Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CaptainPicard 04-14-08, 08:37 PM	An interesting situation arose in a recent game. While traveling through the Underdark, the party almost walking into a party of Drow traveling in the opposite direction (both groups failed listen checks; they just pulled the corner to come face to face). Neither group showed immediate aggression, and some Sense Motive checks indicated that the two groups were nearly equal in power (the Drow only numbered three, but they had their racial abilities versus the PC's extra fourth member). The tension was broken with the Drow leader saying the line, "We didn't see you, you didn't see us". It's definitely the case that both groups would have preferred to kill the other and make it so nobody knew they were present, but they recognized that, being nearly equal power, even the winning side would have suffered incredible losses and likely been unable to continue. The PCs agreed to this request, and the two groups cautiously moved past each other. They haven't met since. Now, we don't have a Paladin in this party, but one of the players wondered out loud if a Paladin could have agreed to this without violating his Code of Conduct. We talked about it for a bit, and I decided to post it here to see what the board thought of it. I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I'm just interested in talking about different people's interpretation of the Paladin's Code of Conduct.
Callista 04-14-08, 08:42 PM	Yes, I think so. They're Drow; they're probably evil; but they're not hostile, not doing anything to hurt anybody, not holding any prisoners. A paladin would probably be more dishonorable if he attacked them. They're peaceful, for the moment; and it's dishonorable to attack somebody who very evidently doesn't mean to attack you. Being LG doesn't make you any more violent than anybody else. If you're Good, you don't want to kill if you don't absolutely have to. And it could actually make an impression on the Drow if a guy who was obviously a paladin decided not to attack them. (Even more of an impression if the Drow had been the weaker, rather than evenly matched.) Bonus: They're in the Underdark. They're not even on the surface, making trouble! At worst, they'll stay in their caves and kill each other off.
Sareld 04-14-08, 08:52 PM	Lets break down the diffrent aspects of a paladins code of conduct and see if this scenario would violate anything. "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." Was it an evil act not to kill a group of other sentinent beings on sight? No. Not by a long shot. For all the paladin would have known the drow were innocent, though the paladin would know that they were capable of evil acts through his detect evil ability. "Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority..." Does the law say 'slay any drow on sight'? If the paladin were a surface elf from Evermet this might be a problem, otherwise I wouldnt worry about it. "...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..." This part of the CoC would actually make a temporary truce like the one you describe more likely. The paladin would never accept the agreement, only to charge the drow from behind, and the drow are likely to know that a paladin can be trusted to uphold such agreements. "...help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)..." This part of the code has nothing to do with the current situration. "...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." This is where the grey area starts. Is the drow on their way to do evil? If the tunnel that the drow try to pass leads to an orphanage for sun elven children, the paladin would get in trouble for letting them go. But if there were no reason for the paladin to think that the drow just had or were going to do an act of evil in whatever place they were going to or coming from, there is no need to punish them.
CaptainPicard 04-14-08, 08:58 PM	"...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." This is where the grey area starts. Is the drow on their way to do evil? If the tunnel that the drow try to pass leads to an orphanage for sun elven children, the paladin would get in trouble for letting them go. But if there were no reason for the paladin to think that the drow just had or were going to do an act of evil in whatever place they were going to or coming from, there is no need to punish them. Just to clear this one up, there was nothing of any significance in the tunnels the PCs had come from. It turned out later that they were looking for a map tattooed on the back of a giant spider that leads to a hoarde of treasure, but the PCs didn't know this at the time.
Callista 04-14-08, 10:04 PM	That must've been one heck of a tattoo artist!
DerelictDroid 04-14-08, 10:35 PM	It depends on the sort of campaign you're running really. Is your campaign based on more of a pulp/myth, or has it adopted the post-modern/deconstructionist ambiguity of moral relativism. If the former, than a Paladin should slay Evil beings on sight, because evil is a part of their spirit and they will EVENTUALLY burn babies in their crib, or other despicable acts. Or I suppose at the least the Paladin might try to take them prisoner to prevent their eventual evil acts. If the latter, than any moral path can be rationalized, and often is (as we experience in modernity).
StevenO 04-14-08, 10:52 PM	A Paladin shouldn't have a problem with that solution. Change Drow to Dwarf and the aswer shouldn't change. It is entirely possible that group of Dwarves met could be just as or more evil than that group of Drow but that doesn't draw the racist reaction.
Callista 04-14-08, 11:17 PM	Droid, you're forgetting another possibility: The possibility that some (or most) Evil beings do not deserve death. In that case, you could be Evil because you regularly cheat your employees out of their hard-earned wages; or you could be Evil because you believe it's OK to slap your wife around when she gets out of line; you could be the kind of person who starts bar fights just to have the pleasure of punching some other guy in the nose; you could be a con artist who preys on little old ladies... A game in which Evil is not necessarily baby-killing would offer a lot of moral ambiguity for a Paladin even with the use of the DE radar, and in that kind of a game, you can't smite on sight because you have every possibility of killing somebody who's redeemable and not worthy of death--though in most cases, a stint in prison would be quite deserved.
DerelictDroid 04-14-08, 11:34 PM	Droid, you're forgetting another possibility: The possibility that some (or most) Evil beings do not deserve death. In that case, you could be Evil because you regularly cheat your employees out of their hard-earned wages; or you could be Evil because you believe it's OK to slap your wife around when she gets out of line; you could be the kind of person who starts bar fights just to have the pleasure of punching some other guy in the nose; you could be a con artist who preys on little old ladies... A game in which Evil is not necessarily baby-killing would offer a lot of moral ambiguity for a Paladin even with the use of the DE radar, and in that kind of a game, you can't smite on sight because you have every possibility of killing somebody who's redeemable and not worthy of death--though in most cases, a stint in prison would be quite deserved. Well, that's why I said in my moral absolute version that the Paladin at the least would try to take them prisoner. I agree with what you say. The sort of moral ambiguity I'm addressing in my second version qualifies the ends based on some underlying circumstance. In fact, Evil with a capital E doesn't exist in the morally ambiguous, postmodern paradigm. The boy who was beaten six ways to Sunday by his abusive father and grows up to be a murderer can be given leniency in this paradigm. However, in the morally absolute world of mythology, the same murderer is simply Evil; we care not how he became Evil. In fact, it's presumed that he was BORN Evil. Anyway, as I said, the hypothetical postulated by the OP depends on the DM's campaign. I've played in, and ran, both types: Mythologically based campaigns, and campaigns influenced by modern philosophy. Both bring their own fun and challenges to the table.
CaptainPicard 04-14-08, 11:36 PM	That must've been one heck of a tattoo artist! Yeah, the game's DM has said that his campaign runs on "Shut The **** Up" whenever someone notices something like that.
calronmoonflower 04-14-08, 11:42 PM	Not doing a "smite on sight" doesn't violate the paladin's code of conduct.
Dark Stryke 04-14-08, 11:43 PM	That actually seems like a really cool encounter. Bravo to your DM! Just be careful when dealing with alignments and paladins, guys. It's been civil so far, let's keep it that way.
Salla 04-14-08, 11:43 PM	Not doing a "smite on sight" doesn't violate the paladin's code of conduct. QFT. Smite on sight is usually a pretty good way to violate the code of conduct.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-14-08, 11:50 PM	How many people have seen a paladin that is a bit smite-happy?
Callista 04-14-08, 11:51 PM	A wider range of Evil isn't ambiguous, though--it's still Evil; it's just Evil that doesn't deserve death. I think people who play Good characters ignore that a lot; trying for redemption instead of death is a lot more Good than just going for the kill and looting the body. I'm not talking about trying to redeem the evil dragon or the BBEG lich; but there's probably hope for the orcish grunt you just captured... especially if you treat him well.
DerelictDroid 04-15-08, 12:08 AM	@Half Dragon: Actually, I've seen all sorts of Paladins, and played a few myself. It is one of my favorite classes. While some view the Code of Conduct and Lawful Good alignment as restrictions, I view them as opportunities to be creative with Perspective. How does a Paladin of St. Cuthbert compare to one of Heironeous? How do they compare to one of Pholtus? To one of Bahamut? Pelor? To tie this into the OP, a Paladin of St. Cuthbert might attempt to capture the drow while one of Pholtus would kill them outright. A paladin of Pelor might question the drow to make sure there was no immediate evil happening, while trying to evangelize. A paladin of Heironeous might rather engage them on a field of battle rather than in the dank, dark underground. So in addition to determining what campaign paradigm the DM has in place (morally absolute or ambiguous), the type of Paladin we speak of becomes important as well. Simply asking what a generic Paladin would do falsely presumes one Code of Conduct applicable to all Paladins of every deity.
calronmoonflower 04-15-08, 12:33 AM	Simply asking what a generic Paladin would do falsely presumes one Code of Conduct applicable to all Paladins of every deity. Only Faerun, of wait Underdark is part of that campaign. :embarrass Anyway they still all have the same code of conduct, just with different interpretations.
DerelictDroid 04-15-08, 12:36 AM	I think people who play Good characters ignore that a lot; trying for redemption instead of death is a lot more Good than just going for the kill and looting the body. I'm not talking about trying to redeem the evil dragon or the BBEG lich; but there's probably hope for the orcish grunt you just captured... especially if you treat him well. I think you're mixing my two paradigms. Your statement here is precisely that of modern philosophy, and not of mythology. Yes, classic mythology is full of redemption. But it is almost always in support of the Hero. And that's because the Hero isn't BORN Evil, but has fallen to evil (with a little e) and thus it is possible for the Hero to be redeemed. In the classic sense, creatures born Evil are unredeemable. Sure, lock them up, but you better lock them up for eternity because they are Evil and will perpetrate some villainy if left on their own. In classic myth, harpies are not redeemed, goblins are not redeemed, medusa are not redeemed. Only relatively recently is the concept of redemption allowed for such entities as super-villains (or even minor villains for that matter). Heck, even Tolkien forgoes redemption. Gollum dies just as vile as he started, orcs are not redeemed. The only hint of redemption comes at the end of the Return of the King when the Hobbits conquer their rebellious kin in the Shire.
DerelictDroid 04-15-08, 12:38 AM	Only Faerun, of wait Underdark is part of that campaign. :embarrass Anyway they still all have the same code of conduct, just with different interpretations. Fair enough.
Etarnon 04-15-08, 01:48 AM	As a DM, I'd be okay with passing in the dark, or an all out fight to the death. Up to the players if they want to live to see the surface the next day.
Salla 04-15-08, 02:06 AM	How many people have seen a paladin that is a bit smite-happy? Hasn't everybody? :) Of course, I more or less gave up on the class en toto when I lost my powers for NOT pulling a smite-on-sight, and simply stopped using it in my games.
Nephlite 04-15-08, 08:49 AM	Paladins can show evil no mercy according to the Ionic Paladin Alhandra, but this doesn't make them stupid to fight every battle they can. It is more a "Can do" than a "Have to do".
Callista 04-15-08, 08:51 PM	I think you're mixing my two paradigms. Your statement here is precisely that of modern philosophy, and not of mythology. Yes, classic mythology is full of redemption. But it is almost always in support of the Hero. And that's because the Hero isn't BORN Evil, but has fallen to evil (with a little e) and thus it is possible for the Hero to be redeemed. In the classic sense, creatures born Evil are unredeemable. Sure, lock them up, but you better lock them up for eternity because they are Evil and will perpetrate some villainy if left on their own. In classic myth, harpies are not redeemed, goblins are not redeemed, medusa are not redeemed. D&D is a modern game, just as fantasy novels (many of which involve redemption) are modern stories. Mercy is one aspect of Good even in core D&D; and there are rules for making Diplomacy checks to gradually change someone's alignment towards Good, as well as many examples of redemption in usually-evil races. If you want to play it that way, go ahead--it's your game--but it won't be the Core setting. Mythology tends to be brutal and unmerciful; but in general, mythology wasn't meant to discuss moral problems. They were stories people told each other about how badass the heroes were. But D&D isn't mythology; it's D&D. Monsters in D&D aren't unredeemable; otherwise they'd all be marked "always Evil". Redemption has been known as a possibility in literature for a long time--By the time of Jesus, it's spelled out plainly, and there are obvious hints of it long before that, and not just in the Judeo-Christian literature. I think (philosophical) Buddhism includes some of the same themes. Plato talked about the ideal self that exists for even the worst human. If you want an ancient world with modern values, it's not unrealistic--and even if it were, you'd be shattering realism to bits the first time you turned bat poo into a Fireball. And anyway, isn't the world fuller with more shades of gray? If monsters are always, always evil, what's the point of interacting with them other than to kill? If you create a world in which redemption is impossible and monsters are always evil, then in your game they're nothing more than walking bits of XP, and you'd probably be happier playing D&D Minis instead.
Man in the Funny Hat 04-15-08, 10:05 PM	If the former, than a Paladin should slay Evil beings on sight, because evil is a part of their spirit and they will EVENTUALLY burn babies in their crib, or other despicable acts. Or I suppose at the least the Paladin might try to take them prisoner to prevent their eventual evil acts.Even if you assume that a paladin should slay Evil beings ON SIGHT (and it would be silly to assume that), there is nothing that says that the paladin must do so regardless of any and all circumstances. That would mean that paladins charge any creature that LOOKS evil no matter how many of them there are, what the paladins current goals are, and irrespective of his chances of success or even survival. In other words, that would be Lawful Stupid. So, having a paladin in the party SHOULDN'T particularly affect the chances of an encounter playing out as described in the OP. A paladin is no more OR LESS capable of understanding when to fight and when not to - and why.
Man in the Funny Hat 04-15-08, 10:09 PM	Of course, I more or less gave up on the class en toto when I lost my powers for NOT pulling a smite-on-sight, and simply stopped using it in my games.Bad form. Really, you ought to beat DM's that are that obtuse upside the head until they get it. You owe it to the NEXT poor schmoe that plays a paladin in that DM's game and is rewarded with the same nonsense.
pigknight 04-15-08, 10:36 PM	How many people have seen a paladin that is a bit smite-happy? Me, me pick me!!! And personally for all you knew those guys were a bunch o' Drizzt clones. Also attack them for no good reason is an easy way to violate the CoC.
CrimsonDeath 04-16-08, 03:31 AM	Yeah, the game's DM has said that his campaign runs on "Shut The **** Up" whenever someone notices something like that. Also known as "A wizard did it," or "Say to yourself, 'It's just a game; I should really just relax.'"
M-bark 04-16-08, 03:45 AM	How many people have seen a paladin that is a bit smite-happy? I've seen two paladins in total, both played by the same character. In the (five?) months we've played together, he's only smited two times. Truly, I think that the next player in my group who wants to play a paladin will get to hear "Play like that guy and you'll never lose your powers."
Callista 04-16-08, 11:01 AM	Isn't Smite Evil a strategic thing, too? I mean, if you're up against something big and evil, not using it is a bit like not using your fireball on the white dragon.
twad 04-16-08, 11:43 AM	First: the outcome from this battle is the same as a "diplomatic victory", except that its the "baddies" that initiated the proposition, and both sides aggreded to it. Second: Why would the Paladin be the one to pay up for a group decision that was, in the end, the smart and right thing to do? If the Paladin would lose his powers for it, then all party members with similar weaknesses (clerics, other Pals) should too.. it was a group decision after all. But i dont see why the Pal or anyone for that matter would fall. Nor do i see why a Paladin be constantly in danger of losing his powers for meaningless trivial stuff like that. IMHO; the party cant have the luxury of picking a avoidable bloody fight in hostile territory... and attract unwanted attention... so that "truce" was a good idea. The way i see paladins in my opinion: - A paladin is basicaly a good fighter/cleric, a holy warrior, so play him as such. - Dont be stupid AND dont be evil. - A paladin can be arrogant, impolite, drunk and poor at table manners. - Dont boss the other characters around "just because you are a paladin". The rogue is just as good as you even if he like dark places. - A Paladin can lie, cheat and steal. He just do it to those who really deserve it. - Play just as any other good character would... in other words; Be a HERO. - If you reeealllly want a code; have fun, work as a team with your friends, and make sure the others have fun too.
WilliamTanner 04-16-08, 12:08 PM	If paladins were compelled to fight every evil they were aware of immediately, they'd all die out very quickly. I don't know the Latin for it, but modern police have the discretion to not pursue justice for every crime they are aware of. e.g. just because they see someone j-walk doesn't mean they have to write a ticket. If they are pursuing a drunk driver and get a call about a bank robbery, they (or their boss) has to decide which is the greater of two evils. Besides, killing things on sight is pretty chaotic, even if your religion promotes it. - A Paladin can lie, cheat and steal. He just do it to those who really deserve it. Um.. no. If someone deserves punishment, then kill them or jail them, as appropriate. Cheating them and stealing from them is definitely an unlawful approach. You just described a general thug.
Callista 04-16-08, 01:20 PM	Well, a CG thug. If a paladin lies, cheats, or steals, chances are he is doing it because he's been driven to it, because there's no other way or else he can't see one. Lawful guys don't like to do that kind of thing; it goes against everything they believe in. But if you have to deceive an evil guy to protect your friends, then you'll do it; it's better than betraying your friends--which is much less honorable. There are some mildly deceptive things--using the element of surprise; using magical illusions; ambushing somebody--that fall under battle strategy and are hardly chaotic at all. If you're lawful, you'd prefer not to do those things; but sometimes you need the extra edge, or else the evil guy wins. How far you go to get that "edge" is a measure of how lawful you are.
twad 04-16-08, 03:54 PM	Well, a CG thug. If a paladin lies, cheats, or steals, chances are he is doing it because he's been driven to it, because there's no other way or else he can't see one. Lawful guys don't like to do that kind of thing; it goes against everything they believe in. But if you have to deceive an evil guy to protect your friends, then you'll do it; it's better than betraying your friends--which is much less honorable. There are some mildly deceptive things--using the element of surprise; using magical illusions; ambushing somebody--that fall under battle strategy and are hardly chaotic at all. If you're lawful, you'd prefer not to do those things; but sometimes you need the extra edge, or else the evil guy wins. How far you go to get that "edge" is a measure of how lawful you are. Thats pretty much how i see it, only explained much better than i could.
Timlagor 04-23-08, 04:13 PM	I'd go so far as to say it could be a violation of the Code not to accept the proposition. Even if the drow in question are Evil, the paladin presumably had some purpose down there which he would be putting in jeopardy by initiating an unnecessary fight he might not win. ..and if it turned out those Drow weren't Evil he would definitely have a problem ;) We all know how unreliable Detect Evil is ;)
LCD2YOU 04-23-08, 04:35 PM	1st: "Smite on Sight" is a completely acceptable course of action for a Paladin. It could become an issue if the Paladin didn't do a DE on the intended target in the first place. If a Paladin does a DE, the individual radiates evil, the Paladin is perfectly in their right, as per PHB, to SoS the evil being. I am not saying that Paladins should use it all the time and quite frankly the best Paladins seldom use it if at all. Remember a 9th level CE Barbarian will show up to a 2nd level Paladin as "Faint Evil", so a Paladin should use SoS sparingly. Funny how things can correct themselves with no DM self-righteousness coming down on the Paladin. 2nd: If the Paladin was supposed to go and find other threats and the Drow were not part of it, only a moronic Paladin would want to fight the "evil drow". All that would do is draw attention to themselves and could endanger the mission. Paladins who want to fight evil all the time in that fashion are "LS" So what transpired is perfectly acceptable.
smacintush 04-24-08, 03:43 AM	1st: "Smite on Sight" is a completely acceptable course of action for a Paladin. No it's not if, as in this case, the evil beings in question haven't actually DONE anything wrong. It is the act that matters. If these were creatures that are "always evil" then he could be justified in SoS. At least this is according to Skip Williams' paladin essay. It's what I use for a guide since it actually uses common sense. Something sorely lacking in 90% of the adjudication of the CoC I've seen, heard about or read about.
LCD2YOU 04-24-08, 07:40 AM	No it's not if, as in this case, the evil beings in question haven't actually DONE anything wrong. It is the act that matters. If these were creatures that are "always evil" then he could be justified in SoS. At least this is according to Skip Williams' paladin essay. It's what I use for a guide since it actually uses common sense. Something sorely lacking in 90% of the adjudication of the CoC I've seen, heard about or read about.True, if a Paladin didn't know if the entities were evil or not. Just thinking they are evil and trying SoS will get a Paladin into mucho trouble. However, if the Paladin uses DE and detects that that person is evil, then SoS is perfectly allowable and the Paladin need not fear losing their Paladinhood over that. But then there's that pesky "Common Sense" thing again that tells anybody with half a brain (which is why I think Paladins need all 6 stats as 8 Int Paladins, well you get what you pay for, are a bad idea) that going around picking fights with people you don't know is not a wise thing to do. The best way to handle a SoS happy Paladin player is put in a 9th level CE Barbarian who after the beats the Paladin silly, steals everything the Pally's got, dyes the middle of the Pally's back yellow and let's him live. If that don't teach the player jack, nothing will.
Stormbrand 04-24-08, 11:27 AM	No it's not if, as in this case, the evil beings in question haven't actually DONE anything wrong. It is the act that matters. If these were creatures that are "always evil" then he could be justified in SoS. At least this is according to Skip Williams' paladin essay. It's what I use for a guide since it actually uses common sense. Something sorely lacking in 90% of the adjudication of the CoC I've seen, heard about or read about. Logic behind Smite On Sight is thus: Evil alignment = acted in an Evil manner = debases and destroys innocent life for fun and profit = must be punished for harming or threatening innocents. Anyhow, avoiding a fight is perfectly fair for a paladin, so long as he takes some reasonable steps to deal with the evil or danger. Something as simple as warning others of the drow. So avoiding the fight is fine, agreeing to ignore roving drow (who are a very likely threat) would be poor behaviour for a paladin.
ChaoticGood 04-25-08, 02:16 AM	I agree with those who say that a Paladin should be perfectly fine with this arrangement, given the circumstances. However, I would like to add that - in the name of roleplaying - I would expect him to grumble about it. And if those same drow come back to bite party in the butt later... Hoo boy, get ready for an "I told ya so!" :D
Drackthor 04-26-08, 12:08 AM	Paladins can show evil no mercy according to the Ionic Paladin Alhandra, but this doesn't make them stupid to fight every battle they can. It is more a "Can do" than a "Have to do". There is a difference between mercy and over-punishing a criminal. The pick-pocket is not put to death, just as the serial killer isn't assigned community service.
High Octane 04-27-08, 03:33 AM	Yeah, the game's DM has said that his campaign runs on "Shut The **** Up" whenever someone notices something like that. Does that come in cans or bottles?
High Octane 04-27-08, 03:34 AM	Well, a CG thug. or "rogue" as it were, no?
CrimsonDeath 04-27-08, 04:26 AM	Does that come in cans or bottles? As I recall, it comes in bags.