judge Dredd like but Tyr far prefers JUSTICE to the strict enforcement of the law. Sometimes justice IS that and other times justice is not. Your Paladins is being most definately rabid lawful (inflexible order) but the few examples you give are most definately NOT good. Detect evil is not a license to kill. If you come across a wounded man in the road and kill him when he presents no threat you have commited murder. The RP in RPG is the important part here. Paladins are unlike all other characters in that they are held to a NO MISTAKES ALLOWED standard. If they even unwillingly/unwittingly commit an evil act then they lose their paladinhood. Even Paladins of Tyr or Torm, who ware rabid in their defending of good, do not walk around town using detect evil and slaughtering anyone who lights up. Just like crimes in our world, they have to DO something that MERITS death to be given death. Someone can be evil and never have murdered and harmed anyone in their life as they may be too cowardly to do so. Do they deserve death? And read Detect evil. It takes a round to sense the PRESENCE Of evil. It takes at least another round of concentration to sense where that evil IS. Also those without alignment auras (non Paladins and cleric types) have very mild auras if they are undere level 10. Joe shmoe evil thief will glow only very, very faintly of evil. Explain to him that he is supposed to value life and law and defend it unto death. Not to go around killing anyone he decides is evil. He is not a roving headsmean he is supposed to be a DEFENDER of the weak and helpless. And there are still LAWS in each of those countries that have to be obeyed and the strictures of his god and relidion that must be followed also. And Paladins are held to the absolute STRICTEST ideals. There is NO rationalising or hedging allowed to them in any way. They play it 100% honest and noble and truthful or they are not Paladins any more. I would suggest explaining how your world view of aligments seems to differe from his. Then give him a pylactery of fathfulness to help guide him a bit more. If he still insists on being the 'Homocidal Bloodreaver' instead of Paladins then strip him of his powers and have his but dragged in for numerous murders. After all courts seldome beleive someone who says "I killed him because he was evil!' and cannot in some way PROVE it.
cat_god 01-16-06, 05:01 PM	I picture D&D paladins like Judge Dredd. They are lawful, but they are also Judge, Jury, and Execution. They are the law. Dude. I read comics, and the Judges still have to wait for the criminals to actually do something illegal. And besides, most crimes the Judges reply to involve arrest. It's very rare for them o actually kill them then and there. It's just that the comics show the cooler cases, where death is acceptable at the time.