From the PHB v3.5, here are all of the statements regarding a paladin’s code of conduct, social behavior, and overall character. (Bolded text is rules text, non-bold text is descriptive.)
• compassion to pursue good
• will to uphold law
• power to defeat evil
• purity and devotion
• final hope that cannot be extinguished
• demonstrate bravery
• develop martial skills
• learn tactics
• find ways to do good
• leading a mighty campaign against evil
• help others
• healing their wounds
• curing diseases
• destroy evil
• smite evil foes
• turn away undead
• swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness
• scrupulous in observing religious duties
• appreciate working with anyone who is brave, honest, and committed to good
• cannot abide evil acts by their companions
• work with a variety of people quite different from themselves
• charismatic
• trustworthy
• well respected
• a fine leader
• Code of Conduct Rules Text:
o must be lawful good, loses all class abilities if willingly commits an evil act or grossly violates the code of conduct
o respect legitimate authority
o act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison and so forth)
o help those in need (with provisions)
o punish those who harm or threaten innocents
• Associates Rules Text:
o may adventure with...any of good or neutral alignment
o will never knowingly associate with evil characters nor continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code
o may only accept henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good
A careful examination of the rules text will show that, clearly, much is open to interpretation. Most disputes over paladin behavior seem to come from conflicting views of what constitutes a “gross” violation of the code of conduct and what constitutes an evil act. For example, it seems obvious that a paladin would not lie to his superiors or friends, but is it ok for a paladin to lie to a demon? Some say yes, some say no. Similar arguments revolve around the question of under what circumstances a paladin is not bound by a promise.
All these dilemmas are compounded by the endless confusion concerning alignments. Concrete examples of this are: “Can a paladin slay kobold women and children?” and “Should a paladin use his detect evil ability on everyone he meets and then proceed to duke it out with anyone who comes up evil on his ‘radar’?”
Finally, there are the limitless questions involving a choice between committing evil A and evil B. Thus you have dilemmas like, “Should the paladin choose to kill the baby and keep the demon imprisoned or unleash the demon on all of humanity to save the baby?”
I can see two general perspectives on all these quandaries: the absolutist and the relativist. Simply put, an absolutist would say, “A paladin may never lie no matter what. If he does he will break his code and not be a paladin any more.” A relativist would reply, “Well, realistically, it is impossible for any person to go without lying his whole life. If any lie would strip a paladin of his status, then no one would ever be a paladin for more than a few days or weeks. This is just not reasonable. Plus, to some small extent, ends do justify means. If the paladin can fool the bad guy into releasing his hostages by lying to him, he has done a good thing.”
The goal of this essay is not to debate real-world morality. Yet, real-world morality is our only compass, our only reference, so there must be some entanglement of real-life morality and in-game morality.
Can a person be evil if he never does anything evil? Yes. A person’s moral compass is what determines his alignment, not his actions. It is easily conceivable that there are entities in the game that have never had the courage or opportunity to commit an evil act, but have always had the desire to do so. Example: A paladin does a detect evil sweep of the common room of a tavern, and notes that the bald guy in the corner is evil. The bald guy is a simple farmer with no adventuring spirit, no particular skills except “Profession (farmer)” with 8 ranks. He’s a grumpy person through and through. He resents his life. He resents that he was born into a life of poverty and hard labor. He hates the people around him, hates the world, he hates the town he lives in, and he would do just about anything to change his situation including killing, stealing, maiming, bribing (if he had anything to bribe with), etc. But the guy has been a completely harmless citizen his entire life! He is evil, but fate has decided that he will remain a nobody.
This realization helps us make decisions on two of the most contentious paladin issues. First, it shows that a paladin is not justified in smiting without discrimination each and every evil creature he detects. In real life, it is not fair to jail someone who has done nothing wrong (but remember that actively plotting to do something wrong IS doing something wrong) even if they are horrible, detestable people. I believe a paladin is bound by the same standard. Evil thoughts and daydreams are not punishable offenses, only evil deeds committed willingly.
Second, a paladin forced into the uncomfortable predicament of choosing “evil A” or “evil B” can not be stripped of his status, regardless of his choice. In and of itself, killing an innocent, for example, is an evil deed. But everything has context. In and of itself, killing ANYTHING is an evil deed. Context must be considered in these cases. A paladin must regularly choose between the two “evils” of a) killing the marauding orc vs. b) allowing the orc to kill men, women, and children. There are few who would argue against a paladin choosing option a. Why? Because he has chosen the lesser of two evils. He has the greater good in mind and has chosen “the lesser of two evils.” The paladin’s moral compass, in this case, has stayed true to justice and goodness.
Why would we treat any other choice differently? The paladin who must choose between a) kill the innocent vs. b) unleash the demon is not willingly committing evil. He is simply deciding which action has worse consequences for all of humanity. Though (in and of itself) killing the innocent would be an evil act, he is clearly not committing it of his own volition. This is not a willing act, it is a forced act. His hand is forced by unkind circumstance. Thus, there is no conceivable way this paladin would be judged unfavorably by his deity. So long as a paladin chooses the least evil of all available options, his moral compass is pointing true. All this means that when we read the statement, “loses all class abilities if he willingly commits an evil act…” in the rules text, we must not ignore the word willingly, lest we begin judging paladins’ behavior unfairly.
What does a paladin do with the kobold females and young after he has slaughtered all the kobold warriors? I believe that the alignment system was invented to simplify decisions like this, rather than complicate them. Any creature whose race or class is described as being “always (lawful, neutral, chaotic) evil” CAN be killed by a paladin even if they have not committed any specific evil act. This seems to contradict what I’ve just finished saying in previous paragraphs. Consider this question: “Should the lawful-good farmer ruthlessly butcher rabbits because he knows that they will grow up, reproduce, and decimate his crops?” Certainly, farmers do, and it is not considered evil, generally. Unfortunate, but not evil. If a paladin can kill neutral rabbits, how much more so then when the paladin KNOWS that the kobolds that he leaves alive will certainly multiply and come back to wreak more destruction? It is true that the Monster Manual states that even some “always evil” monsters are not evil. However, a good DM will make the circumstances extremely rare, and significant enough that the paladin will know the difference. Take, for example, this scene:
DM: You lose your abilities.
Paladin: Why? What did I do?
DM: You killed a nest full of kobolds, and one of them happened to be good.
Paladin: Well how was I supposed to know that? There was nothing setting him apart from the rest! I couldn’t detect evil on every single creature, there wasn’t time.
DM: Too bad. You lose…
A good DM will construct a situation more like this:
DM: This looks like the kobold lunch-room. A large number of kobold young are taking turns beating up on one particular runt kobold that is shackled to the wall.
Paladin: Detect Evil on the shackled one.
DM: To your complete astonishment, he’s NOT evil!
Paladin: Wow! Wonders never cease. I’ll slaughter everyone except him…
A good DM should provide good role-playing clues whenever he intends to break from the norm in this way, and they should always be significant plot points in the campaign story. After all, what is the point of throwing in a random good kobold in a nest full of evil ones if his presence there has no significance to the story?
The major difference between the evil farmer in the tavern and the kobolds is that humans’ alignment is “any” and kobolds’ alignment is “always evil.” It is an important distinction because it indicates that the farmer is much more likely to be “reformed” than the kobolds. The farmer therefore deserves the benefit of the doubt, the kobolds do not. Similarly, one could say that the rabbits’ alignment is “always destructive to crops.” Rarely (probably never) will a person run into a rabbit that is NOT destructive, thus killing all that threaten your crops is justified, whether they’re babies or not. So if the kobold race has the alignment “always evil” (read, “always aggressively destructive to civilization”) certainly a paladin is justified in exterminating them, males, females, and young. I strongly advise against involving decisions that are more morally ambiguous than this in the game.
So if a paladin does detect that the farmer in the corner is evil, how should that affect his actions? The paladin would prefer to have nothing to do with the individual. He would probably warn his friends concerning their dealings with the individual, and that is about as far as he would take the matter. If the paladin found it necessary to deal with the evil farmer (let us pretend the paladin needs to buy a pig and the farmer is the only pig farmer around), he will do so in the most expedient way and be done with it. The paladin will realize that the best way to help such an individual is to simply be polite, be kind, be merciful, and be generous (as usual). Even doing so, the paladin will realize that no matter what he does, his actions are only more likely to embitter the evil farmer more. Usually there is nothing to be done about it. Sometimes, an opportunity to influence the evil person towards good will present itself, but even then, the good deed is as likely to be spat upon as it is to be welcomed.
How would a paladin know whether or not to accept a particular henchman/follower/cohort? Just because they don’t come up evil on the radar doesn’t mean they’re lawful good. This is by far the least of the paladin’s worries. A paladin can simply require that the candidate submit to an interview under a zone of truth spell. After 5 to 10 minutes of questioning and discussion, the paladin should have a good idea of whether or not the candidate has the appropriate moral outlook for the job. Sense motive skill comes in handy here as well. It is possible for a paladin to be fooled, but not likely. Again, the DM should make exceptions extremely rare and important to the plot.
What is “legitimate authority?” This term is by far the most ambiguous term the PHB uses in describing paladin-ly behavior. A paladin should understand that not all governments are good governments, not all parents are good parents, and not all bosses are good bosses. However, the alignment of authority figures, whether governments, parents, or bosses, are not what determines their legitimacy. The main questions a paladin should ask when deciding whether an authority is legitimate or not are, “Did this authority figure obtain his authority in the normal way? Is this authority figure acting within its societal role?” A person who kidnaps a child and claims to be its parent certainly did not obtain his parental role in a normal way (via birth or adoption), so his authority over the child is not legitimate. The counselor who usurped the throne by having the good king assassinated did not come by his authority in the normal way (via the rightful succession or appointment of an heir), so a paladin would not feel compelled to “respect” that authority. However, during the course of his adventures a paladin might find himself in a country where it is perfectly normal for one ruler to be assassinated by the next. In this case, the paladin must respect that authority, even though he may detest it.
How must a paladin respond to authority that is not legitimate? Simply put, a paladin does not need to feel compelled to obey it. Also, he would feel free to encourage other affected individuals to disobey it.
What does it mean for a paladin to respect legitimate authority? Simply put, a paladin must abide by its orders when it is acting within its role. Children must obey their parents, citizens must submit to their government, employees must submit to the will of their employers, etc.
But what if the government/parent/boss is legitimate but abusive (evil)? Malicious acts against good people can never be condoned by a paladin. Any authority who abuses his power out of wickedness to the detriment of its subjects should be removed or replaced. Abusive governments should be overthrown, children should be removed from abusive parents, and abusive bosses should be “fired.” This rule is not without exception. A paladin who makes a visit to Hell would be quite content to see demons tearing each other to pieces. The manifestation of a paladin’s power makes it proof-positive that he has divine authority in the world, hence the manifestation of his powers. He knows he has been put in a position of privilege so that he can defend those people who are unable to defend themselves, whoever or wherever they may be. Unlike in real life, a paladin knows that what he does, he does with the good blessings of his god, and that he has been given divine authority (an authority higher than any mortal authority) to bring justice to the world. It must be so, otherwise the paladin would not be a paladin.
In this essay, I intend to tackle some of the most debated topics regarding paladins and their behavior. I can not possibly respond to every situation a DM can dream up, nor do I intend to. I simply hope that this article will serve as a helpful, self-consistent guide for players and DMs who find themselves at a loss for how to handle various situations. I hope the reader will realize that many great thinkers have spent lifetimes considering these kinds of moral, ethical, and philosophical issues, and all have failed to come to any conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone. I can not hope to do better than they.
One caveat here: in D&D, we would be well-advised to turn to Kant for guidance. (The Alignment system is very much akin to his moral philosophy.)
A careful examination of the rules text will show that, clearly, much is open to interpretation. Most disputes over paladin behavior seem to come from conflicting views of what constitutes a “gross” violation of the code of conduct and what constitutes an evil act.
Evil in D&D is fairly well-explained in the PHB. Problems arise when people insist on taking their real-world (consequentialist) intuitions and ramming them into the game.
For example, it seems obvious that a paladin would not lie to his superiors or friends, but is it ok for a paladin to lie to a demon? Some say yes, some say no. Similar arguments revolve around the question of under what circumstances a paladin is not bound by a promise.
The deontologist will say that it is never acceptable to lie; however, they might admit that there are tiers of ill-doing. So, to clarify: the Paladin should not lie, even to a demon. If they do lie to a demon (in order to protect others, for example) they should be required to atone. Extenuating circumstances might allow for the Paladin some leeway - keeping their Paladin powers in the immediate situation, but losing them if they show no recognition that they did the wrong thing, even if it was for the 'right' reasons.
(For the time being, exclude white lies from the above. They do seem to fill a different category, as the intention is not to mislead another for one's own sake; rather, to protect their feelings. I tend to think it's still not the sort of thing that a Paladin ought to do, but it's hard to call the act outright 'evil'. If I were DMing for a Paladin that told a white lie, I'd probably talk to the player about it.)
[on dilemmas]I can see two general perspectives on all these quandaries: the absolutist and the relativist. Simply put, an absolutist would say, “A paladin may never lie no matter what. If he does he will break his code and not be a paladin any more.” A relativist would reply, “Well, realistically, it is impossible for any person to go without lying his whole life. If any lie would strip a paladin of his status, then no one would ever be a paladin for more than a few days or weeks. This is just not reasonable. Plus, to some small extent, ends do justify means. If the paladin can fool the bad guy into releasing his hostages by lying to him, he has done a good thing.”
You're describing deontological (duty-based; most famously, Kantian) morality as 'absolutist' and consequentialist (literally, consequences-based; most famously, Utilitarian) morality as 'relativist'. This description is inaccurate: many Utilitarians have been ruthlessly absolutist in their day, and bona fide relativists usually wouldn't even admit of a good or evil beyond one's own subjective interpretations.
Can a person be evil if he never does anything evil? Yes. A person’s moral compass is what determines his alignment, not his actions. It is easily conceivable that there are entities in the game that have never had the courage or opportunity to commit an evil act, but have always had the desire to do so. Example: A paladin does a detect evil sweep of the common room of a tavern, and notes that the bald guy in the corner is evil. The bald guy is a simple farmer with no adventuring spirit, no particular skills except “Profession (farmer)” with 8 ranks. He’s a grumpy person through and through. He resents his life. He resents that he was born into a life of poverty and hard labor. He hates the people around him, hates the world, he hates the town he lives in, and he would do just about anything to change his situation including killing, stealing, maiming, bribing (if he had anything to bribe with), etc. But the guy has been a completely harmless citizen his entire life! He is evil, but fate has decided that he will remain a nobody.
I don't find the example remotely plausible. Are you seriously claiming that such a malicious individual would never lie? Or that, if they did lie, they would feel that they had done wrong?
This realization helps us make decisions on two of the most contentious paladin issues. First, it shows that a paladin is not justified in smiting without discrimination each and every evil creature he detects.
We already knew that. Good characters have "respect for life".
In real life, it is not fair to jail someone who has done nothing wrong (but remember that actively plotting to do something wrong IS doing something wrong) even if they are horrible, detestable people. I believe a paladin is bound by the same standard. Evil thoughts and daydreams are not punishable offenses, only evil deeds committed willingly.
The Paladin should be held to an even higher standard than real-world authority. (Obviously.
)Second, a paladin forced into the uncomfortable predicament of choosing “evil A” or “evil B” can not be stripped of his status, regardless of his choice.
If these evils are grave, the Paladin can and must be stripped of his status.
In and of itself, killing an innocent, for example, is an evil deed. But everything has context. In and of itself, killing ANYTHING is an evil deed. Context must be considered in these cases. A paladin must regularly choose between the two “evils” of a) killing the marauding orc vs. b) allowing the orc to kill men, women, and children. There are few who would argue against a paladin choosing option a. Why? Because he has chosen the lesser of two evils. He has the greater good in mind and has chosen “the lesser of two evils.” The paladin’s moral compass, in this case, has stayed true to justice and goodness.
It's a somewhat false dichotomy. The Paladin might make such a choice in the heat of the moment, but when deliberating (or reviewing their actions) they ought to realise that killing is simply evil, and that status cannot change no matter the situation. Hence, slaying orcs in defence of innocents is, naturally, what the Paladin ought to do: that doesn't mean that killing them is 'good'. Again, if the Paladin doesn't realise that they are doing wrong and pray for forgiveness then they're simply not a Paladin.
Why would we treat any other choice differently? The paladin who must choose between a) kill the innocent vs. b) unleash the demon is not willingly committing evil.
Yes, she is.
He is simply deciding which action has worse consequences for all of humanity.
Wrong moral system, sorry.
Also, Paladins need to take into account all sentient beings (not just all sapient ones, by the way: it's a common mistake to think that Paladins don't need to worry too much about cattle).Though (in and of itself) killing the innocent would be an evil act, he is clearly not committing it of his own volition. This is not a willing act, it is a forced act. His hand is forced by unkind circumstance.
It's a forced evil act.
Thus, there is no conceivable way this paladin would be judged unfavorably by his deity. So long as a paladin chooses the least evil of all available options, his moral compass is pointing true. All this means that when we read the statement, “loses all class abilities if he willingly commits an evil act…” in the rules text, we must not ignore the word willingly, lest we begin judging paladins’ behavior unfairly.
I agree (mostly) with the conclusion. However, the Paladin must recognise that they do wrong in choosing the lesser evil, and seek forgiveness.
What does a paladin do with the kobold females and young after he has slaughtered all the kobold warriors? I believe that the alignment system was invented to simplify decisions like this, rather than complicate them. Any creature whose race or class is described as being “always (lawful, neutral, chaotic) evil” CAN be killed by a paladin even if they have not committed any specific evil act.
Kobolds are "usually" evil.
This seems to contradict what I’ve just finished saying in previous paragraphs. Consider this question: “Should the lawful-good farmer ruthlessly butcher rabbits because he knows that they will grow up, reproduce, and decimate his crops?” Certainly, farmers do, and it is not considered evil, generally. Unfortunate, but not evil.
Why would that be considered not evil? "Good characters make personal sacrifices for others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
The farmer is undertaking an evil, selfish act.
If a paladin can kill neutral rabbits, how much more so then when the paladin KNOWS that the kobolds that he leaves alive will certainly multiply and come back to wreak more destruction? It is true that the Monster Manual states that even some “always evil” monsters are not evil. However, a good DM will make the circumstances extremely rare, and significant enough that the paladin will know the difference.
Well, Kobolds aren't always evil; you tend to see that alignment with creatures like Chromatic Dragons and the denizens of the Lower planes (even Drow are only "usually" evil). In those cases of always evil, the Paladin might be justified in slaying them mercilessly, as their chances for reform are exceedingly low.
To run amuck killing Kobolds is simply an evil act: the Paladin could fight their warriors and drive the tribe away, but he should make great efforts to avoid killing them.
[snip the rest on Kobolds, as it's predicated on a mistake; legitimacy is something I'll come back to later - I admit that expediency drives my actions at times!
]What is “legitimate authority?” This term is by far the most ambiguous term the PHB uses in describing paladin-ly behavior. A paladin should understand that not all governments are good governments, not all parents are good parents, and not all bosses are good bosses. However, the alignment of authority figures, whether governments, parents, or bosses, are not what determines their legitimacy. The main questions a paladin should ask when deciding whether an authority is legitimate or not are, “Did this authority figure obtain his authority in the normal way? Is this authority figure acting within its societal role?”
This doesn't seem to get to grips with what the Paladin should be concerned with. By the questions you single out for legitimacy, the Paladin should accept the priestess of Lloth just because she obtained her authority in the normal way (assassination of her superiors) and acts in her proper societal role (brutal, callous and oppressive).
A person who kidnaps a child and claims to be its parent certainly did not obtain his parental role in a normal way (via birth or adoption), so his authority over the child is not legitimate. The counselor who usurped the throne by having the good king assassinated did not come by his authority in the normal way (via the rightful succession or appointment of an heir), so a paladin would not feel compelled to “respect” that authority. However, during the course of his adventures a paladin might find himself in a country where it is perfectly normal for one ruler to be assassinated by the next. In this case, the paladin must respect that authority, even though he may detest it.
I tend to think that the Paladin ought to use a different notion of legitimacy if they're really going to be 'good'. Here's two alternatives:
We might allow for Paladins determining the legitimacy of authority in the sense that authority is derived from the gods, and that poor leaders are those that do not deliver unto their subjects as the gods deliver unto them. The problem for this model is that the gods in D&D aren't (usually) omni-benevolent, but if your campaign does have a monotheistic creed with an all-loving god, its Paladins might think this way.
The other way of looking at things is that supreme executive authority derives from a mandate from the masses (and not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!). In other words, the Paladin has to look at how well an authority serves those that they are responsible to. This is problematic in that it's a lot of legwork, and that the Paladin has to determine just what constitutes consent to be ruled (is being 'happy' good enough? What else might be required?).
(My main reason for drawing this distinction is that it makes the Paladin's code non-contradictory: it's absurd to say that the Paladin should respect legitimate authority except when it's evil. What we want to say is that legitimate authority will tend not to be evil - if it doesn't, then the Paladin has deeper problems than just following the code!)
A paladin should try to do whatever it takes to go around the situation and find the 3rd option where he doesn't have to do any evil before he seriously considers the option of choosing the lesser evil. I think this attitude is what makes somebody a paladin.
So, what am I saying about alignment?
Your group needs to establish its own interpretation of the alignment system based on the player's and DM's MVBs. In most established play groups arguments will not arise over misinterpretation of the alignment based on MVBs of a player or DM because in most established play groups the players and DMs alike share the same MVBs. However, in newer play groups or games with strangers (such as starting up a game at a local gaming shop or playing at a convention), if there exists a chance of an MVB (i.e., alignment) conflict, the DM needs to establish basis for alignments for all the players so that they are aware how the DM might arbitrarily make a judgment on something that is alignment based, such as a player playing a paladin. If a DM and player know how they will interpret these situations in terms of alignment in the D&D game they are playing then they will avoid nasty alignment arguments down the road. Alternately, if their concept of alignment is radically different from one another, they may elect not to play in the same group due to this conflict of MVBs.
Re: The slaughter of kobolds
Paladins necessarily show a respect for life. Slaughtering animals, self-aware or otherwise, is not the sort of thing a paladin will do. Paladins should be far more likely to relocate or imprison the kobolds. If there is no hope of repentance, and imprisonment would be a cruel fate, then the paladin is honor-bound to do what they can. Indeed, even if all the kobolds show up as evil, a paladin is generally forced to be reactionary. Only evil outsiders, chromatic dragons, and possibly some aberrations are purely evil enough to justify active hunting and wholesale slaughter. That being said, the Paladin could choose to eliminate the entire nest, doing so in the quickest and most humane way possible. They would then be expected to atone posthaste for their 'sin'.
Re: The respect for authority
A Paladin's respect for authority is drawn from their requirement to be lawful. This means that a Paladin will abide by the laws of an area that do not directly oppose a Paladin's code. Even evil authority could be legitimate, but only Lawful Evil has much of a chance at this, and even then a fleeting chance at best. For determining "legitimacy" I think two factors need to be weighed by the paladin. One, is this authority conducive to the survival of a lawful good individual? And two, does this authority claim power in a way that is in line with the standards of my religion/deity/morality?
An authority that fails both tests should not be respected, and should probably be overthrown. In this way a king who ascended to power but proved to be tyrannical is not legitimate (fails the first test). And a seemingly benevolent leader who came to power by assassination is not legitimate either (fails the second test). It is worth noting that this can pose interesting dilemmas for a paladin who wants to overthrow an evil leader, as choosing a successor must be done with great care.
Re: The murder of infants
I am in agreement with those that feel the Paladin should find a third option. Indeed, when faced with a choice so drastic as the slaughter of an infant or the release of an all-powerful demon, a Paladin could kill the child, accepting that they will immediately lose all their powers, and may be hard-pressed to atone. Or (and i think this is the more likely choice), they would rescue the child, and then dedicate themselves to stopping the demon as quickly as possible. Because D&D does not work from a consequentialist perspective, the act of saving an innocent child is better than killing the child, even if it entails releasing a demon. This is because the Paladin cannot know certainly what the effects of releasing the demon will be. The one exception I might allow for a Paladin faced with this sort of quandary would be for the character to use one of the more powerful divination spells to ascertain which outcome will have greater overall utility in the interest of perpetuating Good. Barring that option, the Paladin is screwed if they can't find a 3rd door. The game system doesn't ever claim to be immune to the effects of abusive DMs who force their players into unwinnable situations :D
Only evil outsiders, chromatic dragons, and possibly some aberrations are purely evil enough to justify active hunting and wholesale slaughter.
And don't forget undead. Basically ALL undead. If insentient undead, they are considered a step below moldy firewood on the respectability scale.
killing is simply evil
.
Also, there is one more thing I disagree with:
Though (in and of itself) killing the innocent would be an evil act, he is clearly not committing it of his own volition. This is not a willing act, it is a forced act. His hand is forced by unkind circumstance.
It's a forced evil act.
And, as it quite clearly states in the Paladin's Code, which is so kindly posted right at the top of this page, committing a forced evil act does not violate The Code.
(paladin's) ought to realize that killing is simply evil, and that status cannot change no matter the situation.
Killing is not evil in D&D. Not mechanically evil, not emotionally evil, and not fantastically evil.
A paladin is the personification of righteous vengeance, the knight in shining armor that brings judgment on the evil-doers by heroic might. He is doing his proper lawful good role when he decapitates the leader of the orc raiders. He is fulfilling his destiny when he charges the demon with his lance. The combat he enters is certainly dangerous, but it isn't evil. It is good. Otherwise, he would just be a really bad healer, and frightfully non-heroic.
P.S. Killing rabbits is more debatable. They are really cute, so that makes killing them a bit harder. Good thing most Paladins don't farm.
Also, Paladins need to take into account all sentient beings (not just all sapient ones, by the way: it's a common mistake to think that Paladins don't need to worry too much about cattle).
....
Why would [slaughtering rabbits and other pests] be considered not evil? "Good characters make personal sacrifices for others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
The farmer is undertaking an evil, selfish act.
This may be a bit off topic, but I would dispute this moral standard as a basis for paladinly conduct. First, by that standard, anyone who sprays for ants on the counter, swats flies and mosquitoes, puts flea collars on their (mammalian) pets, or takes antibiotics for a disease is selfish and evil, which is intuitively hard to accept. While there are religions that advocate such conduct, the ideal of ahimsa is exceedingly hard to realize for a character expected to defend good people against threats that, if they were vulnerable to satyagraha in the first place, wouldn't be Evil. While everything is ultimately up to the DM, it is a rare group of orcs who would see nonresistance as anything but contemptible and an excuse for slaughter, and a rare player who would be happy with their paladins becoming a long succession of forgotten martyrs.
Second, and less relevant, the game makes special allowances for characters who wish to practice attenuated forms of ahimsa, which implies that "normal" paladins are not held to that high a standard.
I completely disagree with your assertions about Paladin morality.
You replyin' to me?
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a fundamental part of being a Paladin. A character unable to commit any evil act whatsoever is a character unable to act. Period. They would be unable to fight, even if the person being fought was an evil Kobold who was torturing thousands of innocent children. If the Paladin saw someone in the forest being stabbed to death, they would be unable to move, due to the fact that any movement on their part would be likely to crush countless small insects, and, as you yourself said so eloquently, "killing is simply evil".
It doesn't really look like you're replying to me (despite quoting me briefly!), because this isn't a problem for the position I'm putting forward.
My point, as I wrote earlier, is that the Paladin cannot be the sort of person who claims that their ends justify their means. They can be the sort of person who accepts that there is no solution other than violence, deeply regrets it, and prays to whatever powers motivate them for forgiveness... even while others laud them as a hero and champion of good.
Quite simply, being a Paladin shouldn't be a particularly easy, or even necessarily happy, experience.
Of course, this position might look a bit odd when we think about how Paladins lose their powers. But there's two subtly different sentences on the matter. In the Code of Conduct section, we get:
"A paladin [...] loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act..."
Whereas the Ex-Paladins section gives us:
"A paladin [...] who willfully commits an evil act [...] loses all paladin spells and abilities..."
Despite the similarities, I maintain that these are actually quite different. Willingly doing something is simply to be the agent-cause of a state of affairs. Willfully doing something is to actually desire to bring about that state of affairs. (As you might have guessed, I'm more interested in the latter - not only is that section more in-depth, but it's also consistent with the definitions of good and evil acts.)
So, when the paladin charges into battle with ravaging orcs, she doesn't desire their deaths: on the contrary, she would greatly prefer that all this ugly business didn't have to happen, and that everyone could live in peace. But her foremost desire is that the peaceful monastery (not fighting monks, just guys in cassocks who brew beer) be left in peace, and she knows that she must fight in order to bring about that state of affairs.
This doesn't excuse the paladin altogether. She still does evil every time she lands a blow - it's just that she willfully does good (by taking risks on behalf of others - in this case, the monks), and so she can atone later.
as it quite clearly states in the Paladin's Code, which is so kindly posted right at the top of this page, committing a forced evil act does not violate The Code.
That doesn't make it not evil... does it? I mean, if forced evil isn't evil, then it seems a bit like an empty description. Why are we even talking about it?
Killing is not evil in D&D. Not mechanically evil, not emotionally evil, and not fantastically evil.
Is too. :p ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." (PHB, p104.)
A paladin is the personification of righteous vengeance, the knight in shining armor that brings judgment on the evil-doers by heroic might. He is doing his proper lawful good role when he decapitates the leader of the orc raiders. He is fulfilling his destiny when he charges the demon with his lance. The combat he enters is certainly dangerous, but it isn't evil. It is good. Otherwise, he would just be a really bad healer, and frightfully non-heroic.
He is good not for the killing he does, but for the lives he saves and betters. He's heroic not because he can put the hurt on evil-doers, but because he holds himself to account for every one of his own misdeeds, constantly striving to do better.
P.S. Killing rabbits is more debatable. They are really cute, so that makes killing them a bit harder. Good thing most Paladins don't farm.
A paladin should try to do whatever it takes to go around the situation and find the 3rd option where he doesn't have to do any evil before he seriously considers the option of choosing the lesser evil. I think this attitude is what makes somebody a paladin.
Agreed. To quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds:
"Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil."
Originally Posted by nightwing
Can a person be evil if he never does anything evil? Yes. A person’s moral compass is what determines his alignment, not his actions. It is easily conceivable that there are entities in the game that have never had the courage or opportunity to commit an evil act, but have always had the desire to do so. Example: A paladin does a detect evil sweep of the common room of a tavern, and notes that the bald guy in the corner is evil. The bald guy is a simple farmer with no adventuring spirit, no particular skills except “Profession (farmer)” with 8 ranks. He’s a grumpy person through and through. He resents his life. He resents that he was born into a life of poverty and hard labor. He hates the people around him, hates the world, he hates the town he lives in, and he would do just about anything to change his situation including killing, stealing, maiming, bribing (if he had anything to bribe with), etc. But the guy has been a completely harmless citizen his entire life! He is evil, but fate has decided that he will remain a nobody.
Not according to the RAW. According to both the PHB and the DMG it is ACTIONS by which Alignment is judged. Not by statements of intent. Evil is an active REAL force in the D&D game universe. It is not venial.
Isshia
I completely agree with this from ThorGuy:
"Choosing the lesser of two evils is a fundamental part of being a Paladin. A character unable to commit any evil act whatsoever is a character unable to act. Period. They would be unable to fight, even if the person being fought was an evil Kobold who was torturing thousands of innocent children. If the Paladin saw someone in the forest being stabbed to death, they would be unable to move, due to the fact that any movement on their part would be likely to crush countless small insects..."
I would go further and say that this applies to ALL good creatures. Every choice one makes in life is a matter of justifying the "ends." Every choice proposed demands that we evaluate, "Is what I'm giving up worth more that what I'm gaining?"
The difference between the good character and the evil character is only a matter of what he is willing to do to get what he wants. Paladins will walk through a forest, crushing insects, swatting flies, in order to kill the marauding orcs. The end clearly justifies the means. The paladin is concluding, without a second thought, that the lives of the villagers are more important than the lives of the insects. This paladin will not lose his powers. There is no atonement necessary here.
A paladin faced, as per my example, with the decision between demon or baby, must make (probably in a split-second) a decision of what is more important. And I don't believe there is any LG deity who would forsake a paladin in this unfortunate circumstance regardless of his decision. No doubt the paladin would feel horrible about either outcome, as would any good creature. But there would be no loss of powers for this paladin. He fulfilled his code and duty to the extent possible. No more can possibly be expected of him. Certainly a LG deity would understand that. There is no atonement necessary here, either.
I believe, Derrick, you are splitting hairs in your distinction between willingly and willfully. There is no necessity for this distinction. In fact, I think it only convolutes things, rather than clarify.
From Derrick, this is also absolutely true: "They can be the sort of person who accepts that there is no solution other than violence, deeply regrets it, and prays to whatever powers motivate them for forgiveness... even while others laud them as a hero and champion of good." But again, this is true of any good creature. This quality is not specific to paladins.
One other note:
We need not debate about whether killing a fly is evil or stepping on an ant is evil. Whether it is or not, we assume out of hand that the ends virtually always justifies their killing. Again, how far one extends this assumption to other creatures defines the difference between good and evil.
I would go further and say that this applies to ALL good creatures. Every choice one makes in life is a matter of justifying the "ends." Every choice proposed demands that we evaluate, "Is what I'm giving up worth more that what I'm gaining?"
I don't think that's quite right, simply because the PHB mentions nothing about justifying ends in its section on alignment. My training informs me that what you're pushing is real-world Consequentialist morality, and that D&D alignment is based on real-world Deontological morality.
It seems likely that you're basically just following your intuitions about what is right, and that's always a good place to start. However, in D&D, you don't need to (or really want to) lean on your own moral compass: morality is spelled out for you in a straightforward manner in the game books.
(For what it's worth: most people I've met are consequentialists by intuition, which is probably why D&D alignment is seen as a "problem". I prefer to think of it as a "challenge" - can you role-play someone whose notions of right differ from your own? If you can't, then fear not: playing consequentialists who are regarded as "evil" by D&D can be entertaining.
)The difference between the good character and the evil character is only a matter of what he is willing to do to get what he wants.
This seems to be on the right track: good characters do not believe that the ends justify the means.
Paladins will walk through a forest, crushing insects, swatting flies, in order to kill the marauding orcs. The end clearly justifies the means. The paladin is concluding, without a second thought, that the lives of the villagers are more important than the lives of the insects. This paladin will not lose his powers. There is no atonement necessary here.
Without a second thought? That's the sign of a non-paladin. He must respect life; that may be trumped by the need to protect others, but it cannot be eliminated.
I believe, Derrick, you are splitting hairs in your distinction between willingly and willfully. There is no necessity for this distinction. In fact, I think it only convolutes things, rather than clarify.
Well, quite simply, if paladins lose their powers every time they do willingly evil, then there would be no paladins. If they fall from grace every time they willfully do evil, then there would be paladins. As there are paladins, we can safely conclude that what we're really talking about is willfull evil.
You can think that's splitting hairs, but my account is consistent with what the PHB says about alignment, while yours isn't.
We need not debate about whether killing a fly is evil or stepping on an ant is evil. Whether it is or not, we assume out of hand that the ends virtually always justifies their killing. Again, how far one extends this assumption to other creatures defines the difference between good and evil.
No, what's important is why it took place. A person who steps on an ant because they don't see them is ignorant of the deed, and can't be said to will evil into the world. Someone who stomps on the ant because they hate ants is willing evil into the world. The person who steps on the ant because they are rushing to save the life of an injured bat is willing good into the world, despite the contingent evil that they do.
This may be a bit off topic, but I would dispute this moral standard as a basis for paladinly conduct. First, by that standard, anyone who sprays for ants on the counter, swats flies and mosquitoes, puts flea collars on their (mammalian) pets, or takes antibiotics for a disease is selfish and evil, which is intuitively hard to accept.
This looks to be based on a misconception. "Sentient" means aware - the normal test is the ability to feel pain. D&D good is tiered in its regard: Sentient life is more important than non-sentient life, though non-sentient life is still a matter of concern.
Killing insects is evil. In the first three cases, an agent might have a good intention (disease prevention) that can't be fulfilled by the method they chose. That would be enough for me to say that they're not "willfully" doing evil.
Flea collars and antibiotics are good cases of willfully doing good (preserving or restoring a sentient being's dignity - health), even though there's some evil done along the way.
(Quenditar, the rest of your reductio is based on quoting me out of context. In so far as the post you quoted contained my advocacy of limited violence against kobolds, it should be absolutely clear that I don't think that paladins need be pacifists. Though I do maintain that they should prefer peace to war.)
The being needs to be more than just self aware, more than simply sentient, as a ant IS sentient. The being needs to be sapient for the act to have the WEIGHT that an Evil act requires.
Evil in D&D is not venial. It's not naughty. It's terrible and it's powerful and focused. So is Good. Giving a beggar a silver piece from your pouch full of gold, platinum and diamonds is NOT an altruistic act.
This character class is supposed to represent the knight in shining armor right? Saving princesses, defeating dragons, warping through tubes... sorry wrong game on that last one.
I suppose any character could do the things a paladin could, but the paladin is supposed to do them with things like honor, justice, and peace right?
Killing is not Evil. Period.
"Evil" implies [...] killing others. (PHB, p104.)
NEEDLESS Killing is what is Evil. And even then it has to be a thinking, sapient being.
"Good" implies [...] respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (PHB, p104. Emphasis mine.)
Killing a buffalo and taking it's hump and horns only is stupidly wasteful, but not Evil. Stepping on an ant hill is not Evil, it's naughty, even though it might kills dozens or hundreds, and naughty is not Evil.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. (PHB, p104.)
The being needs to be more than just self aware, more than simply sentient, as a ant IS sentient. The being needs to be sapient for the act to have the WEIGHT that an Evil act requires.
I could repeat the above quotes, but I'll get to the point: that may very well be what you think. It's even a respectable position. But it's not how D&D's alignment system works.
Evil in D&D is not venial. It's not naughty. It's terrible and it's powerful and focused.
What are we talking about here: evil characters, or evil actions? I agree with you on the former, but not on the latter.
So is Good. Giving a beggar a silver piece from your pouch full of gold, platinum and diamonds is NOT an altruistic act.
I actually agree on the last point, and so does D&D:
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. (PHB, p104.)
This may be a bit off topic, but I would dispute this moral standard as a basis for paladinly conduct. First, by that standard, anyone who sprays for ants on the counter, swats flies and mosquitoes, puts flea collars on their (mammalian) pets, or takes antibiotics for a disease is selfish and evil, which is intuitively hard to accept. While there are religions that advocate such conduct, the ideal of ahimsa is exceedingly hard to realize for a character expected to defend good people against threats that, if they were vulnerable to satyagraha in the first place, wouldn't be Evil. While everything is ultimately up to the DM, it is a rare group of orcs who would see nonresistance as anything but contemptible and an excuse for slaughter, and a rare player who would be happy with their paladins becoming a long succession of forgotten martyrs.
Second, and less relevant, the game makes special allowances for characters who wish to practice attenuated forms of ahimsa, which implies that "normal" paladins are not held to that high a standard.
It's my understanding that the paladin class is based loosely on Western ideals, not Eastern religions such as Hinduism or Zoroastrianism. The paladin is the fantastic counterpart of the medieval crusader and the Arthurian knight, so for the most part, his moral code should resemble theirs. The paladin should be concerned with life, yes, but a sentient life should concern him far more than the life of an insect or worm. The paladin is based on Judeo-Christian values, so if I may, I'll be a bit of a "bible-thumper" for just a second. When Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was given stewardship of the Earth, just as we have the responsibility now to care for and preserve God's creation. However, that doesn't mean that we cannot use the creation to sustain us (by farming, hunting, fishing, ad nauseum. What that does mean for us (and for the paladin who is based on the values which we hold) is that we take only what we need and we care for that which sustains us. We do not **** the land and indiscriminately kill animals, if we do, we starve. So it is for the paladin. At the pinnacle of that which we must care for, however, are our fellow human beings (or elves, dwarves, etc. in the case of the paladin). Though somewhat tragic, if the paladin steps on a bug on his way to stop an orc from raping and killing a halfling, he does not have to atone for the life of the bug. To quote the Forestmaster from Dragonlance, "We do not mourn the loss of those who die fulfilling their destinies."
In the example of the "evil farmer," the paladin should not necessarily attempt to avoid him at all costs. This doesn't mean that he should leap from his seat in the tavern and call down his god's fury on the farmer. It does mean that he should attempt to influence the farmer to change from his evil path by his (the paladin's) example and presence. There have been many who were influenced in such a way. For example, one of Gen. Stonewall Jackson's staff refered to Jackson as a "madman" for his calm in battle and his habit of taking extreme risks (which grew from Jackson's faith and conviction that he was as safe in battle as he was in his bed at night, the Almighty would take him when He was ready). One night this sargeant (I don't remember his name or rank at the moment) overheard Jackson's prayers (and the deep, soothingly reverent tone he always took in prayer). The sargeant then said, "If that is religion, I must have it." By providing an example of the "right" way to live, the paladin can influence people far better than if he attempts "sword-point conversions" or simply slays every evil being he meets.
To the OP, I think the list you gave for a paladin's conduct can best be summed up with the 12 Points of the Scout Law (yes, I was a Boy Scout, try not to freak out everyone):
1) Trustworthy
2) Loyal
3) Helpful
4) Friendly
5) Courteous
6) Kind
7) Obedient
8) Cheerful
9) Thrifty
10) Brave
11) Clean
12) Reverent
That basically sums up the paladin, right there.
Can a person be evil if he never does anything evil? Yes. A person’s moral compass is what determines his alignment, not his actions. It is easily conceivable that there are entities in the game that have never had the courage or opportunity to commit an evil act, but have always had the desire to do so. Example: A paladin does a detect evil sweep of the common room of a tavern, and notes that the bald guy in the corner is evil. The bald guy is a simple farmer with no adventuring spirit, no particular skills except “Profession (farmer)” with 8 ranks. He’s a grumpy person through and through. He resents his life. He resents that he was born into a life of poverty and hard labor. He hates the people around him, hates the world, he hates the town he lives in, and he would do just about anything to change his situation including killing, stealing, maiming, bribing (if he had anything to bribe with), etc. But the guy has been a completely harmless citizen his entire life! He is evil, but fate has decided that he will remain a nobody.
This is an excellent point. Even in D&D where actions determine if you are evil it is perfectly possible for a nobody to be evil without ever breaking the law. Cruelty, Greed, and Selfishness can all be exercised in perfectly legal ways.
Further this addresses another topic of concern with paladins: how do you maintain a mystery when a paladin can detect evil at will? The answer lies in nightwing's preceding statement. One out of every three people the paladin meets should detect as evil. Commoners, nobles, merchants, etc. can all be evil without being actionable by the paladin. Make sure that the villain is not someone who appears guilty or has taken an evil action (that anyone knows off) so that he is hidden in a cloud of minor evil thus requiring investigation to learn the truth.
"Evil" implies [...] killing others. (PHB, p104.)
"Good" implies [...] respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (PHB, p104. Emphasis mine.)
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. (PHB, p104.)
I could repeat the above quotes, but I'll get to the point: that may very well be what you think. It's even a respectable position. But it's not how D&D's alignment system works.
What are we talking about here: evil characters, or evil actions? I agree with you on the former, but not on the latter.
I actually agree on the last point, and so does D&D:
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. (PHB, p104.)
Derrick, this way of running things isn't even vaguely useful. In your manner, the Paladin who swats a fly, or even ACCIDENTLY steps on an ant, is now Evil. There has to be thought involved. "Evil implies killing." Sure, easy sentence until you use it. Again, no Paladin would survive his first day. It would insane to use another model.
Ants are sentient. All sentient means is "self aware". Earth worms are sentient. Sapient refers to a being with the ability to know and interact with itself. It needs to be able to think or every time you sit down in the grass without going over the area first with a microscope and patience, you've become, by your definition of things, a murderer, as the single sentence that , "Evil implies killing." doesn't bother to even say it is restricted to sentient beings like ants and earth worms.
Protozoa are living things. They can be killed. So are bacteria. So, simply by being a living thing yourself, you are a multiple murder every moment of every day. This means that the entire multi-verse would always be evil. THIS obviously is not in any manner useful. Anytime rules are used they have to be used intelligently, as if you apply them literally, it's almost impossible to make a rule that can ever be used.
Life Scout, yo. :D
Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others
IMO this statement (taken from the SDR) doesn't work the other way around, i.e., killing others does not implies evil per se. I mean, just look at the animal description on the MM, they are all true neutral and they kill on a regular basis.
Hi all! Interesting topic here and conducted, so far, in a excellent tone and attitude.
Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others
IMO this statement (taken from the SDR) doesn't work the other way around, i.e., killing others does not imply evil per se. I mean, just look at the animal description on the MM, they are all true neutral and they kill on a regular basis.
Exactly!
The contradictory evidence to "killing is evil" is everywhere you look.
Holy Word... kills
Holy Smite... kills
Blade Barrier, a domain spell for Good... kills
A Holy Avenger... kills
Smite Evil... kills
Turn Undead... kills
Power Word Kill, an ability that Solars get... kills
Implosion, an ability Planetars get... kills
Paladins get experience points and advance in level primarily from... killing
Agreeing to not ever kill things makes a character eligible for several Vow of X feats, which implies that not killing is a step up on morality above simply goodness.
The claim even goes further to imply that *any* character with the good alignment should not be killing things, as this is drawn from the definition for evil rather than references to the Paladin class specifically. So basically nobody with class levels can be good, because experience advances class levels and experience is primarily derived from killing creatures.
So, it doesn’t work. It’s internally inconsistent with both other rules and background information and its entirely dependant upon converse logic. There must be more evidence than reverse reading of the "Evil implies..." paragraph to prove that good aligned characters cannot kill.
Combat is essential to most D&D games and to the Paladin Class in particular. We need a *useful* definition of good and evil, not one that excludes Paladins from combat and makes them impossible to play.
Wow, what an opening statement, but it should be an obvious. There is no where in the Paladin's Code or class description an enjoinder to always act in a Good manner. There IS an enjoinder to NEVER (not even once) commit an act of Evil, but the two are far from the same thing.
Now, I'm one of those folk who believes that there is no such thing as a Neutral act. Sleeping, belching, eating dinner and all of those other things so often cited on these boards as Neutral are simply not so. Why? They are never explicated as Neutral. So, indeed, they have ZERO alignment impact.
The same is true for Killing needfully. It is not Evil as there was need and it isn't simply being done thoughtlessly or to serve the cause of Evil. Neither is it a Good act, even if it saves, thereby, the lives of hundreds, or thousands, or countless ones. Neither is it Neutral, as it is not explicated as a Neutral act. It simply has ZERO ALIGNMENT IMPACT.
All of the rules on Alignment have to be read intelligently, with an eye to their usefulness, not literally as they have no value at all when read literally. Evil implies hurting as well. Yet a Doctor, in the pursuance of his craft, to save lives and ease sufferings, will most definitely HURT you very often in the performance of his duty. When he operates on you to better your health, he is going to hurt you; likely, he'll very seriously hurt you. This is not an Evil act though, obviously, even though "hurting" has most definitely and definitively been achieved.
On to one of the examples from our OP:
Killing that nest of kobolds. Sorry, sir, you're just plain wrong. Kobolds are not "always evil" by descriptor. The descriptor says "often lawful evil". Emphasis mine. This is the problem. Often is by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to always. The DM who strips the Paladin of his abilities (until he Atones for the act) for doing so, HAS most definitely and certainly committed an evil act.
It doesn't matter that the entire nest of adults is Evil...though they probably are not, if the DM isn't ignoring the alignment descriptor for the race. It doesn't matter if there are one or two or fifty Good kobolds in there. It doesn't matter if any of them are Good at all...
ALL that matters is that some of those killed, who were not resisting, who were non-combatants and did not NEED to be killed, were NOT Evil. Lawful Neutral...even with Evil tendencies, is not enough to put them beyond the Pale. The act of killing non-Evil non-combatants in such a manner, especially for expediency sake, is quite simply Evil, period.
You forgot "Do a good turn daily" and "Be Prepared."
Life Scout, yo. :D
Oops, some Eagle Scout I am. Honestly, I was even having trouble remembering the Law :embarrass . It's been a while since I recited it every Monday night. I remembered the spirit of the Law, if not the letter. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Derrick, this way of running things isn't even vaguely useful.
This is begging the question.
In your manner, the Paladin who swats a fly, or even ACCIDENTLY steps on an ant, is now Evil.
Well, I don't think that the Paladin should intentionally swat the fly to kill it. She might brush it away, but the fly doesn't seem to have done anything to deserve death - if the Paladin is killing just because it is convenient, then she is no Paladin. (Because D&D is not overly concerned with world-state consequences, the Paladin that swats the fly away and accidentally kills it shouldn't lose their status, though they really ought to feel sorry for what they've done in the same way that anyone who causes accidental harm should.)
(As for the ant, the Paladin hasn't willfully done evil. If you're going to attack my position, you could at least attack the whole thing rather than some sort of hybrid.)
There has to be thought involved. "Evil implies killing." Sure, easy sentence until you use it. Again, no Paladin would survive his first day. It would insane to use another model.
It would be insane to use a model other than the RAW and claim to still be playing the same game.
I mean, if you want to have your own house rules for Alignment, more power to you - but you haven't demonstrated any substantial problems with what's in the PHB.Ants are sentient. All sentient means is "self aware". Earth worms are sentient.
Well, firstly, sentient doesn't mean "self aware". Secondly, if it did, ants and earth worms would not be sentient. In D&D, Ants have "-" Intelligence and are effectively mindless.
What sentient actually means is more akin to "feeling" or "aware". Hence, to really be concerned with the dignity of sentient beings is to be concerned with not causing suffering to those that can suffer. Even according to that definition, it may not be the case that ants and earth worms are really sentient.
A usual acid test for sentience is the capacity for feeling pain. I will admit to having been a cruel child and cut earth worms in half: they didn't seem to react as though they were pained. Nor did ants react as though pained when burned by magnified sunlight. (Of course, this recollection may be coloured by the wishes of a more compassionate adult.)
Sapient refers to a being with the ability to know and interact with itself.
So, how does that differ from "self-aware"?
It needs to be able to think or every time you sit down in the grass without going over the area first with a microscope and patience, you've become, by your definition of things, a murderer
The PHB doesn't say that such a thing is murder, because it's not concerned with legality, but rather, morality.
Protozoa are living things. They can be killed. So are bacteria. So, simply by being a living thing yourself, you are a multiple murder every moment of every day.
Multiple killer.
This means that the entire multi-verse would always be evil. THIS obviously is not in any manner useful. Anytime rules are used they have to be used intelligently, as if you apply them literally, it's almost impossible to make a rule that can ever be used.
Well, I'm afraid that the lack of intelligence is found in those who can't understand that there's a distinction between willful acts (those that have intentions aligned to them) and unconscious acts (that do not). Accordingly, the killing of pathogens by one's immune system is not evil because it's not an intentional act. Even if it was intentional in some sense (the intent to stay alive) that doesn't imply an intent to kill the pathogens.
There's even a basis in the rules for modifying those principles of what good and evil imply:
IMO this statement (taken from the SDR) doesn't work the other way around, i.e., killing others does not implies evil per se. I mean, just look at the animal description on the MM, they are all true neutral and they kill on a regular basis.
The question of animals is answered a couple of paragraphs down:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. (PHB, p104)
Hence, the tiger can't be evil because the tiger doesn't have intention: it never willfully does evil, just as it never willfully does good. It just acts.
That is killing of any type, by a strict interpretation, is Evil. Period. It says no where that it has to be a Willful act. In the section on Paladins it says that "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." That does not say that to commit an act of Evil that it has to be done consciously, or willfully. On the contrary, it makes NO GENERAL statements about the nature of Evil acts at all.
Hey, of course, it's ridiculous to read it that way. But that is what you've proposed in essence. Strict interpretations. According to the strict RAW, simply by breathing you've killed. Simply sitting in the grass, you've brought untold sufferings. Trees are living things too. If a Paladin chops down a tree in the forest and no one else notices, is it still an evil act? It really does get that silly, because so are blades of grass.
See, it doesn't say anywhere in the description of Evil that it has to be practiced against sentient beings for it to be evil. Simply that
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
A blade of grass you step on is an "other".
It does no more say that it must be a sentient, or sapient, or naughty other, than it says that the act must be either willfully committed or needful. THAT is ONLY interpretations. BOTH of those qualifiers, willfully, and needful, are NOT explicitly covered.
So, we come back to which is more useful. In your model, every butcher on the planet is steeped in the foulest evil, whether he's wringing the necks of chickens, or eight year old girls, it makes no difference. I'd say that's utterly absurd.
The contradictory evidence to "killing is evil" is everywhere you look.
This should be good.
Holy Word... kills
Holy Smite... kills
Blade Barrier, a domain spell for Good... kills
A Holy Avenger... kills
Smite Evil... kills
Turn Undead... kills
Power Word Kill, an ability that Solars get... kills
Implosion, an ability Planetars get... kills
None of this shows that it's not evil to kill. Undead and denizens of the Lower Planes are always evil, and these spell effects do not kill them precisely, but rather destroy them or banish them (respectively). In order to show that it's not evil to kill, you'll need to show that killing properly living beings is not evil, rather than just listing the powers available for fighting against evil magic and evil spirits.
Paladins get experience points and advance in level primarily from... killing
That's not quite true. They gain experience for overcoming challenges.
Agreeing to not ever kill things makes a character eligible for several Vow of X feats, which implies that not killing is a step up on morality above simply goodness.
No, it doesn't. It shows that setting aside all killing is more saintly than setting aside all willful killing.
The claim even goes further to imply that *any* character with the good alignment should not be killing things, as this is drawn from the definition for evil rather than references to the Paladin class specifically. So basically nobody with class levels can be good, because experience advances class levels and experience is primarily derived from killing creatures.
Either you're deliberately arguing to a straw man, or you just don't get it:
D&D Alignment is not consequentialist. You do not weigh up the sum total of effect after the act and say, "Well, that act was right/wrong". Instead, you look at the ends that was being wrought in the world. So, in my first reply:
[When confronted by aggressive kobolds] the Paladin could fight their warriors and drive the tribe away, but he should make great efforts to avoid killing them.
I've said that Paladins ought to atone (uncapitalised, non-magical atonement - pray for forgiveness, meditate on their failings, or however that cashes out) for the killing that they willingly do when willfully doing good. That's because it's a sign that their ends is to actually do good, rather than kill others.
So, it doesn’t work. It’s internally inconsistent with both other rules and background information and it’s entirely dependant upon converse logic. There must be more evidence than reverse reading of the "Evil implies..." paragraph to prove that good aligned characters cannot kill.
Straw man again. I'm not arguing that good aligned characters cannot kill; I'm arguing that the act of killing is evil.
Combat is essential to most D&D games and to the Paladin Class in particular. We need a *useful* definition of good and evil, not one that excludes Paladins from combat and makes them impossible to play.
Yes. There's one in the rules, if you're interested in reading it.
However, let me suggest a different way to handle the always/usually/often modifiers for kobolds and similar races: Make the alignment uniform by tribe. Thus there is the clan of the Bloody Hand, made up entirely up of LE kobolds, and their distant cousins, the clan of the Shoeless Boot, made entirely up of CG kobolds, and don't forget the clan of the Sacred Worm, made entirely up of true neutral kobolds, and so on and so forth. Proportion the clans such that >50% of them are LE, and the rest of the clans are a mix of the other alignments.
This will preserve some sense of realism and believability, while preventing the moral entrapment of many an unfortunate paladin. A paladin will feel free to exterminate all kobolds from the Bloody Hand clan when it is verified that they are a LE tribe, but not so the kobolds of the Sacred Worm, who are probably good friends to their neighboring communities.
None of this shows that it's not evil to kill. Undead and denizens of the Lower Planes are always evil, and these spell effects do not kill them precisely, but rather destroy them or banish them (respectively). In order to show that it's not evil to kill, you'll need to show that killing properly living beings is not evil, rather than just listing the powers available for fighting against evil magic and evil spirits.
Oh so now "kill" only applies to creatures that die. Well that's progress, but you still have to go further.
For example *any* target of Implosion that fails its fortitude save "is killed" according to the spell precisely. Outsiders are not immune to this effect, neither are undead or constructs. So apparently being banished, slain, dead or destroyed is simply a term used to describe the effect that is required to return a creature that "is killed" to whatever it calls life, but the fact remains that they are all "killed" when they suffer the effects of Implosion.
That's not quite true. They gain experience for overcoming challenges.
When I said that experience is primarily drawn from killing things I mean it is the largest contributor not that it is the only contributor. So while it is true that it is possible to advance in level without killing it is difficult to believe that Paladins are expected to advance by disarming traps, the second largest contributor to experience.
No, it doesn't. It shows that setting aside all killing is more saintly than setting aside all willful killing.
Setting aside all willful killing is still above the level that is required in order to continue to be a Paladin.
D&D Alignment is not consequentialist. You do not weigh up the sum total of effect after the act and say, "Well, that act was right/wrong". Instead, you look at the ends that was being wrought in the world. So, in my first reply:
D&D alignment is not deontological either. It is both. This is supported by the paragraphs on
alignment in the PHB regarding "active" and "passively" evil people as well as the descriptions of various deities. Whichever one you personally believe, dont ascribe it to everyone exclusively. Paladinhood is open to both the consequential and the deontological individual.
Straw man again. I'm not arguing that good aligned characters cannot kill; I'm arguing that the act of killing is evil.
So, apparently performing evil acts (about 14 per level by my calculations) repeatedly (or at least participating in them and benefiting from them), without remorse, and with intent to continue doing so is okay for good characters?
Yes. There's one in the rules, if you're interested in reading it.
To be constructive, rather than getting more and more specific until we are pulling out dictionaries, I'd like to get more broad such that things function over the breadth of the rules rather than picking half a sentence out, reading it backwards and declaring that an entire class (or worse an entire alignment) can’t come on most adventures because it can’t kill.
2) In the end, it is the Paladin's god who decides whether to revoke said powers. If their god deems their act to be in the purest of intentions, then either nothing happens, or perhaps (in the case of accidentally slaying a polymorphed lawful good villager with undetectable alignment cast on them by the very clever cleric of Erythnul) a small penance will be prescribed. The Paladin is entrusted with enormous responsibility [protecting the innocent, defending good, destroying evil] - if they cannot exercise that than they are useless.
3) A proposal: If a Paladin is supposed to care for ALL life, and is not allowed to kill even evil creatures, then by the same token it must be their duty to heal evil creatures as well. A Paladin who leaves an orc dying on the battlefield to continue fighting other orcs is committing an evil act. Does this make any sense? No. Nothing would ever be accomplished, because evil people would run around killing, and good people would run around healing everyone. Eventually all the good people would run out of XP casting raise dead spells, and all the evil people would be epic level.
A Paladin's duty is not just to not commit evil, but to actively promote good. So we can break down a Paladin's duty into three (or four) parts:
a) Uphold the law (divine law and human law)
b) Promote good
c) Not commit evil
d) Combat evil
Of course, the can of worms just gets bigger if D&D paid more attention to the Law-Chaos axis...a paladin loses his powers for ANY evil act. But only for gross misconduct of the code (read, unlawful behaviour). Should a Paladin lose his powers for jaywalking?
---
A player character in Nador may follow any one of the three good alignments: lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good. Lawful good does not in any way imply more goodness than chaotic good; a very good chaotic good may well have more goodness than a weakly good lawful good character. A strongly good lawful good character has no more (or less) goodness than a strongly good chaotic good character. One might argue that a neutral good character, by eschewing both law and chaos, has a stronger devotion to good than someone of lawful good or chaotic good alignment. While I don’t find the argument completely persuasive, I did follow its rationale when I made Kaltorel neutral good, since he cares more about justice than about law or chaos. A neutral good character, however, need not have more good than a lawful good or a chaotic good character; it’s all in how you play the character.
A player character need not be as good as a half-celestial or even a paladin, but must be good in more than name; he or she must actually care about justice, compassion, mercy and fellow beings. Not every good character will be equally compassionate, just, generous, merciful, etc., and a lawful good character will tend to worry about the greatest good for the greatest number, while a chaotic good character will tend to worry about treating each and every individual with the maximum goodness.
Deities of the same good alignment might stress different aspects of goodness, while deities of different good alignments might stress the same aspects of goodness. Sagittarius, chaotic good, stresses aiding the oppressed more than killing evil, while Thór, also chaotic good, stresses killing evil first, then aiding the oppressed if they still need it. Narpä, lawful good, and her grandson Kaltorel, neutral good, stress redemption a great deal and both refrain from killing even evil creatures unless absolutely necessary. Kaltorel’s paternal grandfather Dakras, chaotic good, kills more frequently, but not so frequently as Thór, who kills evil with abandon. (Some argue that Thór’s youth—and perhaps his father’s non-good teachings—leads him to kill so easily [he’s less than 2000 years old] while Dakras’ great age has taught him some restraint when it comes to killing [he’s more than 30,000 years old], but others note that Kaltorel, younger than Thór, avoids killing perhaps most of any Musa except Narpä).
Duality in the Law-Chaos Axis
The D&D alignment system has caused a great deal of confusion over the years because the law-chaos axis has two competing meanings, one political and one personal. D&D creator Gary Gygax took the idea of alignment from Michael Moorcock’s Melniboné novels that focus on the life of a character named Elric. The Melnibonéan universe contains the alignments of law, neutrality and chaos, with law meaning both ordered and good, and chaos meaning both disordered and evil. In the Melnibonéan universe neutrality represented nothing more than those not committed to either law or chaos, rather than a position itself. The gods of neutrality saw themselves as weak, pathetic beings unable to influence the universe. (In one novel Elric, a chaotic figure who nonetheless goes around helping the cause of law, persuades the gods of neutrality to act, again pretty much in the cause of law. In the Melnibonéan universe neutrality had no value system of its own.)
Taking the system of alignment from the Melnibonéan universe for the original D&D, Gary equated law with good and chaos with evil. Creatures familiar today as evil, like the red dragon, first appeared as simply chaotic under the original one-dimensional alignment system. Creatures familiar today as good, like the dwarf, appeared similarly as just lawful. So much did Gary equate law with good that today’s neutral good centaurs and treants, and even today’s chaotic good elves, appeared under the “Law” column in the original D&D.
In the pamphlet Eldritch Wizardry, the third supplement to original D&D, Gary first introduced the idea, albeit just by implication, that chaos didn’t always mean evil. Under the “Chaos” column he listed demons, intellect devourers, and su-monsters, each with a footnote saying that it was highly evil. Not until the release of the 1st Edition Players Handbook, however, did he present the now-familiar fully two-dimensional alignment system, with a good-evil axis completely divorced from the older law-chaos axis.
The old law-chaos axis emerged in 1st Ed with its current two meanings, one political and the other personal. On the political side law refers to a belief in using government to achieve ends; on the personal side law refers to order and self-discipline. Chaos likewise refers both to a belief in individual liberty on the one hand and to disorder and a lack of discipline on the other. While a paladin, who has to follow a strict code, might believe in strong government control, it doesn’t necessarily make sense that she automatically would. A monk, similarly, needs great personal discipline, but might not like government control at all, especially as it tends to impair the monk’s search for physical and spiritual perfection. A paladin need not follow every law, and in particular should not follow evil laws, although he needn’t break evil laws wantonly and get himself imprisoned or executed without giving himself any opportunity to do good in the world.
For simplicity of play, however, I’ve chosen to accept the dual meaning of the law-chaos alignment, at least in general, to avoid having to redo all sorts of alignment-based game mechanics. A paladin or especially a monk may feel free, however, to play up the personal discipline aspect and downplay the government control aspect of law.
Behavior for Lawful, Chaotic and Good Characters
A lawful character need not follow every law, and a paladin in particular should not follow evil laws. A paladin need not, however, wantonly break every evil law and get himself imprisoned or executed without giving himself any opportunity to do good in the world. A chaotic good character likewise need not break every law, and a liberator in particularly need not break good laws, and get herself imprisoned or executed. A good character need not act suicidal to prove that he or she is good. Good characters should, however, act in ways designed to increase goodness in the world, the lawful perhaps focusing on the greatest good for the greatest number, and the chaotic perhaps focusing on the greatest good for the individual.
The Good-Evil Axis Trumps the Law-Chaos Axis
In the world of Nador, good vs. evil means a great deal more than law vs. chaos. Good and evil represent the ends—whether people will be treated well or abused—while law and chaos represent means. Thus a lawful good paladin and a chaotic good liberator have much more in common with each other than the paladin has with some lawful neutral “the law is the law” character or the liberator has in common with some wild, erratic chaotic neutral character. I often have a chaotic good character view a lawful good character as stiff, stuffy or rigid, but underneath having a good heart. I’m sure, however, that someone can play the difference in another way; the rigid versus flexible (or disciplined versus undisciplined) provides just one possible way to play it."
----
On the issue of killing the baby or releasing the demon, I agree with those who say that the paladin wouldn't kill the baby, but would do his or her best to combat the released demon. You could argue that this contradicts the notion that the lawful good character chooses the greatest good for the greatest number, but it does follow the rule that the paladin commit no evil act. (In this example if he doesn't kill the baby the demon gets released; he is not actively releasing the demon when he refuses to kill a baby; rather, somebody else releases the demon. I suppose we could jigger the example so that a badguy will kill the baby if the paladin doesn't actively commit the evil act, in which case I'd say that the paladin doesn't release the demon but tries to save the baby. In that case he is avoiding the evil act of releasing the demon and not actively killing the baby.)
On the subject of the paladin lying, I'm torn. I don't see the paladin as blabbing the party's true identity to the evil authorities, but I don't see him as lying either. Is a lie an evil act? Judeo-Christian morality says so quite clearly: thou shalt not lie. Maybe the paladin simply isn't suited to undercover missions.
Derrick you're the one who insists on a literal interpretation of the RAW. Well, the RAW does NOT say that Evil implies consciously, willingly, or knowingly killing any more than it say directly needlessly killing. It simply says that Evil implies killing.
That is killing of any type, by a strict interpretation, is Evil. Period. It says no where that it has to be a Willful act.
Did events conspire to stop you reading half-way through? There's only 6 paragraphs in 'Good vs. Evil' (PHB, p104) If you're rushed, just read the last one, toward the top of the right-hand column.
In the section on Paladins it says that "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." That does not say that to commit an act of Evil that it has to be done consciously, or willfully. On the contrary, it makes NO GENERAL statements about the nature of Evil acts at all.
It also says that "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act [...] loses all paladin spells and abilities..."
I happen to think that the latter is the more precise definition, as it also goes into detail about what it means to lose class abilities.
Hey, of course, it's ridiculous to read it that way.
Yes, it is. Read the whole thing, then it might be less absurd to you.
But that is what you've proposed in essence. Strict interpretations.
I am proposing strict interpretations of good and evil, but the RAW is clear that intention is an important component of an action's moral status.
According to the strict RAW, simply by breathing you've killed.
That's not quite clear. The RAW doesn't tell us that there are bacteria.
Simply sitting in the grass, you've brought untold sufferings.
The RAW is not committed to grass being sentient, and neither am I.
Trees are living things too. If a Paladin chops down a tree in the forest and no one else notices, is it still an evil act? It really does get that silly, because so are blades of grass.
Why would it matter if anyone noticed?
That said, it seems to me clear that the paladin chopping down a tree in the forest, 'just because', is willfully committing an evil act, which is synonymous with no longer being good. If the paladin is instead cutting down a tree in order to provide shelter to those who would otherwise have none (and displays remorse for the tree), I'd argue that because his ends are not killing the tree (which he regrets) but providing shelter for others, what he is willfully doing is aiding others.(Feel free to make the unsubstantiated claim that the RAW doesn't support this. I will just keep throwing the book at you.)
See, it doesn't say anywhere in the description of Evil that it has to be practiced against sentient beings for it to be evil. Simply that A blade of grass you step on is an "other".
Some forms of evil only make sense when practised against certain beings. Hurting creatures that do not feel pain can't really be "hurting" them; imprisoning creatures that have no sense of freedom can't be "oppressing" them; killing unliving things can't be "killing" them (surely we all agree that the Paladin smiting a Zombie is just fine and dandy?).
It does no more say that it must be a sentient, or sapient, or naughty other, than it says that the act must be either willfully committed or needful. THAT is ONLY interpretations. BOTH of those qualifiers, willfully, and needful, are NOT explicitly covered.
Actually, it strongly implies that the act must be willful. Read the whole section on 'Good vs. Evil' (PHB, p104), with special attention to the last paragraph.
So, we come back to which is more useful. In your model, every butcher on the planet is steeped in the foulest evil, whether he's wringing the necks of chickens, or eight year old girls, it makes no difference. I'd say that's utterly absurd.
Well, that's fallacious. I'm not claiming that there is no scale, and indeed, the RAW is pretty clear that some beings are more important than others. That said, I'm happy to bite the bullet (but not the pullet
): I do regard killing other creatures for the sake of gain to be an evil.If you can think of a defence of the practice, I'd be interested in hearing it.
However, let me suggest a different way to handle the always/usually/often modifiers for kobolds and similar races: Make the alignment uniform by tribe.[...]
This will preserve some sense of realism and believability, while preventing the moral entrapment of many an unfortunate paladin. A paladin will feel free to exterminate all kobolds from the Bloody Hand clan when it is verified that they are a LE tribe, but not so the kobolds of the Sacred Worm, who are probably good friends to their neighboring communities.
Now, I understand that a number of posters have claimed that what I'm writing is absurd, but does anyone actually think that this idea is realistic?
"No excuse for evil act is accepted." That would mean that the Paladin is force to be PASSIVE when he must choose between evil actions and evil passivity. (Let's say: the Baby and the Demon). The passivity would allow the Demon to be free upon the world, while the act of killing the baby would save the world. If the Paladin's deity would "Never allow evil to be", then the deity would prefer the actions rather to passivity.
In EITHER case, the Paladin would have to atone for his act. Not just by the spell, but by his act. He would have to bring the baby's corpse to the nearest temple in order to have a True Resurrection spell cast on it, or he would have to dedicate his life in order to hunt down the demon, and kill/banish/imprison him again. I would not take out the Paladin's ability, except if he strays out of his "Atonement Quest" (after all, for both, he will need some abilities to succeed).
And to the point of killing rabbit, that would be more the concern of Druid's morality. Next week's topic!
Can a person be evil if he never does anything evil? Yes. A person’s moral compass is what determines his alignment, not his actions.
This seems to be based more on the Christian Commandments (Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife and Property) than on the Alignment system. Alignment is based on actions more than thoughts (although I believe one cannot exist without the other). Consider that everyone is tempted to do evil (thought), but one does not become evil until they give into that temptation (action). The alignment system covers that the farmer's alignment should be CN. He is unhappy and resentful of the society he is in and actively wishes harm upon it while not actually doing any of the things he wishes for. If an evil being came forth and convinced him to willingly (or if unwilling and he enjoyed it, which goes back to my perspective of thought and action) to commit an evil act, he would become evil aligned.
This realization helps us make decisions on two of the most contentious paladin issues. First, it shows that a paladin is not justified in smiting without discrimination each and every evil creature he detects.
I agree and disagree. It is true that a Paladin cannot just Smite a creature because he is evil. The reason is because not every evil act is worthy of a death sentence (nor every evil being). Example: A dictator (LE) increases his taxes in which he knows will cause some of his citizens to starve. OR A thug comes by an takes a farmers cow after beating him up (not killing). A Paladin would surely oppose these actions any way possible, but is the killing of that being trully going to solve the problems that being caused? A player or DM should not mix up opposing evil with murder in the name of good/justice.
There is a big difference between killing someone and murder. Killing based on prejudice (just because they are evil) is murder. When playing a character that is acting as judge, jury, and executioner, he is held to a higher standard on dishing out 'permanent' punishment. A Paladin is about Justice as well as good.
Second, a paladin forced into the uncomfortable predicament of choosing “evil A” or “evil B” can not be stripped of his status, regardless of his choice.
This option is also up for a lot of debate. In a universe in which Good Deities exist, giving players a 'no win' solution to a problem is unfair and unjust (although I do like creating those scenarios and reward players for finding a solution I could not see). If every action a player does will result in only an Evil choice A or B, then it should be assumed that Good Deities are weaker than evil ones. Also, in such a world, Good Deities would be much more forgiving of a Paladin. (Would you toss away your instrument of Good when he is forced into a 'no win' scenario?) Ultimately, I believe this is more campaign driven, rather than Paladin or Alignment Code of Conduct.
In and of itself, killing an innocent, for example, is an evil deed. But everything has context. In and of itself, killing ANYTHING is an evil deed.
This is not true. Killing is not an evil deed. If so, everyone would be evil who was not a vegetarian and killed their own food.
The next debate comes over killing a sentient being. With inherently evil beings (such as demons), few debate that killing one (if damaging it out of existence on the material plane can even kill such a being) is evil.
On killing sentient beings that are evil, this can be campaign biased. Some DMs feel any being that is evil are inherently evil (a Kobold is as evil as a demon and cannot be redeemed), or feel that such races have a small chance of being (1% or less) another alignment (I can't wait to introduce a LG Beholder Paladin). Personally, I feel a DM has some obligation to inform his players which style of 'Inherent Evil' he is using. I prefer option B (small chance of being another alignment) since that makes the world a bit more grey. Moral options become true tests of character.
It should also be noted, in the real world, as well as D and D, killing of sentients is not always considered evil. Self defense is the easiest example, but there are many debates over war (especially religious ones), and legal execution (because a person asked to die by committing the crime knowingly).
Most Good PCs are considered in a 'state of war', executing beings to stop them from committing horrible evil acts. If the DM doesn't want their game to become multiple acts of Diplomacy (You will stop this or else an army will come) or Intimidation (agree to my demands or face the consequences), and low acts of Heroism (I run the Assassin through with my Longsword), I would allow killing as 'Acts of War' to be considered a non-evil act.
Most Christian religions have already stated that Murder and Killing are separate actions.
Why would we treat any other choice differently? The paladin who must choose between a) kill the innocent vs. b) unleash the demon is not willingly committing evil. He is simply deciding which action has worse consequences for all of humanity. Though (in and of itself) killing the innocent would be an evil act, he is clearly not committing it of his own volition. This is not a willing act, it is a forced act. His hand is forced by unkind circumstance. Thus, there is no conceivable way this paladin would be judged unfavorably by his deity. So long as a paladin chooses the least evil of all available options, his moral compass is pointing true. All this means that when we read the statement, “loses all class abilities if he willingly commits an evil act…” in the rules text, we must not ignore the word willingly, lest we begin judging paladins’ behavior unfairly.
This is another debated topic. Based upon the Bible as my moral compass, many times we are tested to believe we have no choices. Based upon believing we only have choice evil act A or B, we commit an evil act, rather than have faith in a God Deity to deliver us from that evil. What if the Paladin who kills that baby is ACTUALLY the reason the Evil God is born? In a world such as D and D, that has absolute good and evil, committing an evil act is simply evil.
I hate to give Columbine as an example, but a girl stood up and was shot to death when the attackers asked for Christians to stand up (I don't remember the exact details so please don't attack me on this point). The girl did not commit a good or evil act by standing up. If the attackers had a hostage, and stated if a Christian doesn't stand up I will kill the hostage, whomever stands up (Christian or not) has committed a good act (endangered themselves to help another). If someone is given a gun and told to shoot another or they will be killed, if you shoot someone to save yourself is definitely a selfish (Neutral) act. A Paladin or LG person would have to Atone for such an act. They had a choice to die for their beliefs and tossed them aside for survival.
So if a paladin does detect that the farmer in the corner is evil, how should that affect his actions? The paladin would prefer to have nothing to do with the individual. He would probably warn his friends concerning their dealings with the individual, and that is about as far as he would take the matter.
This is also up for debate. A Paladin would probably warn the authorities as well. Dependant on the DM campaign, the Paladin may attempt to covert the Farmer (using Diplomacy) to move away from the path of evil ("May I sit? You seem troubled. May I talk with you a while?") or threaten to keep them away from criminal activity ("I know you have done something wrong, and when I discover what it is, expect a visit from the authorities.").
How would a paladin know whether or not to accept a particular henchman/follower/cohort?
Sense Motive also is a possibility. Depends on High/Low magic campaign.
What is “legitimate authority?”
In this case, the paladin must respect that authority, even though he may detest it.
Respect does not mean he cannot oppose it either. Respect should include deposing an unjust leader, but if there are legal means to do so, a Paladin should oppose using them before committing "Murder'.
How must a paladin respond to authority that is not legitimate? Simply put, a paladin does not need to feel compelled to obey it. Also, he would feel free to encourage other affected individuals to disobey it.
What does it mean for a paladin to respect legitimate authority? Simply put, a paladin must abide by its orders when it is acting within its role. Children must obey their parents, citizens must submit to their government, employees must submit to the will of their employers, etc.
I don't exactly agree with this. What happens when a Soldier/Authority Figure comes to arrest the Paladin? Does he fight back? Can he use lethal force? What if the Soldier is not evil? A time honored tradition exists for those who wish to oppose governments while still maintaining their beliefs, it is called Martyrdom. The Paladin is more likely to get a Kingdom under unjust rule to stand up and oppose by Martyrdom than by beating up the soldiers ordered to arrest him.
This is an excellent point. Even in D&D where actions determine if you are evil it is perfectly possible for a nobody to be evil without ever breaking the law. Cruelty, Greed, and Selfishness can all be exercised in perfectly legal ways.
Further this addresses another topic of concern with paladins: how do you maintain a mystery when a paladin can detect evil at will?
By not treating detect evil as a detect alignment spell.
People with chaotic evil alignments don't necessary give off an evil aura.
The manifestation of a paladin’s power makes it proof-positive that he has divine authority in the world, hence the manifestation of his powers. He knows he has been put in a position of privilege so that he can defend those people who are unable to defend themselves, whoever or wherever they may be. Unlike in real life, a paladin knows that what he does, he does with the good blessings of his god, and that he has been given divine authority (an authority higher than any mortal authority) to bring justice to the world. It must be so, otherwise the paladin would not be a paladin.
1) Paladins gain their powers from very powerful beings (not necessarily omnipotent). If a lawful good god doesn't want a Paladin to ever kill something with his weapon, why are Paladins able to use martial weapons? Surely dealing lethal damage is not always an evil act. I will propose that in D&D the act of killing or wounding an evil creature is not an evil act, because it is almost always in their deities best interest. If a Paladin lost their powers by killing an orc, the Evil gods would have triumphed over the mortal world long ago. Just send wave after wave of CR 1/2 Goblins at every church in sight.
2) In the end, it is the Paladin's god who decides whether to revoke said powers. If their god deems their act to be in the purest of intentions, then either nothing happens, or perhaps (in the case of accidentally slaying a polymorphed lawful good villager with undetectable alignment cast on them by the very clever cleric of Erythnul) a small penance will be prescribed. The Paladin is entrusted with enormous responsibility [protecting the innocent, defending good, destroying evil] - if they cannot exercise that than they are useless.
I have to wonder, why do people always reduce paladins to nothing more than LG clerics who spent more time in combat practice than prayer?
PHB, page 43
Religion: A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough. Those Paladins who do align themselves with particular religions prefer Herioneous (god of valor) over all others, but some paladins follow Pelor (god of the sun). Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in every associated temple.
Background: No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one's destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either in one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will. It is possible, however, to fail to recognize one's own potential, or to deny one's destiny. Occasionally, one who is called to be a paladin denies that call and follows some other life instead.
[skipped section]
All paladins, regardless of background, recognize in each other an eternal bond that transcends culture, race, and even religion. Any two paladins, even from opposite sides of the world, consider themselves comrades.
The first sentence of the paragraph on religion states that a paladin does not have to worship a god. What a Paladin does need is a belief in Righteousness. It then states that most paladins who align themselves with a religion most often choose Herioneous.
Be clear on what this says and implies.
First, when describing something, you typically begin with the standard, or normal version of what your describing, and then state the exceptions.
The paragraph on Religions for Clerics describes first the standard cleric is a worshipper of a deity, and then goes on to describe the exception:
Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These clerics wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular practice of worship.
From the way it's written, you would assume that most clerics follow a deity, while a smaller number follow a cause or source of divine power.
Also, don't read that most paladins follow Heironious. It only states that of the paladins that do follow a deity, Heironious is the most common choice. The fact that the description of Religion begins with the statement that paladins don't need a deity is an indicator (but not a conclusive one, I will admit) that most paladins do not follow a deity at all.
Paladins see each other as comrades. When a paladin first meets another paladin, he knows he has meet an ally. Even clerics of the same religion may in fight horribly. Clerics with the same domains may, only may, find common cause.
Now, what if I'm mistaken? Then why do clerics, even of LG deities, only loose their powers for grossly violating the code of conduct required by his deity? Paladins lose their abilities if they grossly violate their code of conduct (note the lack of mention of "required by his deity" here), change alignment from lawful good, or willfully commits an evil act. Also, a Paladin who multiclasses after taking paladin levels can no longer gain new levels as a paladin.
Now, why all the extra restrictions on Paladins, if they are granted their powers by a deity? Clearly, clerics have greater divine blessings than a paladin does. More spells, greater ability to turn undead, more posts complaining that Clerics are overpowered. So the argument that the Paladins restrictions are the deities "cost" for the powers granted doesn't hold much water.
It seems to me that the Paladin has a direct connection to the positive material plane, that requires no deities help or intervention to obtain. However, it would be a tenuous connection, requiring a certain dedicated spirit to obtain (Must be lawful), and easily lost (any willful evil act causes the paladin to loose his powers).
Why are paladins almost unheard of among halflings? Yondalla is LG. Good, Law, and Protection are her domains. Why doesn't she have paladins by the bushful to protect her people? Racial deities always put their race first. Paladins, who are dedicated to righteousness above all, see race as a secondary issue at best.
However, let me suggest a different way to handle the always/usually/often modifiers for kobolds and similar races: Make the alignment uniform by tribe.[...]
This will preserve some sense of realism and believability, while preventing the moral entrapment of many an unfortunate paladin. A paladin will feel free to exterminate all kobolds from the Bloody Hand clan when it is verified that they are a LE tribe, but not so the kobolds of the Sacred Worm, who are probably good friends to their neighboring communities.
Originally Posted by Derrick
Now, I understand that a number of posters have claimed that what I'm writing is absurd, but does anyone actually think that this idea is realistic?
It depends on how morally-complicated you want the D&D campaign to be. I wouldn't use the suggestion myself, but it occupies an intermediate position between "the paladin can kill all kobolds" and "the paladin has to check the alignment of every single kobold before killing it." So while it wouldn't be my choice, I'd say it's a good-faith effort to deal with a difficult situation.
For my campaign I haven't set out comprehensive rules for when a paladin can kill. In general I allow paladins to kill foes trying to kill the paladin, his allies or other innocents. In my current campaign, which I've run for about three and a half years, I've had three different players run paladins. The issue of whether the paladin can just slay kobolds standing around minding their own business hasn't come up because, even though I've actually made a fair amount of use of kobolds (and they're not all your father's kobolds either :smirk
, no member of this particular party slays kobolds just standing around. I require all the players to play good characters, and while they don't have to be (and aren't) as pure as paladins, they just don't kill wantonly. It's actually pretty cool to have PCs that don't just kill first and ask questions later. :DI have always judged an action’s moral result on its intent. Never has it been applied more so than with the Paladin. I use this thought process because lines of text from the rulebooks in all versions of D&D can be contradictory depending upon circumstance when applied literally.
Am I arrogant enough to think I know better than the rules? No. BUT and it is a big BUT As a DM I have to justify my rulings therefore my own logic to the rules has to make sense to me.
To begin I have never believed in the idea of a greater good, there is only good. However as has been mentioned there is usually the lesser of two evils.
But here's one that really baked my noodle. Rather than a long explanation....A paladin was forced to do something horrendous. An action of evil, he had time to think about it, he knew in doing it he would fall but he still did it.
I judged this to be the ultimate act of a paladin. He put necessity above all that he held dear even paladinhood to do what he knew to be right. Therefore he did not fall regardless of the actual act. Do the rules say I was wrong? Literally yes, figuratively no I do not believe so.
I think when you begin to argue the moral action of killing in a game based upon killing for advancement you need a reality check (or alternate reality check ;) ). It's like saying buying all the property is evil when playing monopoly. But a characters intent behind killing (or any other action from an endless list) is a completely different matter IMHO.
What Derrick appears to be saying is the following: After a long, supremely epic campaign, the paladin, and only the paladin, is presented with a choice by the nine Archdevils of Baator. He (the paladin) must kill a newborn child, or else the following occurs:
-The Nine Hells of Baator take over the Material Plane.
-The Nine Hells of Baator take over the Celestial Plane.
-There are ten thousand years of eternal pain, where everyone is subjected to lifelong torture. During their life, however, they will be forced to have a child, of which will be tortured for its lifespan. This will continue, as said above, for ten thousand years.
Now, in my personal opinion, it seems to me that if the paladin picked the 'kill the kid' choice, he wouldn't have to atone. And heck, if you are so crazy to say that he still has to atone, I think Pelor would say: "Good job. I accept your atonement on the spot--you've already done the necessary quest. And here are 50 levels. And the best items possible. And divine rank 0. Have a nice immortality."
I must, however, take issue with the conclusion that killing sentient beings is necessarily evil. This conclusion seems to be Derrick's ("I'm not arguing that good aligned characters cannot kill; I'm arguing that the act of killing is evil").
The warrant for this seems to derive from these statements in the PHB:
"'Evil' implies...killing others"
"'Good' implies...respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."
(both from p. 104, both quoted by Derrick in defense of his position)
Both Traevanon and Goldrak have already noted, rightly, that it is affirming the consequent to assert that because evil implies killing others killing others therefore implies evil. The conclusion "the act of killing is evil" is a fallacious inference from the PHB's description of evil. And the description of good provides no warrant for the conclusion that killing is evil, either, because "respect for life" and "concern for...dignity" are not _necessarily_ incompatible with taking life.
Others in this thread seem to read the above passages from the PHB in this way: evil characters will kill others and won't think twice about it - they will kill others out of malice or cold calculation or perhaps even just because they "wanted to" (which may not be much different than malice). Good characters, on the other hand _may_ kill others, but they will tend to do so when there is little other choice. Their "respect for life" and "concern for...dignity" might lead them to leave off killing others, however, even when killing another would provide a clear benefit to them or even when not killing others might cause them difficulty.
The reading that killing is simply an evil act means that in any normal game of D&D a paladin will be constantly atoning for his many "evil" actions. If a player likes doing that, more power to him, but most players, I think, would find this a bit tedious and unfun. And it is simply _not_ necessary based on the PHB. One certainly _could_ play a paladin as one who thinks that all killing is evil and strives to avoid killing whenever possible. But one could also play a paladin as someone out to destroy the enemies of his god and see killing in that cause as essentially holy and justified (which is not available to us in the real world, as Nightwing pointed out, because we in a sense do not "know" that such killing is holy).
I read this and read the first reply. What made me post is Derrick's response to the "choice between evil A and evil B"
What Derrick appears to be saying is the following: After a long, supremely epic campaign, the paladin, and only the paladin, is presented with a choice by the nine Archdevils of Baator. He (the paladin) must kill a newborn child, or else the following occurs:
-The Nine Hells of Baator take over the Material Plane.
-The Nine Hells of Baator take over the Celestial Plane.
-There are ten thousand years of eternal pain, where everyone is subjected to lifelong torture. During their life, however, they will be forced to have a child, of which will be tortured for its lifespan. This will continue, as said above, for ten thousand years.
Now, in my personal opinion, it seems to me that if the paladin picked the 'kill the kid' choice, he wouldn't have to atone.
Well, assuming that the ArchDevils are being honest (which is a tremendously dangerous assumption), I'd advocate the paladin killing the child and willfully saving untold multitudes from horrible suffering.
I still think the paladin - if they are worthy of the name - should regret that it was necessary to do so. Personally, I wouldn't call for Atonement to be cast, though I'd be somewhat suspicious of a paladin that didn't atone (non-italicised, non-capitalised, non-spell form "I am doing this deed because I feel that I have done wrong" action) for that killing.
I must, however, take issue with the conclusion that killing sentient beings is necessarily evil. This conclusion seems to be Derrick's ("I'm not arguing that good aligned characters cannot kill; I'm arguing that the act of killing is evil").
The warrant for this seems to derive from these statements in the PHB:
"'Evil' implies...killing others"
"'Good' implies...respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."
(both from p. 104, both quoted by Derrick in defense of his position)
Both Traevanon and Goldrak have already noted, rightly, that it is affirming the consequent to assert that because evil implies killing others killing others therefore implies evil. The conclusion "the act of killing is evil" is a fallacious inference from the PHB's description of evil. And the description of good provides no warrant for the conclusion that killing is evil, either, because "respect for life" and "concern for...dignity" are not _necessarily_ incompatible with taking life.
I agree that we can't make a deductive inference from the PHB on this point, but that objection is trivial at best and the first step on a slippery slope at worst. The PHB is written from a "pick alignment first" perspective (because the majority of creatures used in the game will have their alignment already assigned). If we can't make any inferences from these descriptions about what is evil, good, lawful or chaotic, then the terms become just names, and we end up saying things like, "My character is lawful good because he is a dwarf (see Table 6-1)! It doesn't matter that he kills for fun (good implies respect for life, but it doesn't entail it)!"
As for the matter of whether or not a person who respects life should shy away from ending it, I honestly have no idea what form respect can take if it does not include a desire to preserve the object of that respect.
Others in this thread seem to read the above passages from the PHB in this way: evil characters will kill others and won't think twice about it - they will kill others out of malice or cold calculation or perhaps even just because they "wanted to" (which may not be much different than malice). Good characters, on the other hand _may_ kill others, but they will tend to do so when there is little other choice. Their "respect for life" and "concern for...dignity" might lead them to leave off killing others, however, even when killing another would provide a clear benefit to them or even when not killing others might cause them difficulty.
No, everyone reads it that way. What's up for grabs is how the actions (not the agents) should be viewed.
The reading that killing is simply an evil act means that in any normal game of D&D a paladin will be constantly atoning for his many "evil" actions.
At this point, you're no longer arguing to my position, nor to the RAW. I hope you enjoyed beating up the straw man.
a characters intent behind killing (or any other action from an endless list) is a completely different matter IMHO.
Hey, someone kinda agrees with me here!
If the Alignment system is used as stands, in broad strokes, avoiding the venial, then the alignment system works beautifully. With the system working well, the Paladin, as dependant upon that system, works well too. Otherwise it falls flat and becomes the subject of fifty or more threads a month about whether or not six or seven paladins can fall from grace by sinning against the head of that pin.
Protozoa are living things. They can be killed. So are bacteria. So, simply by being a living thing yourself, you are a multiple murder every moment of every day. This means that the entire multi-verse would always be evil. THIS obviously is not in any manner useful. Anytime rules are used they have to be used intelligently, as if you apply them literally, it's almost impossible to make a rule that can ever be used.
Please don't throw out red herrings. It is quite obvious that life does not mean sentience. According to your logic, killing a carrot in order to eat it is evil. A being requires a nervous system to be sentient.
Because paladins do not lose their alignment when they accidentally step on insects, accidentally killing things is not evil. It even says that the paladin must willfully commit an evil act. Accidentally committing evil acts is fine. Not taking some reasonable precautions to avoid accidentally committing evil acts is not fine, however.
It also sounds to me that you are, to a certain extent anyway, adopting a "the applications to real life be damned" attitude in this whole debate, preferring to use the RAW as the basis for the "reality" from which you argue. For example, you say "That's not quite clear. The RAW doesn't tell us that there are bacteria." This is a statement from which I take the following meaning, "regardless of the fact that we know that by our existence we cause the deaths of numerous micro-organisms, the RAW of D&D doesn't recognize the existence of those micro-organisms, so if the RAW tells us that killing is evil, the deaths of those unrecognized micro-organisms are not necessarily included." Fair?
If I am so far correct, then it sounds to me that what you're saying is basically that if one kills a creature that the RAW of D&D recognize either through intentional pursuit of that creature's death, or through willful negligence of that creature's life or death, then one has committed an evil act. As a direct result of that act, a Paladin would have to do something else (or experience some consequence) to "make right" that creature's death ... whether that something else be an actual formal Atonement, something so severe as losing his or her powers, or something so mild as a personal period of mourning and/or prayer.
Are we on the same page?
Regards,
Justin
Accidentally committing evil acts is fine.
God love ya man, I needed a good laugh. Thanks a ton.No, a Paladin will not immediately loose their status as a Paladin by accidentally committing evil acts, but eventually they bloody well will if the "accidents" keep cropping up around them to the point that they outweigh the Good acts the Paladin is performing, as at that point their Alignment as a whole will change.
The point that you wantonly overlooked was also included in the section you quoted...and it was even highlighted:
Anytime rules are used they have to be used intelligently, as if you apply them literally, it's almost impossible to make a rule that can ever be used.
Ants have nervous systems, albeit rudimentary ones. Stepping on them, if you were silly enough to demand a LITERAL interpretation of the RAW, would by those lights, be murder. In case you're confused, I am NOT advocating that. I am advocating the DM using his/her intellect and a tiny modicum of common sense in handling the approach.
However, what is good? what is evil? For me - LG is "superhero" ethics. You can lie to protect the innocent, kill only in self defense (and the defense of others), and you always try to save everyone... even the bad guys.
Actually - considering the baby/demon analogy - killing the baby would be the "right" thing (after all other options are exhausted), however there would still be need of an atonement. I think that’s the biggest misunderstanding about paladins. Seems like everyone wants to know how you can play one without violating the alignment restriction. Well, you can't. If you were supposed to be able to do that, then there wouldn't be an atonement spell!
...he still has to atone, I think Pelor would say: "Good job. I accept your atonement on the spot--you've already done the necessary quest..."
Hey! I ain't saying you can't have a cushy deity! Nor that every atonement is going to be equally onerous. I imagine Kord's Atonements and Corellion's Atonements are rather different, and that both gods would be rather unique in their applications thereof. Further, paladins (by rules) have no gods... nope! They are simple paragons of virtue. That’s it - they are not the holy warriors of the gods (that’s a cleric). Their power comes from within. It is fueled by their faith in right.. and their faith in themselves. Not a silly deity.
The Kobold analogy? No one should be able to "goodly" justify genocide. Even kobold genocide.
Demon genocide? Nah, not even demon genocide. Nope - no genocide. Can't do it! No morale code that can be called good allows it - ever. At all. Nope. Not gonna buy it! Don't care if they are evil! You can't kill non-combatants as a paladin. No executioner paladins, no bounty hunter paladins, no assassin paladins, nada, etc. My point: Mages waste xp making items, Fighters stop being independently effective at about level 12, Rouges always die first, and Paladins will break their action prohibitions. Accept it, move on, get atoned.
Derrick, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that all intentional or neglectful killing is evil, the degree being dependent upon the specific circumstance. Am I correct, or did I burn through the pages of this thread too quickly?
Yes, though I don't think treating with the degree is particularly important.
Therefore, the proper attitude of a Paladin who defended a caravan of religious pilgrims by destroying an Orc war-band would be something akin to "I very much regret that the destruction of those orcs was necessary to prevent the deaths of the pilgrims I protect." Yes? He might not Atone, but would probably atone in his own way (such as praying to a relevant god that the souls of those orcs be dealt with in a just way) after the battle.
That's certainly the picture I'm painting. I regard the atonement as an honest signal that the paladin really does regret the deaths of the orcs in question. Without that, it's much more difficult to know her motivations.
It also sounds to me that you are, to a certain extent anyway, adopting a "the applications to real life be damned" attitude in this whole debate, preferring to use the RAW as the basis for the "reality" from which you argue. For example, you say "That's not quite clear. The RAW doesn't tell us that there are bacteria." This is a statement from which I take the following meaning, "regardless of the fact that we know that by our existence we cause the deaths of numerous micro-organisms, the RAW of D&D doesn't recognize the existence of those micro-organisms, so if the RAW tells us that killing is evil, the deaths of those unrecognized micro-organisms are not necessarily included." Fair?
Not quite. The post I was replying to was talking about a situation strictly according to the RAW, so I replied in kind.
As far as applying the RAW to real-life is concerned, I'm going to hold off on that until I figure out what my character class is. ;) Realism in D&D isn't something we should get be really bothered with, either: it's a game with intelligent, firebreathing magical quasi-reptiles that live for hundreds of years and they're not even the weirdest things around.
If I am so far correct, then it sounds to me that what you're saying is basically that if one kills a creature that the RAW of D&D recognize either through intentional pursuit of that creature's death, or through willful negligence of that creature's life or death, then one has committed an evil act. As a direct result of that act, a Paladin would have to do something else (or experience some consequence) to "make right" that creature's death ... whether that something else be an actual formal Atonement, something so severe as losing his or her powers, or something so mild as a personal period of mourning and/or prayer.
Are we on the same page?
Totally. That attitude from the Paladin is what makes her a hero.
One caveat here: in D&D, we would be well-advised to turn to Kant for guidance. (The Alignment system is very much akin to his moral philosophy.)
Evil in D&D is fairly well-explained in the PHB. Problems arise when people insist on taking their real-world (consequentialist) intuitions and ramming them into the game.
The deontologist will say that it is never acceptable to lie; however, they might admit that there are tiers of ill-doing. So, to clarify: the Paladin should not lie, even to a demon. If they do lie to a demon (in order to protect others, for example) they should be required to atone. Extenuating circumstances might allow for the Paladin some leeway - keeping their Paladin powers in the immediate situation, but losing them if they show no recognition that they did the wrong thing, even if it was for the 'right' reasons.
(For the time being, exclude white lies from the above. They do seem to fill a different category, as the intention is not to mislead another for one's own sake; rather, to protect their feelings. I tend to think it's still not the sort of thing that a Paladin ought to do, but it's hard to call the act outright 'evil'. If I were DMing for a Paladin that told a white lie, I'd probably talk to the player about it.)
You're describing deontological (duty-based; most famously, Kantian) morality as 'absolutist' and consequentialist (literally, consequences-based; most famously, Utilitarian) morality as 'relativist'. This description is inaccurate: many Utilitarians have been ruthlessly absolutist in their day, and bona fide relativists usually wouldn't even admit of a good or evil beyond one's own subjective interpretations.
I don't find the example remotely plausible. Are you seriously claiming that such a malicious individual would never lie? Or that, if they did lie, they would feel that they had done wrong? We already knew that. Good characters have "respect for life".
The Paladin should be held to an even higher standard than real-world authority. (Obviously.
If these evils are grave, the Paladin can and must be stripped of his status.
It's a somewhat false dichotomy. The Paladin might make such a choice in the heat of the moment, but when deliberating (or reviewing their actions) they ought to realise that killing is simply evil, and that status cannot change no matter the situation. Hence, slaying orcs in defence of innocents is, naturally, what the Paladin ought to do: that doesn't mean that killing them is 'good'. Again, if the Paladin doesn't realise that they are doing wrong and pray for forgiveness then they're simply not a Paladin.
Yes, she is.
Wrong moral system, sorry.
It's a forced evil act.
I agree (mostly) with the conclusion. However, the Paladin must recognise that they do wrong in choosing the lesser evil, and seek forgiveness.
Kobolds are "usually" evil.
Why would that be considered not evil? "Good characters make personal sacrifices for others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
The farmer is undertaking an evil, selfish act.
Well, Kobolds aren't always evil; you tend to see that alignment with creatures like Chromatic Dragons and the denizens of the Lower planes (even Drow are only "usually" evil). In those cases of always evil, the Paladin might be justified in slaying them mercilessly, as their chances for reform are exceedingly low.
To run amuck killing Kobolds is simply an evil act: the Paladin could fight their warriors and drive the tribe away, but he should make great efforts to avoid killing them.
[snip the rest on Kobolds, as it's predicated on a mistake; legitimacy is something I'll come back to later - I admit that expediency drives my actions at times!
And if the paladin player takes levels as Shadowbane Inquisitor, he is well and truly &¤"%... Sooner or later he will violate his alignment, and fall from grace. Put simply, with the "absolutist" views dominating, and many DMs having a "lesser or two evils" scenarios, most paladins, PC or NPC will spend most of his life atoning. And let's face it, that won't be much fun for the player...
Maybe DM doesn’t like the paladin? That would be a shame, since it's a very cool class. To be honest, I'd give a paladin some leeway. Same with any class that demands a good alignment, C'mon, if a paladin can't even make a white lie to save the entire material plane, something is very wrong. No one is infallible. Too bad most seem to think a paladin has to be...
The point that you wantonly overlooked was also included in the section you quoted...and it was even highlighted: Ants have nervous systems, albeit rudimentary ones. Stepping on them, if you were silly enough to demand a LITERAL interpretation of the RAW, would by those lights, be murder. In case you're confused, I am NOT advocating that. I am advocating the DM using his/her intellect and a tiny modicum of common sense in handling the approach.
Having taken a look at the alignments, as stated in the PHB, it's wrong to kill a sentient, but a good person killing an evil sentient (like an orc that's waylaying merchant caravans) isn't doing evil. Besides, with an absolutist view of the alignments, a paladin eating meat, or even fishing to get some dinner, is doing an evil act, as he is either helping hide the evidence (and benefiting from the suffering of a being) or committing murder (since he is killing a living being).
The "Book of Exalted Deeds" makes some very good comments. We know that in all times and places, public executions have been a spectacle: from the medieval breaking at the wheel, to the 19 century English hangings, to the lynchings in the American south. It's worth noting that jeering at the condemned is a neutral act. It's the way people who are not especially bad naturally behave.
These international treaties are, in D&D terms, declarations defining how good combatants and agents of states should behave. Good to a great degree is the same as how we feel in these modern sanitised days that persons ought to behave.
I have to wonder, why do people always reduce paladins to nothing more than LG clerics who spent more time in combat practice than prayer?
I don't see how the quotes you used support that statement. If anything, the quotes you used suggest that a paladin is more than an LG cleric with extra combat training.
Divine authority is what separates a paladin from an LG fighter. The strict code implies (not declares outright though) that the paladin is more religious than the cleric. Paladins do have enormous responsibility, their powers reflect this (which is why Smite Evil only works against evil). Use a paladins special powers as a guide of what he is supposed to do.
The reference to paladins receiving powers from their gods is a throwback to 1st and 2nd edition.From the way it's written, you would assume that most clerics follow a deity, while a smaller number follow a cause or source of divine power.
Also, don't read that most paladins follow Heironious. It only states that of the paladins that do follow a deity, Heironious is the most common choice. The fact that the description of Religion begins with the statement that paladins don't need a deity is an indicator (but not a conclusive one, I will admit) that most paladins do not follow a deity at all.
I would argue, and in fact, do, that being a paladin demands a very specific mindset. The passion a paladin has in his cause would reasonably lead to a religious mindset, I dare say that most paladins who heard the teachings of Heironious would be unable not to take those teachings to heart. Remember how strongly paladins believe in what they do, they would certainly be interested in any faith supporting their beliefs.
The more practical side of this: if you felt the call of paladinhood, how would you pursue it? The easiest option I can think of is to approach the church of Heironious. It is the easiest place for a potential paladin to receive training - even if you believe the powers don't require study the military/combat skills will. There is also brotherhood, a chance for men of honor to work alongside each other, and the benefits of organisation in the fight against evil.Now, why all the extra restrictions on Paladins, if they are granted their powers by a deity? Clearly, clerics have greater divine blessings than a paladin does. More spells, greater ability to turn undead, more posts complaining that Clerics are overpowered. So the argument that the Paladins restrictions are the deities "cost" for the powers granted doesn't hold much water.
It seems to me that the Paladin has a direct connection to the positive material plane, that requires no deities help or intervention to obtain. However, it would be a tenuous connection, requiring a certain dedicated spirit to obtain (Must be lawful), and easily lost (any willful evil act causes the paladin to loose his powers).
I like to agree on that point, because the PHB claims that paladins do not need a patron deity, so a paladin with one doesn't depend on it for his powers. In fact, I find the idea of all divine magic calling on the deity to do something rather silly - otherwise there would be no need for clerics or paladins to gain levels because every spell and ability would be dependant on the deity’s power, not the character's. As a House Rule I have paladins who begin to stray start losing powers in bits (depending upon the severity of the offence) to reflect that connection weakening.Why are paladins almost unheard of among halflings? Yondalla is LG. Good, Law, and Protection are her domains. Why doesn't she have paladins by the bushful to protect her people? Racial deities always put their race first. Paladins, who are dedicated to righteousness above all, see race as a secondary issue at best.
Because halflings are not a warrior culture. They also have -2 STR, +2 DEX, and use smaller weapons that do less damage than those of medium size characters. The paladin class is warrior based, so generally they rely on high STR and powerful weapons (a halflings weak point) and heavy armour (which has a Max Dex, reducing one of the halfling's strengths). There are exceptions - archer based paladins, or duelist-themed paladins, or Mazzy Fentan - but halflings just aren't that well suited to being paladins.
Oh, and forgive me being pedantic, but Yondalla has so few paladins because halfling paladins probably worship Arvoreen (or is that only Forgotten Realms?) ;)This seems to be based more on the Christian Commandments (Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife and Property) than on the Alignment system. Alignment is based on actions more than thoughts (although I believe one cannot exist without the other). Consider that everyone is tempted to do evil (thought), but one does not become evil until they give into that temptation (action). The alignment system covers that the farmer's alignment should be CN. He is unhappy and resentful of the society he is in and actively wishes harm upon it while not actually doing any of the things he wishes for. If an evil being came forth and convinced him to willingly (or if unwilling and he enjoyed it, which goes back to my perspective of thought and action) to commit an evil act, he would become evil aligned.
Counter-argument. The farmer would harm someone had he the power to do so. He just hasn't found a victim who can't fight back yet. Were he to have cruel impulses but choose to control them himself, that would be a different kettle of fish (does anyone here keep fish in kettles?). Instead, his choice would be to harm given the opportunity, and as I understand it, that is what alignment measures. Manes and dretches are still evil in the Abyss, even though everything else there is beyond their power to harm, why is it different for the non-demon farmer?
Now for what I really want to get into.(good implies respect for life, but it doesn't entail it)!"
alsoAnd the description of good provides no warrant for the conclusion that killing is evil, either, because "respect for life" and "concern for...dignity" are not _necessarily_ incompatible with taking life.
Thank you!
Part of the paladin code (from memory) is "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Therefore, any paladin who comes across an evil which endangers an innocent is obligated to act against it. Destroying said evil both delivers punishment and ensures the safety of said innocent.
Paladins are shiny holy warriors of righteous doom. Killing is part of the job description. Seriously. The class uses heavy weapons and does horrible amounts of damage with a smite. Paladins are designed, trained and prepared for battlefield situations, and what is your job on the battlefield?... Killing.
Finally, a philosophical point. Death is a part of life. For the one concerned it is the end part. Of course a paladin should show some compassion and not kill if there is a viable alternative, but no paladin is going to endanger the innocent out of reluctance to strike down an evil-doer.
This is one problem I've always had with D&D and philosophy, D&D always makes assumptions on some
hard issues, like ethics, knowledge, the nature of the soul, etc. Really, that kind of stuff I typically ignore, since I find the categorical imperative silly, especially on issues like this. I dislike the standardized D&D line to all these ethical questions. Most of the games I play (Living Arcanis setting) do away with the ability to detect evil on non-divine people. They also cut the paladin code in half, and make it more utilitarian and open it up to any good. They also don't give answers for every question in life, like gods, mind/body, ethics, etc.
So - and understand that I'm not telling you to play D&D or be a Kantian - why do you think that not making these assumptions is an advantage to verisimilitude? (Clerics and Paladins don't seem to make sense without divinity or metaphysical moral and ethical forces backing them up.) If it's merely that you're not a Kantian and resent the fact that D&D refuses to give (some) Utilitarians the pass mark of "Good-aligned"... get over it!
The farmer would harm someone had he the power to do so. He just hasn't found a victim who can't fight back yet.
There are no small helpless animals in his vicinity? He can't lie for the sake of advantage, or otherwise cheat his neighbors? This thought experiment is not particularly plausible.
Part of the paladin code (from memory) is "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Therefore, any paladin who comes across an evil which endangers an innocent is obligated to act against it. Destroying said evil both delivers punishment and ensures the safety of said innocent.
I love the way you just slide in destruction here. A paladin who can only conceive of capital punishment is suffering from a serious failure of imagination.
Paladins are shiny holy warriors of righteous doom. Killing is part of the job description. Seriously. The class uses heavy weapons and does horrible amounts of damage with a smite. Paladins are designed, trained and prepared for battlefield situations, and what is your job on the battlefield? Killing.
So what? Nobody is seriously suggesting that undead should be spared from a well-directed smite evil, and there's plenty of them running amock.
Finally, a philosophical point. Death is a part of life. For the one concerned it is the end part. Of course a paladin should show some compassion and not kill if there is a viable alternative, but no paladin is going to endanger the innocent out of reluctance to strike down an evil-doer.
And now, again, to the straw man argument. The claim you're arguing against is this:
It is evil to willfully kill another living creature.
That's very different from the claim that you think you're arguing against, which is:
It is evil to kill another living creature.
The paladin that slays rampaging orc bandits to save the lives of others isn't willing the orcs dead. She is willing the destruction to cease. The Forces of the Cosmos (ie. the DM) will grow suspicious if the paladin is sneaky and legalistic about this: she needs to realise that the deaths of the orcs is an evil in the world, and an unhappy consequence of her actions.
A paladin is supposed to search out evil, smite it, and generally be a good guy, helping lost children find their parents and donating money to charity. However, with the black-and-white views most seem to apply to alignment in the D&D game, any paladin who tries to be a crusader will lose his powers. Simply because he might kill an innocent warrior who is commanded to fight the paladin by his evil superiors or because he might kill a throne robber who isn't evil (maybe a CN fighter killed the king and ended up on the throne). Or perhaps he kills a wanted criminal who isn't evil (the black-and-white view means that a CN street kid who steals a bread to eat is doing and evil act, thus making him "evil").
What are you on about? Could you tie your accusations to the views expressed by a poster here, because all they seem to relate to is the straw men thrown up by your fellows in the anti-good camp.
Put simply, with the "absolutist" views dominating, and many DMs having a "lesser or two evils" scenarios, most paladins, PC or NPC will spend most of his life atoning. And let's face it, that won't be much fun for the player...
I'm not sure what sort of atonement you're talking about. Is this Atonement (capitalised, italicised and magical), or atonement? In the latter, case, yeah, I think that most paladins do spend their lives atoning.
C'mon, if a paladin can't even make a white lie to save the entire material plane, something is very wrong.
Let me have a think about a scenario that cashes this out...
Vecna's one-eyed stare chilled Alhandra to the bone despite her magical protections. As the paladin fell to her knees, her blade clattered on the stone floor, the death god's laughter rang in her ears.
It was over.
"Now, mortal," Vecna gloated, "you will tell me what I wish to know, or the entire plane will perish!"
Alhandra slowly lifted her head, every fibre of her body calling out to the powers of good for aid in this desperate time. She managed defiance, "You'll get nothing from me!"
"Oh, but I will! BEHOLD!" The evil deity turned his back to Alhandra, then looked over his shoulder, "Does my arse look OK in this robe?"
... well, I think that Alhandra is totally justified in saying that Vecna looks like a total Baldwin in that super outfit if it will save the prime material. (In fact, she'd probably be justified in doing it for the sake of his feelings.)
No one is infallible. Too bad most seem to think a paladin has to be...
That's why we're discussing banning Atonement!
a good person killing an evil sentient (like an orc that's waylaying merchant caravans) isn't doing evil.
Um. Why not?
Besides, with an absolutist view of the alignments, a paladin eating meat, or even fishing to get some dinner, is doing an evil act, as he is either helping hide the evidence (and benefiting from the suffering of a being) or committing murder (since he is killing a living being).
She's certainly not Exalted. The main reason you might think that she's not doing willful evil is because her ends are sustenance - in other words: if she didn't eat, she'd die. (Caveat: this had better be a sincere gesture. Eating deer just because deer is yummy is somewhat suspicious.) We know that creatures that act purely toward sustenance and other such urges aren't evil (they're neutral), so the paladin's diet shouldn't be treated any differently. (If the paladin never ate flesh, we might consider that diet to consist of good acts rather than neutral ones.)
Besides, with an absolutist view of the alignments, a paladin eating meat, or even fishing to get some dinner, is doing an evil act, as he is either helping hide the evidence (and benefiting from the suffering of a being) or committing murder (since he is killing a living being).
Actually you are missing the polite (but real) distinction between Murder, Killing, Assassination, and Execution.
Assassination, Murder, and Execution are all forms of killing. Murder is killing someone for your own gain. Assassination is killing someone because you were ordered/paid and execution is righteously removing someone from the social equation. One of these acts is actually evil. One is relatively neutral (and implies the fault lies at least partially elsewhere), and the third is the paladin's job.
There are no small helpless animals in his vicinity? He can't lie for the sake of advantage, or otherwise cheat his neighbors? This thought experiment is not particularly plausible.
Fair enough, I'll agree with you there. Eliminating every possibility of him being able to cause harm is more difficult than we would like to believe, but how he could be stopped is not the issue, just suppose that he is. In your opinion, would the farmer be any more or less evil for any one of these three actions more than the others?
1) harming others.
2) trying and failing to harm others.
3) being too scared of others to try and harm them.
If so, or if not, why?
I love the way you just slide in destruction here. A paladin who can only conceive of capital punishment is suffering from a serious failure of imagination.
I'm glad you like it :D . You are taking my point further than it was intended though. Who says the paladin can only conceive of capital punishment? I certainly don't. I suggest that the paladin has the option of killing should he deem it best, and that option can have merits in it's favour.
So what? Nobody is seriously suggesting that undead should be spared from a well-directed smite evil, and there's plenty of them running amuck
So when the appropriate forces of good (be they gods or another source) make their contribution towards paladins, they do so with the understanding that a paladin will have to kill perhaps fairly often in the course of their duties. Therefore killing does not go against a paladins alignment or code.
What about the things that are not undead? The mind flayer slavers, the rampaging orcs and the living necromancer who creates the undead would be just as appropriate a target for a well-directed smite evil. I don't understand where and why the definition of life becomes important. Is destroying a sentient construct different to killing a living creature? If so, why?
And now, again, to the straw man argument. The claim you're arguing against is this:
It is evil to willfully kill another living creature.
That's very different from the claim that you think you're arguing against, which is:
It is evil to kill another living creature.
The paladin that slays rampaging orc bandits to save the lives of others isn't willing the orcs dead. She is willing the destruction to cease.
If that's what I'm doing, I apologise. What I'm interested in is where willfully is different to willingly or intentionally. One could argue that an assassin who kills for money is not willing his target dead, but willing himself rich. That is different because it is done for personal gain, but could still be claimed to be not willfully killing.
she needs to realise that the deaths of the orcs is an evil in the world, and an unhappy consequence of her actions.
Why is it? The orcs in question are rampaging bandits so are not the lives of those orcs an evil in the world? If orc children lost their fathers because of the paladin that would be an unhappy consequence of her actions. However, in this context, how much of a loss would it be to the orc children? My guess is that the children are not treated kindly and that there is little love between the child and it's father (perhaps I am oversimplifying this, but in this case we can rightfully call the orc bandits "monsters"). Unhappy consequence would be orc children without providers, if they were somehow brought somewhere where they could be raised well and end up living nobler and more fulfilling lives than they would have in an evil tribe then all would be for the best.
Was that a bit overdone??? Oh, well. So much for that entrance.
Whence came this whole 'killing of sentient beings' being evil thing? The only thing I find in the alignment passages is the phrase 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings.' If we apply definitions from Webster's 1828, we could write this as 'careful regard for the honor, nobleness of mind, sense of propriety, truth, justice, and abhorrence of sinful actions by those having the faculties of receiving impressions through the senses.' With this in mind, while animals are indeed sentient by definition, they lack dignity, as they have no nobleness of mind, sense of truth, etc. So, a good character's 'concern' must therefore be over those sentient beings which fall somewhat above the intelligence of the average animal. Simply put, they wish to promote truth, justice, and the Amer... er... good vibes to all, shall we say, 'intelligent' species. The not killing animals wantonly is covered under the 'respect for life' phrase, which is not a prohibition against killing for purposes of sustenance for example.
At any rate, there are two separate, but intertwined, forces at play here; one of alignment, and the other concerns the paladin's code of conduct. I'll tackle alignment first (and just hope he's not bigger than me), going by the PHB, since we are using the rules of the game, and not those of real-world life (though, where did the PHB rules come from anyway?... ;) )
I. "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by his alignment:...[alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent." - PHB pg. 103
From this we can determine that alignment is a general guideline, something the character should be practicing a majority of the time. As there is a built-in expectation of infraction from time to time, minor errors of moral/philosophical judgment should not warrant immediate expulsion from one alignment into another. It is when repeated and/or increasing numbers of such 'errors of judgment' begin to overwhelm professed beliefs that a new alignment should be considered.
IIa. "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life... 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
IIb. "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties... 'Law' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." - PHB pg. 104
The above two passages include one key word: implies. While the precepts presented are the common M.O. for the alignment parts, the possibility of infraction is again taken into account as in passage I, reinforcing it in fact.
IIIa. "Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."
IIIb. "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." - PHB ppg. 104-105
Passage IIIa again in very plain language shows that a character's alignment does not put the character's actions in a box. IIIb is basically the offspring of IIa and IIb.
So at this point, we have determined that while a LG character is, as an ideal, honorable, trustworthy, puts the needs of others above his own needs, etc., such ideals are just that, ideals, and not requirements. The character is expected to make the honest attempt to achieve the ideals of alignment, but is not expected to ever achieve them fully.
Now onward to the Paladin's Code.
"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 respects 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 threatens innocents." - PHB pg. 44
Bunches of stuff going on here. Let the dissection begin (as much as I hate to; all the icky green crud comes out, and the stuff that looks like rancid worms... oh sorry, that's something different...)
Note the use of the phrase 'willingly commits an evil act.' Page 104 of the PHB illustrates evil characters as those that would destroy or debase innocent life, wether for fun or profit. They hurt, oppress, and kill out of lack of compassion, for the sport of it, or out of duty to a superior. So in order for a paladin to lose abilities in the short form, an evil act must be performed, but not just any evil act: it must be done willingly. Not coerced, not charmed, not accidental, but because the paladin, out of malice or personal gain, wants the act to take place.
Also, the only thing which is stated as costing the paladin the use of abilities is the performing of an evil act. The remainder are not included in this statement. From this we can deduce that the other parts of the code are treated in a similar fashion as violations of alignment, and must be repeated and/or become more frequent for such drastic action as ability removal to be taken.
As for other points of the code that have been discussed, with the aforementioned parts of this post casting a glance over our shoulders:
Respecting Legitimate Authority: Key word - legitimate. The paladin will abide by the laws of the country to the extant of his ability and code, provided they come from a properly established government. Laws made by a prince who murders his father to claim the throne would not be considered legitimate, so the paladin is free to ignore them and display his duty to see the newfound tyrant brought to justice (using extreme caution when doing so, of course). In a case such as an orc camp, where the chief gains his position through defeat of a rival in single combat, the paladin would see the current chief as legitimate, even if he personally finds the situation highly distasteful. Let the desire to fight evil reign here.
Acting with Honor: lie v.i. ...to say or do that which deceives another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation. ; cheat v.t. To deceive and defraud in a bargain; to deceive for the purpose of gain in selling. Its proper application is to commerce... To deceive by any artifice, trick or device, with a view to gain an advantage contrary to common honesty; as to cheat a person at cards. - Webster's 1828
The key point when lying is whether the person/creature being lied to deserves to be told the truth. A demon (to use the provided example), would never have a 'right' to know the truth about pretty much anything, as would most BBEGs out there. There is simply no requirement to tell them anything honestly. This may require careful timing in some instances, such as fibbing to an evil aristocrat during a banquet within earshot of witnesses. While the witnesses were not intentionally lied to, the repercussions of their reactions to the lie may indirectly cause harm.
Cheating is pretty straightforward, though an important point is that any deal, oath, or promise made under duress has no legal standing (if such is the common law of the land).
All in all, the life of a paladin is difficult, but not impossible. To run through a couple of examples found in the thread:
The paladin faced with the decision to coup de grace an infant or release a demon should not lose paladinhood for the death of the infant. Assuming that another option could not be found (such as if the paladin shedding his own blood ruins the summoning), the best situation would be to end the slow suffering of the infant and preventing the beast from emerging into the world. It would not be a willfully evil act. The paladin did not take the child's life for the sake of his own jollies, but by coercion (i.e. do it or else). In a case like this, at worst an enforced geas upon the paladin to visit the infant's family and ask their forgiveness would be appropriate, but if the paladin was being played well, the player would do something like that anyway.
The 'lesser of two evils' scenario isn't even that. An orc is going around pillaging the citizenry (and if he follows the normal M.O. for an orc), killing as well. The paladin's code requires punishment of those who harm innocents, and his alignment adds that evil must be opposed and the guilty get punished. It's a paladins duty to capture/kill the orc (situation dependent).
A paladin facing a cowering kobold mother and her children is a complex matter, and should really be determined by such things as how the local government has decreed the matter, how the paladin's religion affects the decision, and so forth. It depends upon the individual DMs call and how such laws/dogma fit into the campaign.
This is a great example of why a code of conduct needs to be set in place for paladins in a campaign, tailored to suit the culture/religion of the paladin. Clerics and any other character belonging to an organization should also know the rules of their respective peers.
In your opinion, would the farmer be any more or less evil for any one of these three actions more than the others?
1) harming others.
2) trying and failing to harm others.
3) being too scared of others to try and harm them.
If so, or if not, why?
A person being evil, in D&D parlance, means that they tend to act in an evil manner. It might be said that (3) is less evil, but I'd resist that: the only reason that the farmer in this scenario does not seem to act in an evil way is that fortune (in the form of his character) intervenes and stays her hand. That's the same kind of scenario as (2), and that surely is no less evil than (1).
If that isn't self evident, consider this case: A paladin is faced with a choice of two evil acts to stop. She may not stop both. It seems fairly clear the right thing for her to do is to stop the act that is more evil. Let us suppose that act-A (if it were not stopped) would be more evil than act-B (if it were not stopped), and that the paladin therefore chooses to stop act-A.
Now, if the actualisation of the action is what determines its moral weight, then the paladin actually stopped the less evil action, just because she stopped it! Equally, the agent who attempted act-A might think herself to have acted more rightly than the agent who attempted act-B, by virtue of having been thwarted.
If those sorts of conclusions don't seem right, then I suspect you're with me on (1) and (2) having moral parity.
You are taking my point further than it was intended though. Who says the paladin can only conceive of capital punishment? I certainly don't. I suggest that the paladin has the option of killing should he deem it best, and that option can have merits in it's favour.
In that case, the point doesn't run far enough to support the conclusion that killing isn't evil.
So when the appropriate forces of good (be they gods or another source) make their contribution towards paladins, they do so with the understanding that a paladin will have to kill perhaps fairly often in the course of their duties. Therefore killing does not go against a paladins alignment or code.
I agree to some extent, but that doesn't show that killing is not evil. It only shows that a paladin's good actions may have evil outcomes.
What about the things that are not undead? The mind flayer slavers, the rampaging orcs and the living necromancer who creates the undead would be just as appropriate a target for a well-directed smite evil.
Yes, though killing them is evil in a way that destroying undead is not. Clobbering devils and demons on the material plane is usually fine as well, as they don't die from the experience. ("I will that it you were not here," is not an evil thought.)
I don't understand where and why the definition of life becomes important. Is destroying a sentient construct different to killing a living creature? If so, why?
As far as D&D is concerned, take it up with the rules.
For my own part, it depends on how sentient the construct is. If it can feel pain, then that seems like a very good reason not to hurt it; If it can't, then destroying it would only be vandalism - still bad, but not in the same order as killing.
(If we're talking about a sapient construct, then that's an altogether different matter. Clearly, a creature that has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong action is something of inherent worth, and it would be evil to will its destruction.)
What I'm interested in is where willfully is different to willingly or intentionally. One could argue that an assassin who kills for money is not willing his target dead, but willing himself rich. That is different because it is done for personal gain, but could still be claimed to be not willfully killing.
It could be argued that way (and that's probably what the assassin thinks to herself). However, the end "stop destruction" can come about without the deaths of the destroyers. The end "become rich through assassination" cannot come about without either the deaths of the victims of assassination or lying to those who contract their deaths. Either course is evil (though we might be more sympathetic to the liar who styles herself as an assassin in order to exploit the wicked).
The orcs in question are rampaging bandits so are not the lives of those orcs an evil in the world.
That sort of thinking is evil. The lives of others cannot rightly be considered as mere chips on a gaming table.
Sorry, I had to.Second, I'd like to say that the space-time continuum exploding from the reverberation of trillions of voices raised in the ever-increasing volume of verbal ping-pong is beginning to become a genuine possibility.
Third of all, I'm still going to try and have the last word. :D
So, now to resume our friendly bickering (my favourite pastime when not sliding in destruction).
A person being evil, in D&D parlance, means that they tend to act in an evil manner. It might be said that (3) is less evil, but I'd resist that: the only reason that the farmer in this scenario does not seem to act in an evil way is that fortune (in the form of his character) intervenes and stays her hand. That's the same kind of scenario as (2), and that surely is no less evil than (1).
My point entirely. It is possible to be evil yet restrained by circumstance (which is why we build prisons
).In that case, the point doesn't run far enough to support the conclusion that killing isn't evil.
My case in a nutshell:
Paladins do not have the option of doing evil.
Paladins often have the option of killing.
Therefore the option of killing is not automatically evil.
What I'm arguing against is that killing is invariably and definitively evil. So butchering a child is quite obviously evil but hacking the head off the deranged cultist who intends to butcher said child is not evil.
Yes, though killing them is evil in a way that destroying undead is not.
Why? The action is still MSD - Make Something Dead. Undead are just closer to being dead to begin with.
Consequentialist argument: end result is still a creature now dead.
Action-based argument (forgotten the technical term): making an undead creature fully dead takes just as much (if not more) effort or just as great a contribution towards the MSD process as a living creature does.
What makes the destruction of undead acceptable? ("Because they are not alive" will recieve "So?") Is it because they are active and predatory evil? In which case destroying any active and predatory evil is not an evil act. Or do undead not have the right to exist? Aside from the subject of Baelnorn (chaotic good liches in Forgotten Realms), this would put a dent in your other argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbrand
The orcs in question are rampaging bandits so are not the lives of those orcs an evil in the world.
That sort of thinking is evil. The lives of others cannot rightly be considered as mere chips on a gaming table.
I'll get back to this discussion later, but I want to keep in order.
Clobbering devils and demons on the material plane is usually fine as well, as they don't die from the experience. ("I will that it you were not here," is not an evil thought.)
As an aside. Clobbering things is fine so long as they don't die? So paladins can beat up random people so long as they survive?
An inconsistency I've noticed. Your sources for points disagree on other points you make.
1: A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough (From 3rd Edition onwards, 1st and 2nd Edition paladins needed gods, although there was the option of philosophy paladins but they were less likely than philosophy clerics).
2: That demons and devils don't die on the material plane but instead get banished is from 1st and 2nd Edition. In 3rd Edition onwards they do die on the material plane. Just look at the difference between Summoning and Calling magic.
I think demon lords and princes are the exception but your run-of-the-mill average balor or pit fiend (as much an oxymoron as that is) will perish if a Holy Avenger is rammed down its gullet.
Originally Posted by Stormbrand
The orcs in question are rampaging bandits so are not the lives of those orcs an evil in the world? (Question mark inserted because I got the punctuation wrong first time around)
That sort of thinking is evil. The lives of others cannot rightly be considered as mere chips on a gaming table.
That is based on the assumption that killing is always evil by definition, the point that is being challenged. I think you make a very circular argument.
Isn't D&D all about lives being chips on the gaming table. :D
The rampaging bandits could be considered an evil in the world for exactly that reason: they are bandits who rampage. Therefore their continued existence brings about evil consequences. Whilst remedying the fact that they are rampaging bandits is ideal, remedying their continued existence seems a fair solution. Not an evil result at all.
yeah, I think that most paladins do spend their lives atoning.
This is the concept that I disagree with the most. Paladins are given a mission to do. Why should they atone for doing it? In truth, I think it is downright silly to expect a paladin to apologise for acting like a paladin.
If not killing the innocent will suddenly, unquestionably, and irrevocably result in 10,000 years of darkness, your duty is to fight against that darkness and to help others to return the world to light. It's not the easy or convenient choice; killing the innocent is the easy way out which is part of what makes it the Evil choice. If you are absolutely guaranteed to have -no- means of fighting against the darkness, or the Demon, then your DM is just an ass.
Willfully killing innocents is always just plain evil and, in any realistic scenario, there will always be an alternative. Neutralizing creatures that pose a clear and present danger to society or to other innocent life, by whatever means necessary, is fine (and arguably one of the Paladin's primary missions). Death in many of these circumstances will still be regrettable (perhaps not to a large extent) but will often be the only reasonable way to neutralize the threat.
As the OP initially set out, Paladins don't have to be difficult to understand.
A person being evil, in D&D parlance, means that they tend to act in an evil manner. It might be said that (3) is less evil, but I'd resist that: the only reason that the farmer in this scenario does not seem to act in an evil way is that fortune (in the form of his character) intervenes and stays her hand. That's the same kind of scenario as (2), and that surely is no less evil than (1).
Agreed. The sheer logistics of keeping an evil being harmless would probably be a nightmare.
In that case, the point doesn't run far enough to support the conclusion that killing isn't evil.
I agree to some extent, but that doesn't show that killing is not evil. It only shows that a paladin's good actions may have evil outcomes.
My case in short: paladins do not have the option of doing evil, paladins do have the option of killing, so therefore killing is not always evil.
Yes, though killing them is evil in a way that destroying undead is not. Clobbering devils and demons on the material plane is usually fine as well, as they don't die from the experience. ("I will that it you were not here," is not an evil thought.)
Look at the difference between Summoning and Calling spells. Summoned creatures reform but Called creatures can be killed because the creature is fully brought forth. On that grounds demons and devils can die on the material plane, given sufficient "encouragement" (such as a holy avenger rammed down the gullet).
How is destroying undead different to a living creature? Mindless undead I can agree with (that destroying them is not really killing), but with sentient undead destroying them still counts as killing to me. The fact that they do not follow biological life processes seems irrelevent. In my mind, their destruction is justified on the grounds that they are active and predatory evil - which also justifies killing the mind flayer slavers or the cruel bandits.
That sort of thinking is evil. The lives of others cannot rightly be considered as mere chips on a gaming table.
That is based on the assumption that killing is evil by definition, the very point up for debate. That is a circular argument.
I'm not sure what sort of atonement you're talking about. Is this Atonement (capitalised, italicised and magical), or atonement? In the latter, case, yeah, I think that most paladins do spend their lives atoning.
As I understand atonement, it is for doing something wrong. Paladins should not be expected to apologise for acting like paladins.
So if a paladin does detect that the farmer in the corner is evil, how should that affect his actions? The paladin would prefer to have nothing to do with the individual. He would probably warn his friends concerning their dealings with the individual, and that is about as far as he would take the matter. If the paladin found it necessary to deal with the evil farmer (let us pretend the paladin needs to buy a pig and the farmer is the only pig farmer around), he will do so in the most expedient way and be done with it. The paladin will realize that the best way to help such an individual is to simply be polite, be kind, be merciful, and be generous (as usual). Even doing so, the paladin will realize that no matter what he does, his actions are only more likely to embitter the evil farmer more. Usually there is nothing to be done about it. Sometimes, an opportunity to influence the evil person towards good will present itself, but even then, the good deed is as likely to be spat upon as it is to be welcomed.
Actually, I think it would be entirely acceptable for the paladin to sit down with the farmer (if he asked for the farmer's permission and received it) and talk to him, possibly even saying "I'm a paladin, can you tell? Well, anyway, I have been told you are evil, is this true?" Yes, he's associating with an evil character, but he's doing so to ascertain the proper course of action towards the farmer.
He can possibly attempt to redeem him by reminding the farmer of the quiet honor and goodness of providing for his family, the town, and for any adventurers that come through and eat food grown or raised by him, telling the farmer of the rewards he could receive in the afterlife, and the rewards of helping people, not monetary, but reputation, esteem, possibly he may gain enough respect and reputation that he could well be mayor and do great good.
Likewise, if the farmer confesses to committing a crime, such as beating his wife and children (if such is a crime in the city/kingdom), the paladin has the responsibility of bringing him to justice, which would more likely be discussion and counsel than turning the farmer into the town guard.
It's a somewhat false dichotomy. The Paladin might make such a choice in the heat of the moment, but when deliberating (or reviewing their actions) they ought to realise that killing is simply evil, and that status cannot change no matter the situation. Hence, slaying orcs in defence of innocents is, naturally, what the Paladin ought to do: that doesn't mean that killing them is 'good'. Again, if the Paladin doesn't realise that they are doing wrong and pray for forgiveness then they're simply not a Paladin.
Actually, the true paladin thing to do is to choose neither evil, but rather do both good acts, save the child then go kill the demon.
Think how Batman towards the end of Batman Forever, was given a choice of who to save, his girlfriend or Robin. He chose to save one, then saved the other at the same time.
There is a big difference between killing someone and murder. Killing based on prejudice (just because they are evil) is murder. When playing a character that is acting as judge, jury, and executioner, he is held to a higher standard on dishing out 'permanent' punishment. A Paladin is about Justice as well as good.
You just made me think of a personality trait I have to add to my upcoming paladin: the Judge Dredd personality. However, it must be tempered by good (I'd say JD is LN).
"For your crimes against the village, Erti, consisting of ****, murder, theft, vandalism, oppression and assault, I have sentenced you to death by the power vested in me by the forces of good. You may instead promise to serve the forces of good, rebuild the village, accept 50 lashes, and serve the village as an indentured servant for 200 consecutive life terms, one for each villager you killed. Your life will be extended that you may serve this time fully. Should you at any time commit a new crime during this sentence, you will forfeit all right to it, and be put to death immediately. There is no chance for parole or a shortened sentence. Now choose, Death or Servitude."
I suppose the mere fact that there is an alternative sentence is tempering it with good, right?
As the OP initially set out, Paladins don't have to be difficult to understand.
After some consideration, I've come to the conclusion that you have it right here. Sacrificing the innocent is never the good action. You save the innocent and then, if must be, fight the demon who escapes somehow as a result of the innocent surviving. Frankly the more I think about this, the more I think it's just a way for someone evil to try to corrupt the paladin: "kill the innocent and I won't unleash this evil on the world."
2: That demons and devils don't die on the material plane but instead get banished is from 1st and 2nd Edition. In 3rd Edition onwards they do die on the material plane. Just look at the difference between Summoning and Calling magic.
Well, actually, a demon slain outside of the abyss is destroyed bodily, but its life essence is returned to the abyss and reincarnated in a new body. A demon slain in the abyss is destroyed body and "soul".
Actually, the true paladin thing to do is to choose neither evil, but rather do both good acts, save the child then go kill the demon.
That assumes that you actually can kill the demon.
Think how Batman towards the end of Batman Forever, was given a choice of who to save, his girlfriend or Robin. He chose to save one, then saved the other at the same time.
The problem here, is, the question is "this or that." The answer is not, "both." This is what happens in your situation:
"I save the child."
"Now the world is doomed to ten thousand years of torture! BWAHAHAHA!'
"Die, evil demon!"
"What? Did you just attack me? I'm sorry, I didn't feel that. Might have something to do my DR 500/epic. Uh, Smite Good, five attacks at +362 to hit makes for 50d6+3965 damage. Oh, and for your insolence, I shall damn the world to twenty-thousand years of torture instead. Not that you care, ‘cause you're dead."
That assumes that you actually can kill the demon.
The problem here, is, the question is "this or that." The answer is not, "both." This is what happens in your situation:
"I save the child."
"Now the world is doomed to ten thousand years of torture! BWAHAHAHA!'
"Die, evil demon!"
"What? Did you just attack me? I'm sorry, I didn't feel that. Might have something to do my DR 500/epic. Uh, Smite Good, five attacks at +362 to hit makes for 50d6+3965 damage. Oh, and for your insolence, I shall damn the world to twenty-thousand years of torture instead. Not that you care, ‘cause you're dead."
Actually all of that, silly as it is, has no bearing on the choice. The demon has offered the paladin a choice between doing evil and the demon doing evil. That's no choice at all, as the paladin won't do evil. He will do his best to fight evil, even if that means defeat. The choice "do evil or I will do evil" is just an attempt to corrupt the paladin, and in fact no choice at all.
That assumes that you actually can kill the demon.
The problem here, is, the question is "this or that." The answer is not, "both." This is what happens in your situation:
"I save the child."
"Now the world is doomed to ten thousand years of torture! BWAHAHAHA!'
"Die, evil demon!"
"What? Did you just attack me? I'm sorry, I didn't feel that. Might have something to do my DR 500/epic. Uh, Smite Good, five attacks at +362 to hit makes for 50d6+3965 damage. Oh, and for your insolence, I shall damn the world to twenty-thousand years of torture instead. Not that you care, ‘cause you're dead."
This assumes that no one could kill the demon.
The paladin would still save the baby and then do whatever within his power to stop the demon. If the demon is stronger than the paladin, the paladin finds someone who can stop it.
If the demon is THAT powerful then the paladin contacts the appropriate parties by the means of praying, hard, and pray that it works. But THAT thing is cause for divine intervention.
Furthermore, in my view, and the view of most paladins, an act of evil never leads to good. Without the intervention of a completely inappropriate DM, killing an innocent baby would never be the way to stop a demon. In fact, killing the baby would probably be how to release the demon.
Therefore, I see the radical good deontologist as CG, the radical consequentialist as NG, and the LG as someone who considers both and seeks to take the most honorable path. The very fact that the Paladin is bound to both good and law (which is not always good) requires hard choices. The honorable path in the baby or scenario decision is to look for a third solution until the choice cannot be delayed any more.
Rimlar
A character can be good and have either a highly deontological perspective or a highly consequentialist perspective. Different perspectives is one reason why good nations can be at war and good people can be at odds. However, however a Paladin must consider both because he is lawful and part of lawfulness is responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Being pure of heart and acting on nothing but good intentions no matter what results, could be thought of as a very chaotic good perspective. If you are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions, you need to consider your actions (which are consequentialist).
Therefore, I see the radical good deontologist as CG, the radical consequentialist as NG, and the LG as someone who considers both and seeks to take the most honorable path. The very fact that the Paladin is bound to both good and law (which is not always good) requires hard choices. The honorable path in the baby or scenario decision is to look for a third solution until the choice cannot be delayed any more.
Could you compare and contrast the terms "deontologist" and "consequentialist" for those of us unfamiliar with them? From the context it sounds like "consequentialist" refers to someone who defines the goodness of an act based on its consquences, while in contrast them a "deontologist" would define the goodness of an act based on the actor's motivations. If I'm anywhere close to the actual definitions, I'd say that most people fall somewhere in between, and that American law recognizes both to some degree.
This is an excellent point. Even in D&D where actions determine if you are evil it is perfectly possible for a nobody to be evil without ever breaking the law. Cruelty, Greed, and Selfishness can all be exercised in perfectly legal ways.
Further this addresses another topic of concern with paladins: how do you maintain a mystery when a paladin can detect evil at will? The answer lies in nightwing's preceding statement. One out of every three people the paladin meets should detect as evil. Commoners, nobles, merchants, etc. can all be evil without being actionable by the paladin. Make sure that the villain is not someone who appears guilty or has taken an evil action (that anyone knows off) so that he is hidden in a cloud of minor evil thus requiring investigation to learn the truth.
I hate to bring in another system but. .
Evil is where someone's "humanity" slider is put. What acts are considered, to them, beyond the pale? What acts would make them feel intensely guilty. Do they kill with no pangs and no regrets? Probably have slid over towards evil. Would they be WILLING to kill real people, but just not had the opportunity, and not feel the slightest bit guilty about their fantasies? Moved towards evil.
Actions can move someone around on the scale, but what they are is in what they are WILLING to do without compunction, not solely what they "have done."
Relatedly, someone who cheats on their taxes is probably not "Evil" but "Neutral." Neutral needs to be used quite a bit more than it is instead of evil. By the standards many people here use for evil, 95% of the world is evil. Detect evil would be useless because the paladin would just be drowning in a sea of it.
In and of itself, killing ANYTHING is an evil deed.
I disagree. Violence is morally neutral. It is the perpetrator and recipient of the violent deed that makes it good or bad. Killing a vicious, genocidal tyrant (like Stalin, for instance) is NOT an evil deed. Killing an innocent or good person (like Mother Theresa) would be.
Could you compare and contrast the terms "deontologist" and "consequentialist" for those of us unfamiliar with them? From the context it sounds like "consequentialist" refers to someone who defines the goodness of an act based on its consquences, while in contrast them a "deontologist" would define the goodness of an act based on the actor's motivations. If I'm anywhere close to the actual definitions, I'd say that most people fall somewhere in between, and that American law recognizes both to some degree.
They are both defined further up in the thread. You are basically right.
Mike
My take on paladins is this: a reserved "for the greater good." The question is one of motive. Lying to a daemon to save the world is OK. Lying to save his arse is not OK. This is of course only true of "normal" paladins. An exalted paladin can't even tell a white lie in my book.
Note though that to sacrifice his paladinhood to save the world is a grey area. It may have been done to save the world, but his paladinhood is not something to throw away every time it is the easiest way to go.
That fact that the Paladin failed to save either is also not relevant. All that matters is that the Paladin tried to save them both, which is what he SHOULD do. The true Paladin should ignore the words of the demon, and immediately attack him. Yes, this gets him killed. Yes, this dooms both the world and the girl. So what? The Paladin has done his duty.
If you object to this idea and insist on blaming the Paladin for the girl's doom or the world's doom, then you are not Paladin material. Of course, it also explains why some good people do not like Paladins.
The fundamental question to the paladin is, "What does my deity think of this authority?" A paladin is an extension of the will of his deity, much like a cleric. No paladin will consider any authority "legitimate" unless his deity does. A paladin's powers are the "seal of approval" from his god. Thus, clerics' and paladins' position on many issues aught to be much more clear-cut if the players and DM consider the nature and point of view of the deity.
Also, I think the discussion on the baby-rescuing/demon-unleashing issue was off-point. My original example was wildly hypothetical. The point, of course, was to show an example of the sorts of predicaments some DMs love to put their paladins in which are entirely unfair due to the severity, irrevocability, and the over-assignment of burden on the poor paladin. While it is quite rewarding to have paladins prove their mettle in tough circumstances, it is hardly encouraging, fun, or fair to have a deity of law and goodness judge his champion over-harshly. In most such situations, the predicament was engineered to be difficult by the BBEG (read: DM) and was hardly brought about by the will of the paladin. Thus, split-second lose/lose decisions can not cause a paladin's "fall from grace."
Relatedly, someone who cheats on their taxes is probably not "Evil" but "Neutral." Neutral needs to be used quite a bit more than it is instead of evil. By the standards many people here use for evil, 95% of the world is evil. Detect evil would be useless because the paladin would just be drowning in a sea of it.
What makes a tax different from paying a price or making a contribution? A company cannot seize you and throw you in prison for refusing to buy its produce. A charity cannot seize you and throw you in prison for refusing to contribute. But the government can and does seize people and throw them in jail for refusing to pay taxes. Taxes are backed by the use and threat of force. It doesn't matter whether the taxes are imposed by a dictator, a minority or a majority--it still uses force or the threat of force to make you pay, whether you consented or not. Therefore there's nothing evil about refusing to pay taxes; indeed, opposing such tyranny would constitute a good act.
When trying to figure out what a Paladin would do, since my group is mostly comix dorx, we always ask "What Would Superman Do?" since he’s the ultimate lawful good paladin
Except superman doesn't kill, and often, paladins are required to.
I might get a lot of critique for this, but what the hell...
My take on paladins is this: a reserved "for the greater good." The question is one of motive. Lying to a daemon to save the world is OK. Lying to save his arse is not OK. This is of course only true of "normal" paladins. An exalted paladin can't even tell a white lie in my book.
Note though that to sacrifice his paladinhood to save the world is a grey area. It may have been done to save the world, but his paladinhood is not something to throw away every time it is the easiest way to go.
Point of interest: the definition of lying is to deny the truth to someone who deserves to know it, thus it's impossible to lie to a demon as they themselves lie, cheat, kill, steal, etc. and thus do not deserve to be told the truth.
If the town guard asked the paladin "Did you kill that man?" the paladin must answer truthfully or lose his paladin-hood. If a demon asks "Did you kill that man?" the paladin may answer as he pleases because denying the truth in answer to a demon is not a lie.
Except superman doesn't kill, and often, paladins are required to.
To avoid political problems in the 1950s, the censors at DC Comics decided to impose a "no-killing" rule on their superheroes. Even today you'll see that sentiment in many DC comics productions, including the relatively recent Justice League series.
On the other hand, after his brainwashing by Darkseid in the final episodes of their Superman animated series, the Superman in Justice League was willing to kill Darkseid.
I've generally thought of Superman as being paladinal too; generally he has been the boy scout of the superheroes. I've always thought though that he's more interested in justice than in law, so that while he's generally what we consider lawful, he's more good than he is lawful. In the first Superman movie, for instance, he breaks the law of Jor-El against interfering in the affairs of man by turning back time and changing events. Indeed his very presence as an unauthorized crime-fighter (vigilante) breaks the law.
When trying to figure out what a Paladin would do, since my group is mostly comix dorx, we always ask "What Would Superman Do?" since he’s the ultimate lawful good paladin
I would tear down the villains stronghold with my unstoppable power, throw the newly formed unholy continent into orbit, melt my foes weapons with flaming eye-rays...
There was also one film where he turns back time by flying fast enough to make the world spin backwards on its axis. Immeasurable power opens up far more options than are there for your typical paladin. Read the “What Would Thor Do?” strip in Order of the Stick.
I would tear down the villains stronghold with my unstoppable power, throw the newly formed unholy continent into orbit, melt my foes weapons with flaming eye-rays...
There was also one film where he turns back time by flying fast enough to make the world spin backwards on its axis. Immeasurable power opens up far more options than are there for your typical paladin. Read the “What Would Thor Do?” strip in Order of the Stick.
While that's humorous, I think you might have missed the larger point. It's not a matter or Superman doing this or that superhuman feat, but rather that Superman wouldn't kill the innocent. He would do his best to rescue the innocent and otherwise stymie the evil being.
Rather than thinking of Superman's turning time back, think of the most recent episode of Smallville. There the Green Arrow (Oliver Queen), using a regeneration drug that makes him more angry and violent, would have killed Lex Luthor had not Clark intervened. By saving Lex, Clark also saves Oliver Queen from becoming a murderer.
Later, when Clark visits Oliver and who tells Clark that he's stopped using the drug. When Clark asks him why, he says it's because of Clark. "I took the drug so I could be more like Clark Kent, but then I realized that Clark Kent would never have killed Lex Luthor." And that's the sort of thing that I think kadeity means when he asks, "What would Superman do." It's not Superman's physical actions, but his moral actions that serve as a compass for paladinal behavior.
While that's humorous, I think you might have missed the larger point. It's not a matter or Superman doing this or that superhuman feat, but rather that Superman wouldn't kill the innocent. He would do his best to rescue the innocent and otherwise stymie the evil being.
Rather than thinking of Superman's turning time back, think of the most recent episode of Smallville. There the Green Arrow (Oliver Queen), using a regeneration drug that makes him more angry and violent, would have killed Lex Luthor had not Clark intervened. By saving Lex, Clark also saves Oliver Queen from becoming a murderer.
Later, when Clark visits Oliver and who tells Clark that he's stopped using the drug. When Clark asks him why, he says it's because of Clark. "I took the drug so I could be more like Clark Kent, but then I realized that Clark Kent would never have killed Lex Luthor." And that's the sort of thing that I think kadeity means when he asks, "What would Superman do." It's not Superman's physical actions, but his moral actions that serve as a compass for paladinal behavior.
A much better example. That one works. However, although I have not seen much of Superman, I can't think of him ever being on a battlefield. Or reliably facing foes beyond his ability to overpower. Remember, the danger is kryptonite and NOT his enemy. Paladins do face enemies who can easily kill them given a chance.
My point is that Superman faces the DC world, where there is little risk of true death. Paladins face life and death situations regularly. Superman not only has greater powers than paladins, he has an easier time too.
A much better example. That one works. However, although I have not seen much of Superman, I can't think of him ever being on a battlefield. Or reliably facing foes beyond his ability to overpower. Remember, the danger is kryptonite and NOT his enemy. Paladins do face enemies who can easily kill them given a chance.
My point is that Superman faces the DC world, where there is little risk of true death. Paladins face life and death situations regularly. Superman not only has greater powers than paladins, he has an easier time too.
You're saying that his physical power affects his ethical choices in a positive direction. People though are more likely to be affected in a negative direction by power, thus Lord Acton's admonition that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To avoid political problems in the 1950s, the censors at DC Comics decided to impose a "no-killing" rule on their superheroes. Even today you'll see that sentiment in many DC comics productions, including the relatively recent Justice League series.
On the other hand, after his brainwashing by Darkseid in the final episodes of their Superman animated series, the Superman in Justice League was willing to kill Darkseid.
I've generally thought of Superman as being paladinal too; generally he has been the boy scout of the superheroes. I've always thought though that he's more interested in justice than in law, so that while he's generally what we consider lawful, he's more good than he is lawful. In the first Superman movie, for instance, he breaks the law of Jor-El against interfering in the affairs of man by turning back time and changing events. Indeed his very presence as an unauthorized crime-fighter (vigilante) breaks the law.
See, I've always thought the best superhero to look at when talking about Paladins is Captain America. He's honorable, fights for an ideal, and does. Not. Yield. Cap will find a way to defeat foes far more powerful than him, and sees self-sacrifice as a normal course of action.
You want to play a paladin?
Read the Savage Tales of Solomon Kane.
Read the "man without a country" story arc from Captain America.
Listen to "Beer for My Horses" and "American Soldier" by Toby Keith.
Brush up on the exploits of Sir Gallahad.
Watch Kingdom of Heaven and observe How Balian behaves from the moment he washes up on shore.
Watch or read Lord of the Rings and observe how Aragorn behaves.
And remember this phrase, above all:
"It is better to do right and die than to do wrong and prosper."
You're saying that his physical power affects his ethical choices in a positive direction. People though are more likely to be affected in a negative direction by power, thus Lord Acton's admonition that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have to admit, I’m not as familiar with Superman as many are. Please forgive my ignorance. It seems to me, however, that superman is an epic paladin among commoners. I think he's a great example for paladins in a similar situation. Once he tears through the villains super armor he's a cyborg with a bazooka vs. a child with a water pistol. No paladin is going to kill an enemy they can easy subdue and bring to the proper authorities. Though Superman acts as a god-like paladin should, most paladins have limitations.
For example, an evil necromancer has leaned a ritual that allows him to create an unlimited # of undead minions. He creates an army big enough to take over the nearest capital city. What would superman do? He'd destroy the undead army. Fly into the necromancers citadel, subdue the necromancer and throw his citadel into space. Bring the necromancer in to the proper authorities. Not break a sweat.
What would the paladin do? Try to fight his way to the necromancers abode and stop him if he can. He's not going to lose his paladin status if he kills the necromancer. While he would probably subdue the necromancer and take him to justice if he can, he'll probably have to kill him. There's just no comparison.
I have to admit, I’m not as familiar with Superman as many are. Please forgive my ignorance. It seems to me, however, that superman is an epic paladin among commoners. I think he's a great example for paladins in a similar situation. Once he tears through the villains super armor he's a cyborg with a bazooka vs. a child with a water pistol. No paladin is going to kill an enemy they can easy subdue and bring to the proper authorities. Though Superman acts as a god-like paladin should, most paladins have limitations.
For example, an evil necromancer has leaned a ritual that allows him to create an unlimited # of undead minions. He creates an army big enough to take over the nearest capital city. What would superman do? He'd destroy the undead army. Fly into the necromancers citadel, subdue the necromancer and throw his citadel into space. Bring the necromancer in to the proper authorities. Not break a sweat.
What would the paladin do? Try to fight his way to the necromancers abode and stop him if he can. He's not going to lose his paladin status if he kills the necromancer. While he would probably subdue the necromancer and take him to justice if he can, he'll probably have to kill him. There's just no comparison.
I've played a number of paladins that have made no attempt whatsoever to take extremely evil foes alive. Paladins are well within their CoC, alignment, and job description to simply kill someone like the necromancer you described.
See, I've always thought the best superhero to look at when talking about Paladins is Captain America. He's honorable, fights for an ideal, and does. Not. Yield. Cap will find a way to defeat foes far more powerful than him, and sees self-sacrifice as a normal course of action.
You want to play a paladin?
Read the Savage Tales of Solomon Kane.
Read the "man without a country" story arc from Captain America.
Listen to "Beer for My Horses" and "American Soldier" by Toby Keith.
Brush up on the exploits of Sir Gallahad.
Watch Kingdom of Heaven and observe How Balian behaves from the moment he washes up on shore.
Watch or read Lord of the Rings and observe how Aragorn behaves.
And remember this phrase, above all:
"It is better to do right and die than to do wrong and prosper."
Apparently the term "paladin" goes all the way back to the early days of the Roman Empire, where it first referred to troops who guarded Octavius on Palatine Hill, the location of his palace and legendary founding site of Rome. The term later came to refer to a type of imperial official, a usage that continued in medieval Europe. According to legends from the time of Charlemagne, he had the legendary 12 Peers, knights called paladins who engaged in heroic deeds. It's from them that we get the notion of paladins in D&D, which Gary Gygax introduced in his first supplement to the original D&D, Greyhawk. The 1st Ed Deities and Demigods sort of back-dated characters from the Arthurian legends as paladins, including King Arthur, Lancelot and Galahad.
Just remember that the authors of these characters weren't designing them to fit into the rules of a D&D paladin. Obviously Lancelot would have lost his paladinhood for having an affair with this best friend's wife. Other paladinal characters might have done something else here or there that in D&D would lose paladinhood. I only vaguely recall watching a Captain America animated series some 40 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did something not-quite paladinal from time to time.
Speaking of 40 years ago, if you want to see a goofy, campy version of a paladinal character, watch the Batman TV series. It's cheesy (he said, actually munching on a cracker with cheese) and good fun, and features some surprisingly-talented actors in some far-over-the-top performances. He's not the Dark Knight you might know from recent comic books, but he is rather paladinal.
I have to admit, I’m not as familiar with Superman as many are. Please forgive my ignorance. It seems to me, however, that superman is an epic paladin among commoners. I think he's a great example for paladins in a similar situation. Once he tears through the villains super armor he's a cyborg with a bazooka vs. a child with a water pistol. No paladin is going to kill an enemy they can easy subdue and bring to the proper authorities. Though Superman acts as a god-like paladin should, most paladins have limitations.
For example, an evil necromancer has leaned a ritual that allows him to create an unlimited # of undead minions. He creates an army big enough to take over the nearest capital city. What would superman do? He'd destroy the undead army. Fly into the necromancers citadel, subdue the necromancer and throw his citadel into space. Bring the necromancer in to the proper authorities. Not break a sweat.
What would the paladin do? Try to fight his way to the necromancers abode and stop him if he can. He's not going to lose his paladin status if he kills the necromancer. While he would probably subdue the necromancer and take him to justice if he can, he'll probably have to kill him. There's just no comparison.
Even in the situations in which Superman's faced with a more evenly-matched opponent, he typically tries to bind or subdue the opponent rather than taking the easier way of killing it. So I think that "what would Superman do?" can legitimately apply to weaker paladins. I'm not saying, however, that a paladin should never kill. Gygax created the game with a very different ethic than the DC universe, and I certainly allow paladins to kill enemies trying to kill them.
You're saying that his physical power affects his ethical choices in a positive direction. People though are more likely to be affected in a negative direction by power, thus Lord Acton's admonition that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I am saying at once both more and less than that. In the context of Superman, his physical power affects his ethical choices in a positive direction. Good often involves taking the hard road, which is a moot point for Superman because neither road is truly hard.
For a remotely paladinic figure, power holds little lure. It is more the lure and thrill of power that corrupts, both of which are non-issues for paladins. The only danger is of going too far and trying to fix things that aren't broken leading to dangerous consequences - in which case it is not the power that corrupts but the hubris.
Power does not make people corrupt, people do that for themselves.
I am also saying that DC (to my admittedly limited knowledge) pulls it's punches for the sake of it's target audience. Kryptonite bullets are fairly nasty, but in truth are no worse for Superman than any other bullet is for the rest of us. How often is Superman cornered by innocent people who can actually endanger him? When innocents come into it, he is not fighting for his life in the same way.
Superman also always has proper authorities to take people to. Paladins don't always have that option. What about evidence? Superman seems to only have to catch out the villain, not make a water tight case to keep them. The justice system favours Superman too much in DC.
(I also think he has Weapon focus: Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus: Disguise, and probably Power Attack and Cleave.)
Even in the situations in which Superman's faced with a more evenly-matched opponent, he typically tries to bind or subdue the opponent rather than taking the easier way of killing it. So I think that "what would Superman do?" can legitimately apply to weaker paladins. I'm not saying, however, that a paladin should never kill. Gygax created the game with a very different ethic than the DC universe, and I certainly allow paladins to kill enemies trying to kill them.
I think you just hit the nail on the head there, the DC comics try to be more acceptable to kids and assume an ethic where killing is unacceptable. I will make a point about evenly matched foes at the very end.
Superman usually deals with comic book or PG-rated evil. Paladins often have to oppose traumatic and vile evil. So when asking What Would Superman Do, remember what he wouldn't do is have to face anyone made using the Book of Vile Darkness.
I've played a number of paladins that have made no attempt whatsoever to take extremely evil foes alive. Paladins are well within their CoC, alignment, and job description to simply kill someone like the necromancer you described.
I agree with Timespike, in fact his paladins are the ones that have impressed me the most. I so want to hear more about Michael.
In the absense of other factors, killing an enemy is no less moral than taking them alive. Taking them alive assumes they are redeemable, if you believe they are, then the question is whether you believe their chance at redemption is worth the difficulties/risk of failure that come with taking them alive.
I think you just hit the nail on the head there, the DC comics try to be more acceptable to kids and assume an ethic where killing is unacceptable. I will make a point about evenly matched foes at the very end.
Superman usually deals with comic book or PG-rated evil. Paladins often have to oppose traumatic and vile evil. So when asking What Would Superman Do, remember what he wouldn't do is have to face anyone made using the Book of Vile Darkness.
I think a lot of people get a little too invested in the idea of killing always being bad and it hamstrings them where paladins are concerned. The fact of the matter is, killing is NOT always bad. Picture this: it's a medieval-level world, probably a bit more enlightened culturally, but not much. There's no real set authority, but you see something evil. I mean really evil. The aftermath of the initiation of a Disciple of Baalzebul* would work, for our purposes. There's nothing you can do to undo what's happened there. Some innocent, or, more likely, a family of them, has been tortured to death in their own home as a sacrificial rite to initiate the fanatical follower of an arch devil. You're a holy knight, with the supernatural means to detect and destroy evil. What's the proper, morally responsible reaction to this?
I'll tell you what it is; bury the family in consecrated ground with as much reverence as you can, burn the home and the makeshift evil altar in it to the ground (or, if someone could benefit from having it in some way, do what is necessary to purify it, and turn it over to them), and then find the vile, wretched, disgusting scum responsible and show them to the afterlife in the most expedient way possible. That's right, hunt the bastards down and kill them. Your typical D&D setting has nothing even beginning to resemble the modern American justice system. And to be honest, a lot of D&D villains do things on par with Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein. These people do not get a second chance. They have made it their life's work to wipe out everything that is good and pure in the world. Lex Talionis, people. There's a point at which mercy needs to stand aside and let justice have its day in the sun. Villains, real, evil villains, should fear paladins in the same way they fear angels. A paladin to a vile, torturing, genocidal, corpse-defiling, demon-worshipping moral fiend should be the image of death incarnate. Mercy is fine for people who turn to evil out of fear, desperation, cowardice, or weakness. It is not for ones who choose it willingly, with both eyes open and run cackling into the darkness. Can a paladin kill? Can a paladin not kill is a better question. The fact that paladins have class features like martial weapon proficiencies, smite evil, and spells like Divine Sacrifice should be a hint. Take it. One of the coolest things about playing a paladin is that you can cut down some evil fiend with terrible resolve one round, and the next round be using lay on hands and remove disease to minister to the needs of his suffering victims, and not have any of it seem forced or strained. You don't have to choose between righteous fury and staggering compassion. In fact, you shouldn't.
I agree with Timespike, in fact his paladins are the ones that have impressed me the most. I so want to hear more about Michael.
You flatter me.
My GM deserves no small amount of the credit, though. He lets me play him how I want to and hasn't killed him yet. ;)* BoVD, page 58.
Hypothetical:
You are playing a Paladin right? So you have a particular stance on how your character should act. Great. Your Paladin character has a moral basis now. It doesn't matter if you're using Kant, or Relativist morality. What matters is that you're using the morality of your character's chosen deity.
Tyr's moral stance is not going to be the same as Torm's. Helm's stance is going to be different from either of theirs. Sure they all have similarities, but there are (at least should be) fundamental differences between the way these deities view things, and that should reflect upon their paladins; their chosen representatives on the mortal plane.
This argumentation of Save the innocent and damn the world, or save the world and damn the innocent. There is no right answer that all paladins can agree on. Why? Because there is no right answer that all good deities can agree on.
In the end, for a paladin of Tyr it would come down to "What Would Tyr Do?" For a paladin of Helm, "What Would Helm Do?"
I read this and read the first reply. What made me post is Derrick's response to the "choice between evil A and evil B"
What Derrick appears to be saying is the following: After a long, supremely epic campaign, the paladin, and only the paladin, is presented with a choice by the nine Archdevils of Baator. He (the paladin) must kill a newborn child, or else the following occurs:
-The Nine Hells of Baator take over the Material Plane.
-The Nine Hells of Baator take over the Celestial Plane.
-There are ten thousand years of eternal pain, where everyone is subjected to lifelong torture. During their life, however, they will be forced to have a child, of which will be tortured for its lifespan. This will continue, as said above, for ten thousand years.
Now, in my personal opinion, it seems to me that if the paladin picked the 'kill the kid' choice, he wouldn't have to atone. And heck, if you are so crazy to say that he still has to atone, I think Pelor would say: "Good job. I accept your atonement on the spot--you've already done the necessary quest. And here are 50 levels. And the best items possible. And divine rank 0. Have a nice immortality."
Actually, the proper response for the paladin is to start smiting the archdevils, starting with Asmodeus himself. The archdevils will probably kill the paladin, but it doesn't matter. The paladin's True Martyrdom is an act of Pure Good that prevents the archdevils from taking over the material plane, presuming such a boast was even true let alone just a ruse to get the paladin to kill an innocent baby.
Alternatively, the paladin's act becomes a vestibule allowing the Pure Good of his deity to enter the Nine Hells of Baator and envelope the paladin such that for that moment the paladin is like an Avatar of his deity enabling him to slay the archdevils, or at least set them back a millennia in achieving their aims.
The proposal was itself the true evil. Consider the source; the solution is obvious.
I might get a lot of critique for this, but what the hell...
My take on paladins is this: a reserved "for the greater good." The question is one of motive. Lying to a daemon to save the world is OK. Lying to save his arse is not OK. This is of course only true of "normal" paladins. An exalted paladin can't even tell a white lie in my book.
Note though that to sacrifice his paladinhood to save the world is a grey area. It may have been done to save the world, but his paladinhood is not something to throw away every time it is the easiest way to go.
Sacrificing paladinhood to save the world loses the world because it is an admittance to Evil that Good could not stop it. It doesn't matter that the original intended Evil was prevented. Evil conquered the paladin, hence conquered Good. Therefore sacrificing his paladinhood is not an option for the paladin. The solution to his dilemma just got easier to solve.
That said, may I whinge a bit and say that it irritates me greatly when presented with lifeboat ethics (i.e., unreasonable ethical dilemmas in which survival is weighed against ethical action) in a roleplaying situation. What kind of DM would present a paladin with a choice between killing a child and releasing a demon? Paladins don't have the luxury of choice between "the lesser of two evils." They must save the child and fight on. In theory, a true paladin would act the way he does regardless of whether the class abilities were granted to him. It's the act, not the reward... right?
If paladins were to succumb to the argument that the ends justified the means, it would only be a matter of time before demons and devils maneuvered them into a corner. What if the "greater good" is served by the paladin becoming a Blackguard? Is he still good? Are the murders he then commits good acts? The argument that the lesser of two evils is acceptable is clearly specious. Paladins must act according to their code, regardless of the outcome. The rigidity of their beliefs serve precisely the purpose of keeping moral relativism at bay.
I think that a lot of the problems that players have with paladins is not realizing that the class restrictions aren't the starting point of an ethical argument, they're the end. Paladins have already accepted the ethical constraints of their class. They know full well that evil can and will put them into situations in which there are no "good" choices. The trick isn't finding a solution that provides instant gratification, it's understanding that the means supercede the ends. If everyone followed the same path, there would always be good results.
Anyway, it's been a long time since my philosophy minor saw the light of day.
"Evil" implies [...] killing others. (PHB, p104.)
"Good" implies [...] respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (PHB, p104. Emphasis mine.)
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. (PHB, p104.)
Derrick, although it has been some time since you posted this, I have to reply a bit. From what I gather, your position is that the RAW insists that the killing of any creature, by the definition used as part of the game with exceptions given for a few types (evil aberrations, demons, et. al.), regardless of the motivation, or lack thereof, is evil.
As long as I have this position correct in my mind-mush, ;) I have a single simple solution: the RAW, as it seems to be quite often, is wrong.
Paladins are by their very mechanical nature, IMHO - *the* hardest PC to play in the book(s). It is for that reason I changed Paladins to make them required to follow a deity and to set a specific code for them to follow. The code defines for them what is evil and what is not and takes the matter out of the hands of the RAW.
I heartily suggest others look into something similar to ease the overall quandry.:D
AzarDM
Can a person be evil if he never does anything evil? Yes. A person’s moral compass is what determines his alignment, not his actions.
You realize this totally contradicts RAW, right?
The major difference between the evil farmer in the tavern and the kobolds is that humans’ alignment is “any” and kobolds’ alignment is “always evil.”
Actually, kobolds are listed as "Usually lawful evil." "Always" entries are generally for outsiders with an alignment subtype, undead, and big-magic creatures like dragons.
If someone asks for mercy, and you cannot be entirely sure he will turn on you, he shall be shown mercy. Paladins have respect for life blablablabla. You know the deal.
A devil has captured a paladin and group of poor, but goodly, farmers. The instructions are simple. The paladin kills a good man or the devil destroys all of them. What is the poor paladin to do? Should he kill farmer Bob? Of course not! The paladin instead runs himself through, saving the farmer and defeating the devil.
Ultimately, I think the no win situation comes up because the DM doesn't like the paladin and decides to screw the player. No matter what the player chooses to have the character do, they lose. It’s unfair, it’s stupid, and it’s childish.
On Superman I tend to think of him as the ultimate paladin. How easy would it be for him to stop all crime in the world, bring it under his control? He is a god among ants. Yet he doesn't. I'm reminded of a quote from Batman:
"There are days Clark shoots fire from the sky, like some kind of god and I think to myself how fortunate we all are that that thought never occurs to him."
That is how a paladin should act. Self sacrificing even the face when it matters the most.
I had been thinking about this thread for awhile and I had started to post a small article on morality. Then I realized that it didn't matter. My view on morality, your view on morality. It doesn't matter. Heck, real moral standpoints don't matter either. What does matter? The game matters.
Hypothetical:
You are playing a Paladin right? So you have a particular stance on how your character should act. Great. Your Paladin character has a moral basis now. It doesn't matter if you're using Kant, or Relativist morality. What matters is that you're using the morality of your character's chosen deity.
You're thinking of the Cleric class. The Paladin is essentially dedicated to righteousness. Any preference for a Deity is purely accidental; heck, you could play a Paladin who prayed to Kord for a strong arm, while relying on her own guidance - or even one who only ever offered prayers to evil deities, asking that she be allowed to suffer a greater share of the ills of the world in order that others be spared.
Now, we might very well wonder, "What is righteousness?" And in the real world, it's a vexing question. However, in standard D&D campaigns, if you want to know the moral worth of an action, you can just ask an Archon. Guardinals aren't bad, either, though they play a bit fast-and-loose with the Rules - don't ask an Eladrin, unless you want an obnoxious speech about how the right thing for you to do is to make a good decision unfettered by their interference.
FWIW, I can tell you with absolute confidence that an Archon worthy of the name will not answer out of adherence to Relativist claptrap.
I think a lot of people get a little too invested in the idea of killing always being bad and it hamstrings them where paladins are concerned. The fact of the matter is, killing is NOT always bad. Picture this: it's a medieval-level world, probably a bit more enlightened culturally, but not much. There's no real set authority, but you see something evil. I mean really evil. The aftermath of the initiation of a Disciple of Baalzebul* would work, for our purposes. There's nothing you can do to undo what's happened there. Some innocent, or, more likely, a family of them, has been tortured to death in their own home as a sacrificial rite to initiate the fanatical follower of an arch devil. You're a holy knight, with the supernatural means to detect and destroy evil. What's the proper, morally responsible reaction to this?
I'll tell you what it is; bury the family in consecrated ground with as much reverence as you can, burn the home and the makeshift evil altar in it to the ground (or, if someone could benefit from having it in some way, do what is necessary to purify it, and turn it over to them), and then find the vile, wretched, disgusting scum responsible and show them to the afterlife in the most expedient way possible. That's right, hunt the bastards down and kill them. Your typical D&D setting has nothing even beginning to resemble the modern American justice system. And to be honest, a lot of D&D villains do things on par with Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein. These people do not get a second chance. They have made it their life's work to wipe out everything that is good and pure in the world. Lex Talionis, people. There's a point at which mercy needs to stand aside and let justice have its day in the sun. Villains, real, evil villains, should fear paladins in the same way they fear angels. A paladin to a vile, torturing, genocidal, corpse-defiling, demon-worshipping moral fiend should be the image of death incarnate. Mercy is fine for people who turn to evil out of fear, desperation, cowardice, or weakness. It is not for ones who choose it willingly, with both eyes open and run cackling into the darkness. Can a paladin kill? Can a paladin not kill is a better question. The fact that paladins have class features like martial weapon proficiencies, smite evil, and spells like Divine Sacrifice should be a hint. Take it. One of the coolest things about playing a paladin is that you can cut down some evil fiend with terrible resolve one round, and the next round be using lay on hands and remove disease to minister to the needs of his suffering victims, and not have any of it seem forced or strained. You don't have to choose between righteous fury and staggering compassion. In fact, you shouldn't.
I agree with everything you have just said. Sending villains on quick pilgrimage to Hades does a fine job of limiting further villainy on their part. Also dispensing fatal justice does not mean betraying mercy, since paladins don't take undue pleasure in bringing suffering. In fact, in Timespike's example, I would say killing the evil bastard is showing mercy and compassion to his victims.
A paladin should consider someone's right to redemption, but must also consider everyone elses right to a safer life that would include an end to this evil. Giving villains a second chance is placing the innocent at risk if the villain is insincere about redemption, and paladins do not place the innocent at risk.
With paladins, compassion and war are not mutually exclusive options. As was said. Few people can understand the paladin mentality, many people see forgiveness and retribution as opposites, with a paladin, they don't have to be.
And no I don't flatter you, Timespike. Flattery is undeserved.
Derrick, although it has been some time since you posted this, I have to reply a bit. From what I gather, your position is that the RAW insists that the killing of any creature, by the definition used as part of the game with exceptions given for a few types (evil aberrations, demons, et. al.), regardless of the motivation, or lack thereof, is evil.
The RAW isn't entirely clear, so I can't quite hold that position.
I believe that this conclusion falls out of the RAW, though.However, keep firmly in mind that the Paladin is only required to abstain from "willful" evil; that is to say, the Paladin ought not to will living things dead. She can still use lethal force, but it had better be in the service of some good ends. In order that the DM isn't left in any doubt of the character's sincerity, she ought to be penitent after the fact and strive not to use such force.
Here are a couple of examples to make sense of that:
1. Mirrem the Unyielding has heard tell of an orc warband moving to attack settlements in the Eastern Reaches. Gathering her companions, Mirrem plans the relief of the threatened settlers.
Adze, her trusted friend and a wily scout, advises that the orcs will be held together by a powerful chieftan or priest. In order to disperse the warband, the power of that individual must be seen to be broken. Mirrem is quick to ask if the orcs will follow a defeated leader. The dwarf shakes his head and replies that only the death of their chief will divert their course.
Grimly, the paladin accepts the duty of putting that green blood on her hands. Mirrem aims to seek out the orc leader and kill them in order to stay the hand of the warband as a whole. After the deed is done, she will politely accept the praise of the villagers, and, as an act of penitence, will aid them as a common labourer in rebuilding any damage wrought by orc scouts.
2. While patrolling the steppe, Alarn Silverhand discovers a small party of humans. They are fully ignorant of the tongue of the People, and his "common" is rusty; nevertheless, he can see that the poor, suspicious creatures are weak from hunger.
It is winter, and Alarn is traveling lightly. He bids the humans good fortune and sets off on his way, then doubles back and trails them for the rest of the day. As the humans set their camp, the Paladin goes hunting in the light of the moon, tracking down a small horn-beast and breaking its neck. After giving thanks to the spirit of the horn-beast, Alarn carries the carcass to the camp and asks the humans if they would trade a space at their fire for a share of his kill.
The hungry travelers eagerly accept, though in their haste to fill their bellies they do not notice that their guest has not touched the meat...
As long as I have this position correct in my mind-mush, ;) I have a single simple solution: the RAW, as it seems to be quite often, is wrong.
The RAW can't be wrong, as it grants the DM the authority to interpret it in any way she sees fit (including ways that seem to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the text).
Paladins are by their very mechanical nature, IMHO - *the* hardest PC to play in the book(s). It is for that reason I changed Paladins to make them required to follow a deity and to set a specific code for them to follow. The code defines for them what is evil and what is not and takes the matter out of the hands of the RAW.
I heartily suggest others look into something similar to ease the overall quandry.:D
That's fine for your game. From my perspective, however, you're no longer talking about Paladins - you're talking about variant Clerics. So, as a fan of the Paladin class, I'm obliged to resist its application both in games that I'm actually playing in, and at large (because Wizards might well write it into the PHB 4.0 if it's what everyone seems to be doing).
Classic ethical dilemmas:
If you could go back in time to a point before Hitler had any power or committed any atrocities, would it be ethical to kill him and thus avert his reign of terror?
-If you say yes, you're killing someone who hasn't done anything wrong.
-If you say no, you've doomed a lot of people to death.
If killing one person at random would save the lives of 10 others, is it ethical to kill the one person? If it would save 100? 1 million? Your family?
-Why do the numbers of people involved make a difference?
-If it were definitely unethical (the Gods told you it was and that damnation awaits you if you do it), would you kill the one person anyway?
The arguments in this thread echo many of the ones used in these exercises.
MURDER however, is. Murder, defined in BoVD is 'Killing an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose; theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like. So, killing the child to stop the demon from being unleashed unfortunately only covers two of the three requirements of violence. Killing the noncombatant kobolds (or what ever) only, broadly, covers two out of three as well.
Paladins are a very tricky deal to play; they are supposed to be. They got lots of stuff, and it’s balanced with, "I do something bad, I cant do it again.."
I think the distinctions between right/wrong and good/evil should be clarified. I think that the mythology of a specific campaign has a lot to do with right and wrong.
A deontological approach says that the good act is always right and the evil act is always wrong. Save the baby and let the consequences take care of themselves.
This is rather like bean-counting: I do all good acts, and I avoid all evil acts. An alternate version of this is utilitarian bean-counting: I do whatever will result in the most good acts and the least evil acts. (In this case, one might kill the baby to stop the demon.) Either of these mentalities could be valid in a world in which good and evil are balanced like Yin and Yang, and individual acts matter more than history's course of events. A Reign of Demons would not be a wrong thing in such a world, apart from the evil acts committed because of it, especially if a Reign of Angels balanced it out at some point.
On the other hand, if the world has a dynamic history, in which Good or Evil really could win the day, consequences become much more important. The safety of the baby would not outweigh the Reign of Demons. In this world, a good act might sometimes be wrong, and an evil act might sometimes be right. I still think the acts have their own merits, but the world is flawed, and sometimes good and right, and evil and wrong, do not always line up. An informal "atonement," as suggested by Derrik, might be quite appropriate here. Of course, the deities of such a world might decide that they hold paladins to a good/evil code of conduct, and the deities will worry about the consequences.
The role of the paladin should be defined on a campaign-by-campaign basis.
The demon answer can be argued both ways. On one hand slaying an innocent is a wrong answer, on the other the responsibility for the deaths of other innocents might also be taken into consideration, and on yet another a true "cinematic" hero would take the gamble and try for both or nothing. On a gritty campaign one course might be proper, a high fantasy heroic story would demand something different.
No two campaigns are the same and if a comic book analogy can be served, try this one. The question of Paladins and ethics/morality is much like whether a comic book is of say the classic "four color" theme or something more dark and gritty like say "The Watchman".
Eberron for example muddies the waters even farther. The deities of Eberron apparently don't police their clerics at all. Clerics can be corrupt, go entirely against their stated religion and still possess both their temporal and divine powers. Can a similar argument be made for the Paladins in that world? This is a case of the question being more important than the answer.
Or take another case, the Scarlet Crusade of Warcraft. They are a sect of Paladins and others being driven to insanity by the fall of their nation to a plague which killed their fellow citizens and transformed them to the Undead Scourge. They are mistrustful to the point where anyone outside their order is considered part of the problem and slain on sight. Or the case of the Paladins of Arcanis being of rival faiths or nations that might very well fight each other in mortal combat both being in the right on doing so.
The Paladin is an archetype. Because of it's nature it's an archetype that easily sets itself up as a target for satire, ridicule. But for those looking beyond it asks some very serious questions the analysis of can not but help but be referenced by those great debates of ethics and morals that have never been answered but whose questions have defined history and society since those two words have meaning. All in all at some level we reach the point that we have to agree to disagree and that sometimes even for myself the nature of the "proper" Paladin will vary depending on both the flavor of the campaign I will run and the nature of the folks that will be playing.
Over all though the exchange of views has been worthwhile and fascinating and even though we may never arrive at a true destination, the journey has been worthwhile.
To me it feels that Paladins never steal, lie or are dishonest for any reason. They always stand up and protect the weak. They do honestly slay evil, but never enjoy the act of killing (the "good" deity ones anyhow). They always protect their comrades. If they do make a mistake they are very quick to repent (and there are always mistakes since they are still mortal...usually). And while they stand up for the Greater Good the end never justifies the means for it would be a mockery of virtue itself to do evil in trying to fight evil.
Some famous paladin types include: Cecil Harvey (Final Fantasy IV) Superman and yes even Luke Skywalker. Maybe you could look up the code of chivalry on the net and try and follow that. Better than the knights that tried to before anyway.
Well, most of the trouble seems to come from "a paladins loyalty should be to morality itself" But as someone said earlier things can be simplified if a paladin has a deity he is loyal to or even a church. A Paladin of Lathander would have a very different code of honor than Torm or even Helm.
But would a "Paladin of Lathander" have a very different code of honor from a Lawful Good Cleric devoted to Lathander? I think not; this move seems to destroy the Paladin as an independent character class.
Paladins...never enjoy the act of killing (the "good" deity ones anyhow).
Actually, I think it'd be kinda interesting to have a Paladin who enjoyed killing. Probably not very good for a conventional rpg, but it could work reasonably well in a one-on-one or on-line game. Fighting the enemy within as well as the enemy without is a classic theme.
Choosing lesser of two evils is a willing act. An unwilling act would be under domination and unable to control your actions.
I'm not sure if this is directed at comments I made up-thread, but it seems important to clarify the difference between "willing" and "willful" action. You're absolutely right about willing; willful action, on the other hand, is action that conforms to the world-state that the agent seeks to realise. Or, in more homespun language: it's willful if I'm doing it for its own sake.
Well, I don't think that the Paladin should intentionally swat the fly to kill it. She might brush it away, but the fly doesn't seem to have done anything to deserve death - if the Paladin is killing just because it is convenient, then she is no Paladin. (Because D&D is not overly concerned with world-state consequences, the Paladin that swats the fly away and accidentally kills it shouldn't lose their status, though they really ought to feel sorry for what they've done in the same way that anyone who causes accidental harm should.) - Derrick
Ultimately, I don't see any evidence that this is a proper interpretation of the rules. Even if a paladin only walked into his temple to spend his life in constant worried prayer, he'd then have to worry if all the workers who quarried rock to build the temple were treated fairly by his church.
The Paladin rules are already strict without someone going out of their way to make them stricter and make a Paladin atone for everything. A DM who makes a paladin atone for swatting a fly needs to atone for ruining his game for his players, or, at the very least, sending a very clear message that nobody is permitted to play a paladin, since it will be impossible for a player to function at all under the restrictions without atoning to the DM every few seconds.
If a paladin must atone for killing an orc who has a knife to the throat of a hostage, you might as well have the Wizard PC come to the adventure a year or two early and roleplay his entire apprenticeship.
The original post pretty much gets it right on the money. A paladin needs to be able to function in the game. The only thing I'd argue against in the original post, perhaps, is the choice between killing an infant and freeing a demon. There is almost never a situation where there isn't some third option. If I was a Paladin PC, and had to choose between two great evils, I'd probably attempt a third way, even if it was more difficult, and even if it meant the Paladin would die in the attempt.
The game is designed to be functional. The game is not designed to force all paladins to stand carefully in the middle of a spotless floor, watching carefully for ants not to step on, while eating only Vegan food. If you are a DM and you play the game that way, you're denying an effective and fun class to your players.
To assume that killing is an evil act, though perhaps a justifiable one, is to assume (with no grounds) that D&D morality is founded on eastern morality, in spite of the fact that the D&D-style fantasy genre is primarily drawn from western culture, as is the archetype of the paladin.
In western tradition, by contrast, there has never been any intimation or general consensus that lesser animals (and especially not vermin) have moral status equal to rational beings (the general view, rather, is that it is wrong to be cruel to animals, or even vermin, but that killing them cleanly is perfectly fine). Furthermore, it has always been accepted by western morality that the taking of a guilty life to save an innocent one is acceptable (e.g. killing your own attacker is OK and killing the thug menacing the innocent woman in an alley is OK).
This leads to several immediate consequences - 1) unless the character has taken a Vow of Peace (BoED), which would be a moronic move for a paladin, then he can swat bugs, or even fumigate them, to his heart's content, 2) a paladin can kill even a mammal for a purely selfish reason (e.g. food or self-preservation) and not have to feel bad about it or ask forgiveness, unless that specific paladin has taken a vow to the contrary, or unless his specific deity says otherwise, 3) a paladin can (and in fact, as a divinely appointed champion of Good, should) kill evil beings without remorse (note: "without remorse" does not mean "without mercy")
In situations where the DM sets up only a choice between two evil options (and assuming that there must be a way out is an unreasonable assumption), then I agree that no matter what the paladin does, he has done evil and should pray for forgiveness, but as he has not willingly done evil (since you can't willingly and freely do something if there is no alternative) he does not lose powers or need to formally atone (though an atonement spell wouldn't be a bad idea anyway, sort of the D&D equivalent of going to confession).
Finally (and I have to go to class...), there is nothing in the Paladin's Code or the Lawful alignment description that explicitly prohibits lying, and there is also no reason to assume that lying is non-Good or non-Lawful by implication. Neither Good nor Law is synonymous with Truth, so a rogue who uses his talents as the loyal, disciplined, and law-abiding spymaster to the king can still be Lawful, and the rogue who cons the greedy baron out of his money to give it to the poor can still be Good. Why (given that it's not explicitly in the Code) should a paladin be treated differently?
What does a paladin do with the kobold females and young after he has slaughtered all the kobold warriors?
It should also be noted that the D&D game is very PC. As everyone is considered equal there are no real moral divisions of age and gender (the whole issue is also very out dated IRL). The only distinction that should apply is combatants and non-combatants. A paladin can't kill them if they surrender. So convert them.
Evil implies killing
does not mean
All killing is evil
If that would be the case, than we all would be asses, because "being an ass implies being a mammal" so "every mammal is an ass" and all humans are mammals. This is just basic logic, and helps a lot in this discussion, because it means that a paladin can kill without committing an evil act.
Just my two euro-cents
Power does not make people corrupt, people do that for themselves.
Actually I feel the more accurate quote is that power attracts the corruptible, especially when that power removes the inhibitions that one would normally have.
I'm not sure if this is directed at comments I made up-thread, but it seems important to clarify the difference between "willing" and "willful" action. You're absolutely right about willing; willful action, on the other hand, is action that conforms to the world-state that the agent seeks to realise. Or, in more homespun language: it's willful if I'm doing it for its own sake.
I would like to define willing and willful here, so that people can stop splitting hairs with the words, as in general, they mean the same thing:
Willing
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" Matthew 26:41.
3. Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly. See Synonyms at voluntary.
4. Of or relating to exercise of the will; volitional.
Willful
1. Said or done on purpose; deliberate. See Synonyms at voluntary.
2. Obstinately bent on having one's own way.
As you will note they both use voluntary for synonyms.
Now, I’ll give that Willful seems to be more of an almost rebellious form of voluntary, such as "I am going out of my way" but they still mean, at the root, the same thing. Willful/Willing are voluntary, as in of ones own volition.
NemesisDM4: On LG and lying, check the description of the Lawful Good character on pg104 of the PHB. It's explicitly stated that such characters are honest. If what you're saying is that they can bend that tendency, then I'd tentatively agree; if you're saying that they don't need to have that tendency, you're simply incorrect.
Interestingly, that same description indicates that you have confused the importance of mercy and importance of remorse: Alhandra has no mercy for evil, but we're not told about whether her respect for life causes her to regret the necessity of killing evil creatures.
Ultimately, I don't see any evidence that this is a proper interpretation of the rules. Even if a paladin only walked into his temple to spend his life in constant worried prayer, he'd then have to worry if all the workers who quarried rock to build the temple were treated fairly by his church.
If I had Detect Evil, I'd be able to clear up the lingering possibility that you're simply trying to intentionally mislead people as to what constitutes Good. Given my lack of that class feature, I'm going to have to adopt a charitable position.
There's no evidence that you've read the rules with any particular care - and in fact, I can see evidence to the contrary in your confusion over Clerics and Paladins. As such, your claims about evidence really seem to be only prejudice, and I don't think that qualifies as a proper reason for holding a belief.
The Paladin rules are already strict without someone going out of their way to make them stricter and make a Paladin atone for everything. A DM who makes a paladin atone for swatting a fly needs to atone for ruining his game for his players, or, at the very least, sending a very clear message that nobody is permitted to play a paladin, since it will be impossible for a player to function at all under the restrictions without atoning to the DM every few seconds.
I'm not sure about the sense in which you're using atone. Do you mean "have the spell Atonement cast upon her" or do you mean "act in a way that indicates her feelings of remorse"? In almost all cases in this thread, I'm using the second sense.
If a paladin must atone for killing an orc who has a knife to the throat of a hostage, you might as well have the Wizard PC come to the adventure a year or two early and roleplay his entire apprenticeship.
That doesn't follow. It would be fair to say that if the paladin must atone for that killing, you might as well make everyone roleplay their characters - but I'm not sure what the problem with that is in a roleplaying game.
The game is designed to be functional. The game is not designed to force all paladins to stand carefully in the middle of a spotless floor, watching carefully for ants not to step on, while eating only Vegan food. If you are a DM and you play the game that way, you're denying an effective and fun class to your players.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "wilfull evil" and "evil", which is somewhat irritating given that it's been spelled out in the text you quoted. To reiterate: if the Paladin is swatting flies to make them dead, she's doing willful evil. If the Paladin is walking through the undergrowth and steps on an ant, she's doing evil (and that, by the rules, is not a problem).
Veganism isn't entailed by my view of Paladin's code, by the way. At most, I'm claiming that Paladins ought to tend toward vegetarianism, but there's no reason to think that should be a hard rule.
It is my contention that not all paladins would be forced to accept surrender. In my opinion it depends on the specific tenets of the deity. A paladin of St. Cuthbert would likely have a different answer from one of Pelor, for example.
There is a specific example in the group I play in. We use several sources, and some adapted stuff from 2nd edition, including some of the stuff from Planescape, and several worlds into the bargain. The comparison is between two characters, one a Knight of Solamnia worshipping Paladine (functionally identical to a paladin in most ways) and one who is not a paladin but played in an attempt to make most paladins look like fence-sitters, usually successfully. To give some flavour of this, the second character is a proxy of Tyr - the Norse god, LG in our campaign.
The difference in behaviour? Simple. First character would take the surrender, especially if the evil was redeemable. Second character would almost certainly not if the evil was strong enough (evil cleric, assassin, blackguard).
"You chose to be evil; take the consequences." The consequences being; cut him down without mercy. And if possible make sure he doesn't come back. After all, death isn't the end in D&D. You are simply sending them to their next life earlier than planned. The gods will judge. And Lawful Good, even of similar purity, is not monolithic.
Accepting surrender in most Western cultures is part of acting honorable, which a Paladin is supposed to follow. A lot of things depends unfortunately on what the DM sees (not the PC) as acting honorable.
I would like to define willing and willful here, so that people can stop splitting hairs with the words, as in general, they mean the same thing:
Willing
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" Matthew 26:41.
3. Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly. See Synonyms at voluntary.
4. Of or relating to exercise of the will; volitional.
Willful
1. Said or done on purpose; deliberate. See Synonyms at voluntary.
2. Obstinately bent on having one's own way.
As you will note they both use voluntary for synonyms.
Now, I’ll give that Willful seems to be more of an almost rebellious form of voluntary, such as "I am going out of my way" but they still mean, at the root, the same thing. Willful/Willing are voluntary, as in of ones own volition.
This isn't a case of splitting hairs. It's a matter of vagueness, and you've done very little to clarify it. I could start telling people that they're misinterpreting "willing", per definition 4. that you've given, but that's more abrasive than my usual stance. (Not that I'm above a little friction; rather that I try to stay below the sandpaper level. ;)) Claiming, on the contrary, that there is room to define otherwise on the strength of the other term lets both parties walk away with ego intact.
It's also worth noting that answers.com (or perhaps thefreedictionary.com) are not absolute authorities, and that unattributed definitions are even less compelling. That said, if you check thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary, you'd find:
adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious, and directed toward achieving a purpose. Some willful conduct which has wrongful or unfortunate results is considered "hardheaded," "stubborn" and even "malicious." Example: "The defendant's attack on his neighbor was willful."
Finally (and I have to go to class...), there is nothing in the Paladin's Code or the Lawful alignment description that explicitly prohibits lying, and there is also no reason to assume that lying is non-Good or non-Lawful by implication. Neither Good nor Law is synonymous with Truth, so a rogue who uses his talents as the loyal, disciplined, and law-abiding spymaster to the king can still be Lawful, and the rogue who cons the greedy baron out of his money to give it to the poor can still be Good. Why (given that it's not explicitly in the Code) should a paladin be treated differently?
It is explicitly in the Code - under act with honour (not lying, cheating, using poison). While there are some parts up for debate (I am in favour of paladins using KO poison to avoid innocent casualties such as an innocent attacking under a charm or compulsion spell) the Code does define lying as a strict no.
A paladin can understand the value of deception, and decoys or ambushes are valid parts of a strategic arsenal. However, the Code forbidding lying means that paladins are trustworthy and truth is a more solid foundation for Law and Good.
Actually I feel the more accurate quote is that power attracts the corruptible, especially when that power removes the inhibitions that one would normally have.
I agree, but the point was that blaming power for the actions of corrupt is to miss where responsibility lies. Good people can use power for good reasons.
If I had Detect Evil, I'd be able to clear up the lingering possibility that you're simply trying to intentionally mislead people as to what constitutes Good. Given my lack of that class feature, I'm going to have to adopt a charitable position.
There's no evidence that you've read the rules with any particular care - and in fact, I can see evidence to the contrary in your confusion over Clerics and Paladins. As such, your claims about evidence really seem to be only prejudice, and I don't think that qualifies as a proper reason for holding a belief.
That is not a charitable position by any stretch of the imagination, since it assumes any who think differently are plain wrong. As evidenced by your comment about using Detect Evil.
I'm not sure about the sense in which you're using atone. Do you mean "have the spell Atonement cast upon her" or do you mean "act in a way that indicates her feelings of remorse"? In almost all cases in this thread, I'm using the second sense.
Where we object to is that you suggest a paladin should be remorseful for being a paladin.
That doesn't follow. It would be fair to say that if the paladin must atone for that killing, you might as well make everyone roleplay their characters - but I'm not sure what the problem with that is in a roleplaying game.
No, because what you suggest is closer to railroading than roleplaying. To suggest that everyone roleplay their characters implies some degree of choice as to how they roleplay their characters. Here all paladins are expected to react with guilt. Why cannot a paladin take grim satisfaction in the end of this evil? Or simply not react, keeping detached like a professional soldier?
You don't seem to understand the difference between "willful evil" and "evil", which is somewhat irritating given that it's been spelled out in the text you quoted. To reiterate: if the Paladin is swatting flies to make them dead, she's doing willful evil. If the Paladin is walking through the undergrowth and steps on an ant, she's doing evil (and that, by the rules, is not a problem).
Veganism isn't entailed by my view of Paladin's code, by the way. At most, I'm claiming that Paladins ought to tend toward vegetarianism, but there's no reason to think that should be a hard rule.
We can understand and still disagree. Understand, we are not suggesting your way of playing a paladin is wrong, we are disputing your belief that your way is the only right way to play a paladin.
Given that paladins are lawful as well as good, a fact often ignored; what is the general consensus about an unalterably evil enemy (for example, a cleric of Asmodeus who will probably eat his soul if he stops following his commands) who surrenders, probably in order to save his life? After all, said enemy might manage to escape.
It is my contention that not all paladins would be forced to accept surrender. In my opinion it depends on the specific tenets of the deity. A paladin of St. Cuthbert would likely have a different answer from one of Pelor, for example.
There is a specific example in the group I play in. We use several sources, and some adapted stuff from 2nd edition, including some of the stuff from Planescape, and several worlds into the bargain. The comparison is between two characters, one a Knight of Solamnia worshipping Paladine (functionally identical to a paladin in most ways) and one who is not a paladin but played in an attempt to make most paladins look like fence-sitters, usually successfully. To give some flavour of this, the second character is a proxy of Tyr - the Norse god, LG in our campaign.
The difference in behaviour? Simple. First character would take the surrender, especially if the evil was redeemable. Second character would almost certainly not if the evil was strong enough (evil cleric, assassin, blackguard).
"You chose to be evil; take the consequences." The consequences being; cut him down without mercy. And if possible make sure he doesn't come back. After all, death isn't the end in D&D. You are simply sending them to their next life earlier than planned. The gods will judge. And Lawful Good, even of similar purity, is not monolithic.
Exactly. Different paladins can make different decisions over the same thing.
Thanks for this post! This actually was a really good source. We're currently have problems with a Pally in our group and this was some really good info. Each player and DM is necessarily different, but I'd say this had some really good general guidelines and things to think of if nothing else. Also as a soon-to-be new DM, it gave me some ideas for some episodes. Thanks for posting this, and ignore all the naysayers who are trying to correct your every word and idea. :D
Nice, but which post are you referring to please?
Where we object to is that you suggest a paladin should be remorseful for being a paladin.
[...]
We can understand and still disagree. Understand, we are not suggesting your way of playing a paladin is wrong, we are disputing your belief that your way is the only right way to play a paladin.
Is that the royal 'we', I wonder?
Anyway, I'll dare to join this thread, though I'm at a slight disadvantage here, since English is not my native language. But I find it simply impossible to resist since the discussion so far has been both extremely fascinating and on such a high level :-) So bear with me, if I got something wrong.
I have to say the title of this thread is pretty misleading. While the intention may have been to provide clear answers for paladins the discussion shows how very difficult it is to actually do it! That the examples in the OP are mostly flawed doesn't exactly help :P Therefore, I can only applaud Derrick's insightful and informed posts on the matter. Playing a paladin the way Derrick suggests will clearly be a 'safe' way to play one. No DM in his right mind would ever think of a paladin played that way was violating her code of conduct.
But it's probably not the 'easiest' way to play a paladin nor is it necessarily the only way. It's a matter of degree, IMHO: Atoning (even without the capital 'A') is too strong a word for what I (as a DM) would expect of a well-played paladin. It's also too closely related to religious matters for my taste. I'd suggest the word 'regret' as a more reasonable alternative: A paladin who feels sorry and distressed about having been forced by circumstances to take a life is just as 'safe' from losing her paladinhood.
A paladin who never shows any sign of regret is clearly in danger, though. She's on a slippery slope, already, because she's not showing respect for life. It's only a small step away from enjoying the killing. I believe the latter is very dangerous even if the killed being is one of the 'always evil' variety!
On a related topic that has been mentioned several times: Undead have alignments, too. The great majority are of the 'always evil' kind, however. So destroying these is basically 'safe' (just as destroying/killing other types of 'always evil' creatures is). Mindless undead or constructs shouldn't pose a problem either. But what about the small minority with different alignments? Undead are often described as 'unnatural' or even 'abominations'. I think this comes from the view that having respect for life is incongruous with tolerating undead to continue to exist. Destroying them is usually thought to be a good act since it restores the natural order of things and frees the 'trapped' soul to travel to its final destination.
A Ghost perfectly fit this kind of view, especially since to really destroy it, you have to find out the reason for its existence and 'set right whatever prevents it from resting in peace'. I guess there might be cases of undead whose existence could be tolerated, e.g. if they sought undeath as a means to continue their combat against evil (AND didn't get corrupted along the way!). But this should be pretty rare...
I hope I've been able to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful matter. I'm currently very interested in this topic, since one of the players in my campaign has expressed an interest in playing a paladin as his next character
Evil implies killing is not the same as killing implies evil.
But would a "Paladin of Lathander" have a very different code of honor from a Lawful Good Cleric devoted to Lathander? I think not; this move seems to destroy the Paladin as an independent character class.
I believe you misread Spelljammer's post. You talk about the followers of the same deity and he was talking about paladins with different deities. My paladin of Sune reacts differently than probably any other paladin.
Jhaelen: Thanks.
You're right to single out regret as the important element. I'd focused on, err, "amends-making behaviour" because it's clear communication to the DM about what the character feels. (By comparison, "My character feels bad about this," is a bit flat; just being quiet and sullen is close to dropping out of the game for however long you do it.)Silvarn: I understand the point that Spelljammer is making - I just happen to think that it's a bad idea!
The reason that I brought up the paladin and cleric of the same deity is because I believe that the "differentiation by deity" view makes clerics and paladins indistinguishable. In my eyes, the 'cure' is worse than the condition!(And, yes, I know this means that I'm going against the FR setting. I'm OK with that. ;))
My understanding is that Paladins (regardless of Deity or lack thereof) get their power from their Good axis, rather than the law axis. (Does anyone know of any spells that have a lawful or neutral alignment? (Yes, I know there's chaotic spells, but I'm talking about LG and NG)).
I don't like the ends justify the means, and again I don't think that DND does either. Exterminating defenceless kobold children is evil, even if the kobolds are evil (because children's alignment is not yet "set"). In a lot of stories (and world views) evil is a corrupting force. This is also true in D&D. Look at the Blackguard class. You can bet that the evil gods are always out to convince paladins to turn to evil. Choosing the lesser of two evils could be the first step on a slippery slope to blackguardhood.
In fact an interesting plot twist might be that some blackguards might believe that they are paladins (after all they never see their character sheets) and that what the do is justified. They crusade against "evil" races such as orcs (or even elves of fey or whatever they happen to have decided is evil since they don't have the MM). The challenge of such foes could be partly about defeating them and partly about showing them the error of their ways. (I want to start a thread about evil characters who believe they are good but my arguments are not yet fully formed.)
I think a Paladin's standards should be way above your average LG character. Think of the Star Wars movies where Han Solo is often a selfish git but he still qualifies as good. Luke, even in fighting for good nearly becomes evil (by giving in to his anger and fear). It should be similar with the paladin, they are out on the edge. For example, a LG ranger with chosen enemy kobolds might consider that slaughtering them all is "good" and argue this point with a paladin. Later in the campaign, the party encounters a good kobold... could be a plot hook.
The third way out of the "kill the baby or release the demon dilemma" sounds like a cool adventure, just pose the problem at the beginning of the adventure and finding the "third way" that saves the baby and destroys the demon becomes the whole basis of an adventure.
http://boards1.wizards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8844487
Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you.
Kobolds.
Imagine you’re a kobold. The good characters generally consider it a good and laudable thing to kill you, your family, your children and smash your eggs. In fact they want to exterminate your entire species. "Well," you may well think, "If that's good then I'll take evil any day!" Hence kobolds are "usually LE".
Let's say a paladin doesn't exterminate the kobolds, maybe that act of mercy leads to more neutral or even good kobolds (perhaps inspiring the first kobold paladin!)
Secondly a paladin fights on two levels - the physical and the spiritual. Maybe killing the kobolds IS practical, and generally assumed to be good for society. But on the spiritual plane the slaughter adds power to the god of slaughter and to the cause of evil in general (the Lower planes howl with glee as the sword kills the innocent kobold).
Also maybe the kobolds are at war with the goblins and the extermination of the kobolds enables the goblins to consolidate for a major invasion of the civilized lands. Remember evil is by its very nature NOT united since a CE orc has no reason to trust a CE vampire or even another CE orc (least of all another CE orc).
Maybe the US police departments morals are a good code - to protect (good) and serve (lawful). The paladin may well give the evil doers a chance to atone, will certainly spare those who surrender and probably won't use coups de grace. This is not because the paladin is foolish (probably more like Wis 14 so pretty wise) but because she refuses to accept that the ends justify the means. If the paladin's code impedes combat effectiveness then that may effectively raise the CR of her opponents (just as orcs on hang gliders dropping rocks are higher CR than orcs tied to a rock, so bandits you offer a chance to repent, refuse to sneak up on and choose to fight "fair and square" when they use sneaky tactics might too be higher CR).
Killing the baby is wrong. If good has any power there HAS to be a way out. These kind of challenges should have CRs. That way the DM can make the evil foes more dangerous without adding HD or whatever...
The paladin may well give the evil doers a chance to atone, will certainly spare those who surrender and probably won't use coups de grace. This is not because the paladin is foolish (probably more like Wis 14 so pretty wise) but because she refuses to accept that the ends justify the means. If the paladin's code impedes combat effectiveness then that may effectively raise the CR of her opponents (just as orcs on hang gliders dropping rocks are higher CR than orcs tied to a rock, so bandits you offer a chance to repent, refuse to sneak up on and choose to fight "fair and square" when they use sneaky tactics might too be higher CR).
Killing the baby is wrong. If good has any power there HAS to be a way out. These kind of challenges should have CRs. That way the DM can make the evil foes more dangerous without adding HD or whatever...
I would like to point out is that the concept of a "fair fight" belongs to the Knight class, not the paladin.
Also, by saying a paladin refuses to accept that the ends justify the means, you (perhaps unintentionally) imply that they do and that the paladin is in the wrong.
CdG is rare from paladins simply because if you can CdG a foe, you have far less need to actually kill them.
Many DMs see all Paladins with a giant bull’s-eye plastered on them. Attempts to kill, corrupt, or harass the Paladin become a major part of the campaign. The DMs who do this each have their own reasons, which I won't speculate about here. I'll just say that it's obnoxious and totally unnecessary.
Also obnoxious are players who turn the Paladin into some excuse to lord over the other players or dominate the campaign. To a certain extent, this is natural and even good RP, but a little goes a long way, and too much gets old quick.
Who among you, as a DM, would honestly give a Paladin crap for swatting a fly, killing a rabbit for food, or killing in self defense? These aren't very useful, even as extreme examples.
In 99% of all campaign settings, animals and monster races like goblins simply do not have the same moral standing as humans. In some, a commoner or a halfling might not be considered morally equal! In the 3.5 Birthright setting, it mentions that upholding the feudal system is considered good and lawful. A Paladin of Heylin might be required to kill a rebellious serf.
No alignment, not even Lawful Good, is monolithic. In the campaign I'm working on now, there are three orders of Paladins- one each for Heironeous, Pelor, and Cuthbert. As you can imagine, they all have different versions of the Paladin's Code. A Paladin of Cuthbert would never spare the life of a cultist of Erythnul, or an irredeemable creature like a vampire. A Paladin of Pelor would dust the vamp and take the cultist back to town, lecturing all the way. A Paladin of Heironeous would smite the vampire and challenge the cultist to single combat.
Yes, Paladins are Lawful. This tends to be overlooked. Granted, a Paladin of Cuthbert might place more emphasis on Law than Good, and a Paladin of Pelor might place more emphasis on Good than Law, but they each must maintain both.
I don't like the ends justify the means, and again I don't think that DND does either. Exterminating defenseless kobold children is evil, even if the kobolds are evil
It depends on what you mean by defenseless. Unless they have clearly surrendered it would not even be close to an evil act to kill the Kobold children as they are "always evil". You are pretty much saying that killing a defenseless demon/devil child is an evil act, or killing an wyrmling black dragon is an evil act.
Paladins are Fighters with extra Powers tacked on in return for keeping the Code of Conduct. They should have no problems with killing flies, rabbits, cattle, armed enemies and monsters that are always evil. Kobolds are only usually evil. Killing kobold babbas and prisoners violates the Code - PAL loses Powers. Torture violates the Code.
PAL must act honourably and must accept a surrender. Handing over the Prisoner to legitimate Authorities who will hang the criminal is OK if the Prisoner knows what surrender involves. Shooting the prisoner while trying to escape is OK if the prisoner deliberately breaks the parole. Setting up circumstances to encourage the prisoner to escape violates the Code.
Detect Evil only works on Evil Clerics and 10th lvl Characters. The Farmer who sits in the corner thinking evil thoughts but has never had the opportunity to do any evil acts, is unlikely to rise to 10th lvl.
Lying is verboten. Telling a story, when the Audience knows it is a story is OK. Minor lies mean PAL loses minor Powers and must go on a minor Quest to get them back. Big lies, lose Big Powers, Big Quest.
The innocent babba has Plague, either kill the babba or the Town dies, there is no alternative. You lose your Powers, Mwa ha ha (DM's evil laugh) makes Paladin unplayable and is bad DMing. If there is no alternative because PCs ignored the bottle of Plague Cure Potion in the previous room that is good DMing. If the Crime is the hook for the Atonement Quest that is the next bit of the story, DM might be accused of railroading.
Welcome Werral, I'm a newbie too.
It’s an imaginary story . . . about a man who only did good. Of course superman is beyond paladinhood, but he's a good extreme example.
Also, Vash the Stampede is the epitome of Lawful Good Paladinliness in Anime. Again high ideals and a huge (though purely emotional) price he pays for the one time he willingly breaks his vow (in order to save those close to him from a purely-evil, non-repentant psychopath).
A DM may want to put a paladin in a situation where the only choices are to permanently lose your paladinhood, die, or worse, but this better be the culmination of the paladin's campaign or the DM is being unfair.
A paladin would not choose the lesser of two evils and retain his paladinhood. He would find the Good to choose or he wouldn't be a paladin anymore. A paladin that kills an innocent baby to save the world would NEVER be able to atone for this action and would immediately lose paladin abilities. He may stay lawful good of course and would spend the rest of his life attempting to atone (if he was truly a paladin), but he would never again be able to experience the bliss of pure righteousness that comes with paladinhood.
It’s like a mage that disjoins an artifact and loses all his magical abilities. Sometimes there's no going back.
Its one of the best examples of how a paladin should be I've seen in popular culture.
The other is Trigun's Vash the Stampede.
Both examples are exalted paragons of Good. Superman is also extremely Lawful in the above comic. Both the Comic and the Anime are about the huge lengths a truly good person will go to to avoid choosing between the lesser of two evils and the consequences that befall them when they finally make that choice.
A paladin that kills a baby to save the world will NEVER be able to atone for this action. The ends may justify the means, but they don't goodify them, and for that reason he cannot atone. Sure he made life possible for everyone, but to do so he had to do an evil act (one of the most evil I can think of). If he was truly a paladin I would imagine that he'd spend the rest of his life (and maybe part of the afterlife) attempting to atone. Maybe he'd gain forgiveness (on his deathbed or after), but he'd never experience the true joy of pure righteousness. Even if he went out the next day and resurrected the baby, he'd still be unable to atone. If you want to be specific, maybe it would be MORE good to allow the world to end (and not kill the baby), at least then there wouldn't be more evil in the world and it all ended with the choice to do good.
That being said, A DM who places a paladin in a situation where his only choices are between losing his paladinhood, dying, or worse is being unfair or attempting to end the campaign for that paladin.
The lord listens to what happens from you - a Paladin - then pulls out his greatsword and chops the Blackguard's head off. End of story. Pretty much the only time what we would consider a trial happened was for the nobility - and even that was just a judge - no jury.
Therefore, why would the Paladin give mercy when it just delays the inevitable - and gives the Blackguard a chance to escape.
In my opinion the Paladin should say something along the lines of, "I forgive you for myself, but as a bringer of justice I cannot let your transgressions pass." He should then bless them - then give them a nice clean death - then bury their body (the lord would probably display it for a couple days till it started to smell). Perhaps just before his sword comes down for the killing blow he could say, "I am sorry." The end. He'd feel kinda bad, but at the same time know that there was less evil in the world. Nowadays he would be considered a vigilante, but one has to take into account the governmental structure of the time.
Anywho - just my pi sense.
I think demons would always be up to no good. I doubt if you'd ever run into demons baking scones or doing something similarly innocuous. If they're not tormenting mortals, they're tormenting weaker demons or planning carnage. They are evil incarnate. Unlike kobolds who are just little lizard guys with low CR and bad PR.
It depends on what you mean by defenseless. Unless they have clearly surrendered it would not even be close to an evil act to kill the Kobold children as they are "always evil". You are pretty much saying that killing a defenseless demon/devil child is an evil act, or killing an wyrmling black dragon is an evil act.
A Wyrmling black dragon has a CR of 3 so it's hardly defenceless against a low level party. A devil child? Like a half fiend? Well a half-fiend may also be half-human (or half-whatever). So is it okay to kill a half-human child? I( think not. I don't think that outsiders are ever "children" since they are purely spiritual beings.
Kobolds are "usually lawful evil". And how exactly does a baby "surrender"?
A paladin should try to do whatever it takes to go around the situation and find the 3rd option where he doesn't have to do any evil before he seriously considers the option of choosing the lesser evil. I think this attitude is what makes somebody a paladin.
I remember an episode of the new Kung Fu where the David Carradine character faces off against some uber Bad Guy and eventually kills him. His son says, "I thought you told me there was always a better way than killing." Cine just shrugs.
My brother provided the line: "I could not find it in time. And now, he is dead because I failed to find the better way."
I agree that a Paladin in a situation where he's railroaded into choosing between 2 evils (like the example where to act is evil but to fail to act is also evil) is not acting of his own free will, so he isn't triggering the automatic loss of powers. I also agree that he HAS done something evil, and a failure to show regret and a desire to atone calls his alignment into question. Paladins spend a lot of time in confession.
"Forgive me (insert deity’s name), for I have sinned. I realize that what I told the Arch-demon Folgor about me and his mother wasn't true, and I shouldn't have said it. He just made me really angry. And it's not like I was lying to anyone Good. But I'm still not supposed to lie."And a Paladin should never get away with intentionally choosing the greater of two evils since he's sort of immune due to "not acting of his own free will".
PAL must act honourably and must accept a surrender. Handing over the Prisoner to legitimate Authorities who will hang the criminal is OK if the Prisoner knows what surrender involves. Shooting the prisoner while trying to escape is OK if the prisoner deliberately breaks the parole. Setting up circumstances to encourage the prisoner to escape violates the Code.
Detect Evil only works on Evil Clerics and 10th lvl Characters. The Farmer who sits in the corner thinking evil thoughts but has never had the opportunity to do any evil acts, is unlikely to rise to 10th lvl.
Lying is verboten. Telling a story, when the Audience knows it is a story is OK. Minor lies mean PAL loses minor Powers and must go on a minor Quest to get them back. Big lies, lose Big Powers, Big Quest.
The innocent babba has Plague, either kill the babba or the Town dies, there is no alternative. You lose your Powers, Mwa ha ha (DM's evil laugh) makes Paladin unplayable and is bad DMing. If there is no alternative because PCs ignored the bottle of Plague Cure Potion in the previous room that is good DMing. If the Crime is the hook for the Atonement Quest that is the next bit of the story, DM might be accused of railroading.
Welcome Werral, I'm a newbie too.
Welcome Werral, I could tell you were a new.
I disagree with some of this, most notably that a paladin must accept surrender. Why must they? Upholding the principle of mercy is not achieved through the taking prisoners mechanically, and often the honourable solution to a truly evil foe is to destroy them there and then.
Also detect evil works on anything evil, just most cases will only give off a Faint Aura.
As for the plague scenario, this is why paladins get Remove Disease. Besides, there can be other measures, in which case we quarantine the child until found.
One thing to remember about whether a Paladin gives mercy or not is that a D&D setting will not have nearly as developed of a legal system as today. For example, say you take a Blackguard back to the closest good-aligned castle. What happens?
The lord listens to what happens from you - a Paladin - then pulls out his greatsword and chops the Blackguard's head off. End of story. Pretty much the only time what we would consider a trial happened was for the nobility - and even that was just a judge - no jury.
Therefore, why would the Paladin give mercy when it just delays the inevitable - and gives the Blackguard a chance to escape.
In my opinion the Paladin should say something along the lines of, "I forgive you for myself, but as a bringer of justice I cannot let your transgressions pass." He should then bless them - then give them a nice clean death - then bury their body (the lord would probably display it for a couple days till it started to smell). Perhaps just before his sword comes down for the killing blow he could say, "I am sorry." The end. He'd feel kinda bad, but at the same time know that there was less evil in the world. Nowadays he would be considered a vigilante, but one has to take into account the governmental structure of the time.
Anywho - just my pi sense.
All fair. I think the paladin is certainly qualified to dispense justice.
In some, a commoner or a halfling might not be considered morally equal! In the 3.5 Birthright setting, it mentions that upholding the feudal system is considered good and lawful. A Paladin of Heylin might be required to kill a rebellious serf.
In the case of a rebellious serf, I would say that killing would perhaps be the wrong way to handle it. Suppressing a rebellion to halt the spread of violence is more justified than enforcing rule like a tyrant.
Why accept surrender? Well frankly it's hard to imagine someone shooting bandits in cold blood when they're waving the white flag as "good". Most Hollywood movies break this impasse with the cheesy "The villain surrenders, the hero helps him to his feet THEN SUDDENLY, the villain draws his hidden weapon... The hero shoots him dead."
Still a Paladin draws spiritual power from righteousness itself, WITH OR WITHOUT A DEITY. So why should a Paladin be tied to the relative values of his era? A Dwarf paladin, say the PHB, puts his duties as a paladin before clan and king. So might a human paladin.
Still I think killing a blackguard, or other WHO ACTIVELY CHOSE EVIL is easier to justify than killing a kobold infant or similar who just happens to be from a "usually lawful evil" race and may or may not choose evil later in its life.
Oh and here's how I'd imagine the "kill the baby or demon takes over the world" dilemma in play:
DM: You enter the chamber of the Demonlord, it reeks of his foulness and the stench is overpowering. Thargon Vile, lord of the Balor stands over a dark altar. A small bundle lies upon it.
Paladin: What manner of evil is this demon?
Thargon: This is your choice weakling: either one pure of heart dies upon this altar by your hand or the whole world will be sucked into the Abyss as the playpen of my demonic hordes.
Paladin: I shall not allow that to happen, Thargon.
Thargon: Really? Then there is only one way . . .
DM: You realise with horror that the bundle on the altar is a human baby. The child you see before must die or all must die.
Paladin: You lie!
Pialor the Wise (the party mage): I'm afraid it's true. There's no other way.
Paladin player: You're a real git, DM! Okay, my guy steels his heart, walks over to the altar CdG the baby with his longsword.
DM: As you raise the sword with which you swore to protect the innocent you look down at the child below you. It cries in terror at the sight of the shining steel. Her eyes gaze into yours begging "Why?"
Paladin: Hang on! I've changed my mind.
DM: Okay you raise you sheath your sword.
Thargon: Ha! The world is mine!
Player: My paladin ignores him and hands the baby to Pialor.
Paladin: [to Pailor]Take this child mage and FLY. [to Thargon] You are wrong demon - one pure of heart shall die by my hands here: Me.
And thus the paladin either gets raised with divine ranks or the paladin player has serious words with the DM...
Pfft. I have two points to make here. First: What I never see is anyone really taking an objective look at such a situation. First of all, does the fate of the whole world really hinge on whether or not the paladin slays in the infant? The whole world? And if it really does so depend, then isn't it time for the deity behind the scenes to step in? Even if he's the kind of deity that does, indeed, prefer to "work in mysterious ways" and "hide" their interventions, then this is definitely the moment one of those mysterious ways makes an abrupt appearance in the form of providing the paladin with a clear and decisive "third option."
This situation doesn't pit the demon against the paladin. It pits the demon against the deity. Go ahead and place your bets. I'll be betting ten on the deity taking this round. Everyone seems to completely discount the deity that the paladin is so gung-ho fanatical over in the first place. They act as if the paladin himself is the sum totality of the deity him/her-self. The paladin represents and/or serves the deity. In a situation where the whole world was at stake then the deity will definitely either step in personally with the righteous butt-kicking of justice or the paladin will be presented with the opportunity to lay in with said butt-kicking.
[Of course, if the paladin is the sort that somehow doesn't serve a deity or any other "higher power" then, yeah, it pretty much all falls on their shoulders and the world is probably more or less doomed. In this case I'd kick the DM in the shins for placing the fate of the whole world squarely on the shoulder of one lone idealist.]
Second, everyone seems to completely disregard the whole reason the paladin has been placed in this position in the first place. Clearly all or part of the reason is because the BBEG/demon gets a sick thrill out of forcing the "good" guy to make the choice. Probably because no matter what they choose they've done an evil thing. What BBEG doesn't get a thrill out of making the good guy do evil?
No paladin worth his salt would ever play into that game. The REAL act of evil here is taking on the guilt of the BBEG/demon's actions as your own. If the whole world is destroyed the guilt falls on the BBEG/demon. Period. Saying that the world was destroyed because the paladin refused to slay the infant is ridiculous. The decision whether or not to slay the infant is an entirely separate matter. The paladin has the opportunity to prevent the BBEG/demon's evil act (destroying the world) by committing an evil act of his own (slaying the infant). There's really no "third option" at all because committing an evil act to prevent another evil act, no matter how much worse it may be, is no option at all.
That is why you see the good guy always trying to simultaneously save the infant and stop the BBEG in these situations. Because that's the only "righteous" option. And if they fail...it's STILL the BBEG's fault that the world was destroyed! NOT the paladin's. He would only be to blame for a) failing to take any action at all or b) by stupidly deciding to kill an infant to prevent it.
Personally, I think that paladins get such a hard time in threads/discussions/debates like these because so many people get so irritated with paladins over what they represent. There's a tendency to be very unforgiving and demand some unjustifiable standard of "righteousness" that makes righteousness completely impossible because too many people see righteousness itself as an impossible standard. Which, I assume, is why it irritates them so much.
And thus the paladin either gets raised with divine ranks or the paladin player has serious words with the DM...
That is exactly what playing a paladin should be, not choosing the lesser of two evils, but finding that hidden loophole in the impasse that is a purely good action. A good DM would most certainly reward such roleplaying as you have given in you're example - either through having the mere intent of self-sacrifice shatter the demon's hold on the Paladin's Life (remember the laws older than time in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) or by granting the player some hefty template rewards. Although any deity levels before 40th character level is dangerously unbalancing, it’s not out of the realm of possibility to emulate divine apotheosis on a smaller scale with the celestial template
My paladins group was consistently being attacked by mages dressed in white robes. One day we spot several figures lurking in a deserted building and as we round the corner a figure in white mage jumps out. My paladin won the initiative roll. I thought for a moment and decided to charge the mage and spear him with my lance before he could unleash a spell on my party.
I easily slay the "mage" when several figures step out from the building, a couple of mages and a high level cleric of heironeous who turns out to be the regional authority figure. As it turns out the "mage" I had killed was a commoner dressed up in mage robes and set up as bait to get us imprisoned. My paladin immediately felt his power desert him as he lost his status.
I didn't argue (I firmly believe in the DM is always right philosophy in-game) but I thought that I shouldn't have lost my status without a chance to atone. What do you guys think?
In my humble opinion (and others will certainly disagree) your paladin should not have lost a thing. He made a mistake. Everyone does. He would certainly feel bad about it, and do his best to make amends with the victim's family. Making an honest mistake is not necessarily evil or chaotic or dishonorable, even if it is regrettable. It is the bad-guys that put the innocent in harm's way, not the paladin. In my game your paladin would be fine.
I played a paladin several years ago, I would love your opinions on what happened.
My paladins group was consistently being attacked by mages dressed in white robes. One day we spot several figures lurking in a deserted building and as we round the corner a figure in white mage jumps out. My paladin won the initiative roll. I thought for a moment and decided to charge the mage and spear him with my lance before he could unleash a spell on my party.
I easily slay the "mage" when several figures step out from the building, a couple of mages and a high level cleric of heironeous who turns out to be the regional authority figure. As it turns out the "mage" I had killed was a commoner dressed up in mage robes and set up as bait to get us imprisoned. My paladin immediately felt his power desert him as he lost his status.
I didn't argue (I firmly believe in the DM is always right philosophy in-game) but I thought that I shouldn't have lost my status without a chance to atone. What do you guys think?
Hm, interesting idea. I'm of the opinion that naiveté begets leniency. Thus, if this is the first time this has happened, your character should feel really crappy about what he did and see to atone and ensure that this doesn't happen again. Next time, use subdual damage cause next time I wouldn't give you leniency cause you're no longer naïve to the conundrum.
I'm also of the opinion that if you're duped into killing innocents, or somehow forced to do so via magical control or simple happenstance, then you're not directly responsible for their deaths and you have committed no crime. However, someone else has, and you probably should go seek justice for the dead.
By duped, I don't mean the "Baby or Devil" scenario that has been used earlier, but I mean the simple "dressing up innocents in the armor and equipment of your enemies" or simply tricking the paladin into believing that he's fighting something else entirely.
Remember Baldur's Gate 2?
Show
When you first go to Windspear mountains, you encounter a band of monsters. After slaughtering them, you find out that they were really Paladins of the Radiant Heart. Someone else cast a powerful illusion spell that caused your party to see them as monsters, and caused their party to see yours as monsters. Thus you were engaged.
I easily slay the "mage" when several figures step out from the building, a couple of mages and a high level cleric of heironeous who turns out to be the regional authority figure. As it turns out the "mage" I had killed was a commoner dressed up in mage robes and set up as bait to get us imprisoned. My paladin immediately felt his power desert him as he lost his status.
Wait, let me get this straight: The regional clerical leader of Heironeous set up a trap to get your paladin imprisoned by using a commoner as bait? If that's what really happened, this setup is very odd. Unless the Heironeous cleric wasn't what he seemed to be (e.g. a polymorphed fiend), was possessed/dominated, or was somehow deceived/tricked as well, I cannot believe something like this should have happened.
Since you said this was several years ago: What happened after your imprisonment? How was this devious plot resolved? Were you given a chance to atone/Atone? Of course, your paladin seems to have reacted a bit hasty there. It really depends on the circumstances. If I as a DM had created a similar setup I probably would have provided some clues as to the real nature of the white robed commoner, or at least have rolled a Sense Motive check secretly.
But I'll reserve my judgment on this until I've heard more on it. The problem with situations like this is that you as the player don't necessarily have all the information about what was really going on there (unless you've had a chance to talk it over OOC with your DM - which I'd certainly recommend in any case).
DMs (almost ;)) always deserve the benefit of doubt. This might have been an intriguing start to a very rewarding personal quest for your paladin or a DM behaving like a jerk. If it was just used as a plot device for an interesting story it was perfectly okay, if it was used as convenient way to get rid of your paladin, it wasn't.
I played a paladin several years ago, I would love your opinions on what happened.
My paladins group was consistently being attacked by mages dressed in white robes. One day we spot several figures lurking in a deserted building and as we round the corner a figure in white mage jumps out. My paladin won the initiative roll. I thought for a moment and decided to charge the mage and spear him with my lance before he could unleash a spell on my party.
I easily slay the "mage" when several figures step out from the building, a couple of mages and a high level cleric of heironeous who turns out to be the regional authority figure. As it turns out the "mage" I had killed was a commoner dressed up in mage robes and set up as bait to get us imprisoned. My paladin immediately felt his power desert him as he lost his status.
I didn't argue (I firmly believe in the DM is always right philosophy in-game) but I thought that I shouldn't have lost my status without a chance to atone. What do you guys think?
Are you seriously asking if killing someone, because of the way that they're dressed, is evil?
It's obviously evil, and the Paladin's code follows the rule of "Lose powers in haste, repent at leisure."As it turned out the Cleric was recently ousted from his position and was trying to make a big score. The party became outlawed, my ex-paladin was going to leave the party by my DM convinced me it wouldn't have been against my code to stay with them. The trouble with being outlawed was that it made it very hard to find a cleric to atone to
. So my level 6 pally was doomed. The party acquired several levels which I refused to take (if I took levels of fighter or something I wouldn't be able to go back to being a pally), this resulted him in being killed in a random encounter (the party was about level 9).I still think the DM may have been being unfair: firstly how much descriptive info did the DM give? Were you told the guy was casting a spell? Or just waving his arms around and saying something? Surely a guy who's been fighting evil mages would be able to spot the difference even with 0 ranks in spellcraft (speaking of which, didn't the party mage get a spellcraft roll? "Stop Thalin! That man is no mage!"). Furthermore how did the commoner act? Surely a guy with NO MAGICAL ability would be scared witless by a paladin charging with sword outdrawn. Wouldn't the guy have held up his hands in surrender? Or just thrown himself in the dirt or turned around and pegged it as fast as he could. COME ON! If you're an evil mage you think, "I can fry this guy with a lightning bolt before he reaches me!" If you're just some guy you think, "Help!" Surely that might of given the game away? Or at least given the paladin player a chance to think - hang on a minute. And don't D&D characters die at -10hp? Wasn't there any chance to address the wrong?
In my description of how the baby/demon story might pan out I deliberately had the player state that his character would kill the baby and then had the DM provide extra description. 6 seconds is a long time! Most paladins have high wisdom which aside from bonuses and spells also means intuition! The player only has the DM's description of the world to go on.
Still assuming the DM was fair then it's totally correct that the paladin loses his powers. He has of his own free will killed someone who results as innocent. For the paladin it doesn't matter that he thought he was doing a good thing. (Though it might help in court!)
Still I think the paladin should have an opportunity to atone somehow: helping the victim’s family or even getting the guy raised, and dealing with those who so callously used an innocent as bait in a trap.
Still such crafty and dastardly villains make a great story hook. Did they also strike the wizard dumb, make the cleric lose his faith, fix the rogue with adamantine bells on his ankles and give the fighter palsy? That's what I call a challenging adventure!
On the "commoner dressed as evil mage" scenario. Obviously killing an innocent is an evil act so I think it was right that the paladin lost his powers.
I still think the DM may have been being unfair: firstly how much descriptive info did the DM give? Were you told the guy was casting a spell? Or just waving his arms around and saying something? Surely a guy who's been fighting evil mages would be able to spot the difference even with 0 ranks in spellcraft (speaking of which, didn't the party mage get a spellcraft roll? "Stop Thalin! That man is no mage!"). Furthermore how did the commoner act? Surely a guy with NO MAGICAL ability would be scared witless by a paladin charging with sword outdrawn. Wouldn't the guy have held up his hands in surrender? Or just thrown himself in the dirt or turned around and pegged it as fast as he could. COME ON! If you're an evil mage you think, "I can fry this guy with a lightning bolt before he reaches me!" If you're just some guy you think, "Help!" Surely that might of given the game away? Or at least given the paladin player a chance to think - hang on a minute. And don't D&D characters die at -10hp? Wasn't there any chance to address the wrong?
In my description of how the baby/demon story might pan out I deliberately had the player state that his character would kill the baby and then had the DM provide extra description. 6 seconds is a long time! Most paladins have high wisdom which aside from bonuses and spells also means intuition! The player only has the DM's description of the world to go on.
Still assuming the DM was fair then it's totally correct that the paladin loses his powers. He has of his own free will killed someone who results as innocent. For the paladin it doesn't matter that he thought he was doing a good thing. (Though it might help in court!)
Still I think the paladin should have an opportunity to atone somehow: helping the victim’s family or even getting the guy raised, and dealing with those who so callously used an innocent as bait in a trap.
Still such crafty and dastardly villains make a great story hook. Did they also strike the wizard dumb, make the cleric lose his faith, fix the rogue with adamantine bells on his ankles and give the fighter palsy? That's what I call a challenging adventure!
The "mage" was waving his hands around and muttering "...in a language you don't understand...". Spellcraft is a trained only skill so couldn't use it. None of the party members had a chance to react as I had won the initiative roll. Now when I play paladins I always use the "ready" action and wait for confirmation that the opponent is indeed a bad guy. This has resulted in a couple of party members being killed, but .....
Are you seriously asking if killing someone, because of the way that they're dressed, is evil?
No. He isn't. Read the situation, is striking to kill when under the (mistaken) belief of ambush evil? Suppose it was a mage, who used that chance to kill a comrade? Then what?
I believe the mistake was to go straight for the lance charge - a grapple, overrun or knockdown would have been wiser. It was an act of poor judgment, not evil.
Or it could just be that the alignment system, as is, is badly written and so it?s a bit like "marble stacking" to try and make coherent sense of it?
In the PHB, it's well-written, but a little scarce. (That is to say, it doesn't contradict itself, but leaves a lot to be argued over.) If you run with the BoED & BoVD - if only for their descriptions of what constitutes Good and Evil - the problem is solved.
Or at least, it's solved if you're prepared to accept the game's analysis of morality, instead of complaining whenever your preconceptions are challenged.
Well, my Paladin surrendered to the Cleric and was clapped in irons. My party however, took exception to the trap and suspected that the Cleric was not in fact who he said he was and attacked them. My Paladin tried to intercede by placing himself in front of the Cleric but the party managed to kill them all, not my preferred option.
As it turned out the Cleric was recently ousted from his position and was trying to make a big score. The party became outlawed, my ex-paladin was going to leave the party by my DM convinced me it wouldn't have been against my code to stay with them.
You should have stuck to your guns. While it's not against the Paladin's code to associate with outlaws of a goodly nature, if your character was serious about the code then he'd be seeking to atone as priority #1.
The trouble with being outlawed was that it made it very hard to find a cleric to atone to
Being a Paladin is always very hard.
So my level 6 pally was doomed. The party acquired several levels which I refused to take (if I took levels of fighter or something I wouldn't be able to go back to being a pally),
Your DM shouldn't have let you do this. The rules don't support refusing levels, and it doesn't make much sense in terms of a narrative. (After all, your character was wandering around not-being-a-Paladin for all that time - why didn't he get levels in something else?) Also, you shouldn't have felt the need to take this path: you can take levels in a Prestige Class that is rather like a Paladin later, and a couple of levels of another class could have helped with that - or given you some interesting abilities.
Basically, it seems like what you wanted as a character (more Paladin levels) wasn't in synch with the way you were playing your character (as someone who had broken with the Paladin code).
this resulted him in being killed in a random encounter (the party was about level 9).
I don't have a lot of sympathy.
I didn't argue (I firmly believe in the DM is always right philosophy in-game) but I thought that I shouldn't have lost my status without a chance to atone. What do you guys think?
The paladin's actions were certainly ill-advised, and I would go as far as to say foolish. While I can completely understand how such a mistake could be made and am sympathetic, the paladin did make a mistake. Before attacking with lethal force, the paladin really should have considered that anyone can wear white, and that the chances of a misidentification when using only that criterion were really high. Attacking someone with the intention of killing them only because of the colour of their clothes is beyond reckless. Period.
Reckless is not the same as evil, though. The action was taken in haste, and the paladin had to make a quick decision, so he didn't have time to fully consider his actions. His intention (to protect his party) was a good one, and there were extenuating circumstances that contributed to his actions (attacks by people dressed that way in the past.)
The paladin definitely needed to atone. He should have been allowed to do so, and if he showed proper contrition I don't think he should have fallen. Paladins are held to a high standard, but no one is perfect. A mistake is not the same as an act of evil, and I think even a paladin should have a chance to make up for a mistake.
If the paladin was given a chance to atone and did not do so or did not feel sorry for his error (since it was indeed his fault in spite of the circumstances,) he should have fallen. His fall would have been because of his lack of contrition, though, not because he made the initial mistake.
Maybe I'm too lenient in my thinking, but if paladins can never make an error in good faith, then we're going to have an awful lot of fallen paladins, because even they can't be perfect.
No. He isn't.
Good to see that your mind-reading powers are still in fine shape.
Read the situation,
I did. The situation as described is that the Paladin killed someone because the victim was dressed the same way as one of the Paladin's enemies. This is a cut-and-dry case of failing to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.
is striking to kill when under the (mistaken) belief of ambush evil?
We're simply told that the person in white robes "jumped out". That doesn't sound like a clear provocation.
Suppose it was a mage, who used that chance to kill a comrade? Then what?
As I understand your line of argument, you're saying that because there was a chance of the Paladin's companions being harmed, the normal rules of engagement need not apply. I am sure that you will complain that I am misrepresenting you here. As such, I am not going to offer any rebuttal to this view: if it's not a fair representation, then kindly explain the point of the rhetorical question.
I believe the mistake was to go straight for the lance charge - a grapple, overrun or knockdown would have been wiser. It was an act of poor judgment, not evil.
Why would you claim that the judgment is poor? Is it because you believe that non-lethal attacks would have been more effective (in non-moral terms)? Or is it because you believe that they would have been more morally acceptable?
The "mage" was waving his hands around and muttering "...in a language you don't understand...". Spellcraft is a trained only skill so couldn't use it......
Yes but you use Spellcraft to determine what kind of spells a spellcaster is casting. I think a peasant mumbling gobbledegook should enable unskilled person a "spellcraft" roll (since it's not really spellcraft.
Anyway my basic argument is that the commoner would pee himself (I certainly would!) if a paladin charged him with a sword when he has ABSOLUTELY NO FORM OF DEFENCE OR COUNTERATTACK. Surely the commoners reaction should either allow some form of roll (even a base wis roll) or the DM should describe it so the player has some clues as to what's going on.
You should have stuck to your guns. While it's not against the Paladin's code to associate with outlaws of a goodly nature, if your character was serious about the code then he'd be seeking to atone as priority #1..
If I'd done anything else I would have had to hand in my character sheet to be NPC'd by the DM, where's the fun in that. After all I am trying to play that character and if every time I face adversity I just chuck it in and give my character to the DM then what’s the point of playing?
Your DM shouldn't have let you do this. The rules don't support refusing levels, and it doesn't make much sense in terms of a narrative. (After all, your character was wandering around not-being-a-Paladin for all that time - why didn't he get levels in something else?) Also, you shouldn't have felt the need to take this path: you can take levels in a Prestige Class that is rather like a Paladin later, and a couple of levels of another class could have helped with that - or given you some interesting abilities.
Basically, it seems like what you wanted as a character (more Paladin levels) wasn't in synch with the way you were playing your character (as someone who had broken with the Paladin code)..
I don't understand this, If I had taken levels in anything else I would no longer be able to continue as a pally. Yes I wanted to get more pally levels. That’s why I wanted to play a pally in the first place. We were playing Core rules only so there was no avenue for taking a prestige class..
I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Not asking for it champ, merely stating what had happened.
The "mage" was waving his hands around and muttering "...in a language you don't understand...". Spellcraft is a trained only skill so couldn't use it. None of the party members had a chance to react as I had won the initiative roll. Now when I play paladins I always use the "ready" action and wait for confirmation that the opponent is indeed a bad guy. This has resulted in a couple of party members being killed, but .....
Spellcraft is used to tell what kind of magic someone is using, this was just some poor sap waving his arms around. I reckon that's a little easier than true spellcraft.
Yes but you use Spellcraft to determine what kind of spells a spellcaster is casting. I think a peasant mumbling gobbledegook should enable unskilled person a "spellcraft" roll (since it's not really spellcraft.
Should have been bluff vs sense motive. Hopefully the commoner would have lost.
Anyway my basic argument is that the commoner would pee himself (I certainly would!) if a paladin charged him with a sword when he has ABSOLUTELY NO FORM OF DEFENCE OR COUNTERATTACK. Surely the commoners reaction should either allow some form of roll (even a base wis roll) or the DM should describe it so the player has some clues as to what's going on.
Yeah, this looks a lot like a DM punishing the player for not giving important information.
DM - "You see a normal hallway 10 feet wide and 80 feet long the walls and ceiling are slick. What do you do."
P - "I walk in."
DM - "You idiot there’s no floor! Take 10d6 falling damage."
P - "You mean the floor was an illusion?"
DM - "No there wasn't a floor there. You should have known that."
P - "That really isn't a normal hallway then is it? Maybe you should have mentioned that in the room description."
Of course, even if the sting was a setup that the Paladin couldn't see through it's still not a fall worthy offense. If you point a unloaded gun at an armed person and get shot it's your fault. The person will feel bad about it if he's a good person, but it's a reasonable response to a deadly threat. And at level 6 a mage spell is far more powerful then a gun.
If I'd done anything else I would have had to hand in my character sheet to be NPC'd by the DM, where's the fun in that. After all I am trying to play that character and if every time I face adversity I just chuck it in and give my character to the DM then what?s the point of playing?
This is meta-game thinking. DMs are advised to punish players who indulge in such things. "If my paladin quests for an atonement spell, then I'll have to hand him over to the DM - at least for several sessions," is not the right way to think about these situations. The right way to think about such things is, "My character feels that he has broken a sacred oath with his patron powers..."
(FWIW, if you were in this situation at my table, I would have offered to let you play a 'pinch-hitter' with the rest of the party for a few sessions, and found some time to one-on-one out your lapsed paladin's search for redemption. If your DM wasn't prepared to let you do something like this, I tend to agree that you were being hard done by.)
I don't understand this, If I had taken levels in anything else I would no longer be able to continue as a pally.
The fact of the matter is that your character was not continuing to be a paladin. The right thing for a paladin to do was to seek atonement. When you decided that he wasn't going to do that, you'd already decided that he wasn't a paladin any more.
Yes I wanted to get more pally levels. That’s why I wanted to play a pally in the first place.
Well, I'm afraid that this means playing the character like a paladin.
We were playing Core rules only so there was no avenue for taking a prestige class..
Other than Blackguard, of course. ;)
See, while sneak attack has its value, a Paladin just isn't that kind of guy. He only fights people he's been properly introduced to. He walks up to the front of the goblin cave, calls out to them, explains who he is and who his ancestors were and what king he serves, and then explains just exactly what kind of butt-whipping he has come to dispense.
To do any less is unbecoming of a gentleman.
Percival was a paladin (I think the class might be based on him). Can you imagine Percival attacking from stealth? Other Knights of the Round Table, sure maybe. But not Percival. He was too good and pure.
Which reminds me of an in-character conversation once. The fighter (his Cha was too low to be a paladin, so he was played as a guy who was gonna be a paladin but just missed the cut) says to the thief, "You have no honor. You sneak in and take their stuff while they sleep. At least I have the decency to wake them up and kill them first."
It's a weird little world paladins live in. Basically, you have the might of Right on your side, and the backing of a God (if not the God), and that should be all you need. Bad Guys use trickery and poison, because they are weak. And still they lose, because they are weak, and no amount of trickery is equal to the might of being Right and having God on your side.
If only the Real World(tm) worked like that. . .
This is meta-game thinking. DMs are advised to punish players who indulge in such things. "If my paladin quests for an atonement spell, then I'll have to hand him over to the DM - at least for several sessions," is not the right way to think about these situations. The right way to think about such things is, "My character feels that he has broken a sacred oath with his patron powers..."
Your right, I didn't look at it that way. But I felt that the DM was going to allow me to do something to atone with the involvement of the rest of the party.
(FWIW, if you were in this situation at my table, I would have offered to let you play a 'pinch-hitter' with the rest of the party for a few sessions, and found some time to one-on-one out your lapsed paladin's search for redemption. If your DM wasn't prepared to let you do something like this, I tend to agree that you were being hard done by.)
I would have liked that.
The fact of the matter is that your character was not continuing to be a paladin. The right thing for a paladin to do was to seek atonement. When you decided that he wasn't going to do that, you'd already decided that he wasn't a paladin any more.
Well that’s subjective. I'm not lawful good and I certainly am no Paladin, so saying things like "that’s not what a Paladin would do" sound rather silly to me.
Well, I'm afraid that this means playing the character like a paladin.
Other than Blackguard, of course. ;)
Hehe, I hadn't thought about that but that would have certainly required a fair bit of effort on my part.
Killing without provocation = definitely evil. The white mage thing, he definitely should have lost his powers. If you did win initiative, then you never saw him cast a spell, am I right? Without proof of him being evil AND (important) without being provoked by him you were just killing a guy who had on white robes. If he had drawn a weapon and swung at you, or you saw him prepare to cast a spell (or bluff you into thinking he is) than it'd be a bit different in my mind.
Paladins kill, yes. We can't argue that because if they didn't they'd be weak clerics. Paladins want to kill, but they don't delight in it. They don't look for every opportunity, smiling while they do it. They get stern looks on their faces as they do their god's work. I agree that the end does not justify the means. Here are a couple of comparisons on this idea:
I want to become the savior of the waste (free it of all that is evil): I can either A) patiently seek out evil and meticulously endure the hardships that go along with taking the long road, or B) Kill everyone, and then myself, thus everyone's dead and therefore no evil people left.
Either way, I have given us a world without evil. And isn't that a good cause? The means of doing this is horrifically different though, and i should have be stripped of my powers the day I thought up plan B.
I recommend a good read with the book of exalted deeds on the definitions of good and what good characters do. Mercy, is a popular one in my games, and I think that's the third option many can't seem to see. If you knock your opponent into the dying range, then why not have a cleric burn a 0 level spell to keep them a little alive and to account for their crimes? Are they hurting anyone there at -6 until the end of the fight? How about non-lethal damage as an option? There are feats that allow characters to avoid the -4 penalty, so it becomes as easy to deal as regular damage.
Coup-de-gras are definitely evil. You're needlessly killing a helpless victim. Your DM may rule that after capturing a villain and he escaped countless times you may want to get it over with, but you're still abusing the "I don't have any other options" line if you have them helpless already.
Killing in self-defense or protecting another is a viable option (you don't ALWAYS have to pull your punches) but you should be sure your opponent is not going to stop. Swinging for the fences is fine, and if you accidentally chop them straight from 5 hp to -10 won't get you permanently banned from paladin of the month. They should have surrendered, or at least ran away. Letting him escape with 10 hp left is pretty noble, and if your DM is understanding he shouldn't always have them come back the next day. They just got creamed, and probably won't risk any sort of revenge.
A lot of DMs play game where the enemy keeps pushing their they're all dead, and I do this a lot in my game too (partly because I don't want to deal with them chasing, partly because I want the fight over ASAP) but in a game with a paladin the enemy should know when to drop their weapons and put their hands up, or your DM shouldn't take your powers for bad roleplaying on his part. Few enemies will push until they're dead, no matter how much fear you put in 'em.
A quick note before I say my finishing suggestions, Evil outsiders are twice as bad (evil-wise) as evil natives (to the material plane) but luckily you don't "kill" them as much as banish them back to their home plane (outsider's souls return to their plane of origin, I believe) so they can't be killed in the 'boo-hoo I've destroyed life' idea of killing.
Before you say Derrick's methods are impossible, try these ideas on for size: Non-lethal damage (the feat I'm thinking of makes this pretty easy), Grappling (a high STR paladin should be able to pin a foe to the ground), Disarm (When they take a -4 to deal horrible non-lethal damage to you they probably will leave), or my personal favorite : stockpile manacles and don't be afraid to use 1 point of lay on hands on your unconscious foes (leads to a lot of Role-playing fun when people who attack you have juicy info, or you collect bounties on certain NPCs).
I do have something to add that I haven't seen anywhere else yet, and this is primarily directed at Derrick. First off I'd have to say that I haven't really agreed with much of what you've written on these posts. What some other people have written is a lot more eloquent and thought out than I could manage, but I'd definitely venture this: I can't imagine anyone having fun playing a paladin as you describe them. And I think that this can end the debate as to whether killing is an evil action or not. This text is taken from the sage advice column, Dragon issue 341, page 82
Is a coup de grace attack an evil act?
(i.e., can a paladin make such an attack
without falling from grace?)
The coup de grace is simply a kind
of attack and is neither inherently
good nor inherently evil. In some
cases, it's the best option against
a foe (such as an unconscious but
regenerating troll). If attacking a
particular character would be con-
sidered an evil act--such as stabbing
an innocent merchant in the middle
of his shop--delivering a coup de
grace on that character would be just
as evil.
Of course, if the paladin has already
promised to face her foe in nonlethal
combat, delivering a coup de grace
would almost certainly violate her
code of conduct.
It's pretty clear I think. As to clear answers for moral paladins, I think that's dependent on how you interpret good and evil and the code of conduct. I believe that the evidence focuses on a very lenient view: Do you perform wanton acts of cruelty, selfishness to the point of a total lack of empathy for others, or deliberately bring harm and anguish to others? You're evil. Do you help those around you because you feel it's the right thing to do, knowingly sacrifice yourself to the betterment of others, activily oppose the forces of evil? You're good. Are you somewhere in between those extremes? You're neutral.
When we speak to examples of paladins, look no further than this very excellent article. But suffice to say, Paksanarrian Dothansdotter, Sturm Brightblade, and Sir Galahad all took lives (and human lives at that) without second thought. In fact many of those humans weren't even evil. Not to say that any of those heroes didn't value and respect life; they understood the value of it and when the circumstances required that they take it.
[1] Is it true?
[2] Is it necessary?
[3] Is it nice?
Say it on any 2 of 3. Just remember that your paladin's high charisma can and should be used to soften any unpleasant truths enough to do less emotional harm while still getting the critical point across. For some odd reason, a lot of folks think that paladins have to be jerks; the opposite is usually true.
Overall, I thought Nightwing's treatise was very good indeed. Good enough, in fact, that I'd recommend printing his article out and using it as the base for any discussions with a DM about playing paladins.
Let me reiterate what I stated way back in post #79, since the baby/demon thing seems to have been a major sticking point:
Also, I think the discussion on the baby-rescuing/demon-unleashing issue was off-point. My original example was wildly hypothetical. The point, of course, was to show an example of the sorts of predicaments some DMs love to put their paladins in which are entirely unfair due to the severity, irrevocability, and the over-assignment of burden on the poor paladin. While it is quite rewarding to have paladins prove their mettle in tough circumstances, it is hardly encouraging, fun, or fair to have a deity of law and goodness judge his champion over-harshly. In most such situations, the predicament was engineered to be difficult by the BBEG (read: DM) and was hardly brought about by the will of the paladin. Thus, split-second lose/lose decisions can not cause a paladin's "fall from grace."
(Emphasis added)
The baby/demon suggestion was only hyperbole (and tongue-in-cheek, at that!) that I linked to the desire of some DMs to put their hapless paladin-players in lose/lose situations (which seems to be amazingly common around these message boards).
Just because a paladin has divine health doesn’t mean he must wallow in disease.
Both cases above, as well as lay on hands and turn undead are tools that the paladin can use when necessary. Often it is more necessary than he has the ability for but sometimes it is a feature not used that day.
Mercy and justice are two elements of a paladin, but they are not elements in opposition. The key to understanding the paladin is to understand not the paladin but the evil the paladin opposes. This evil does not hide in the corner and wish to be undisturbed, but instead tends to actively go forth and seek to harm innocents. The paladin must therefore seek the evil before the evil seeks out the innocent.
Never the less, just as important for a paladin to sally forth into the den of the dragon/demon/vampire the paladin also has to on occasion sally forth into the plague camp and cure people. (remove disease)
The paladin is not responsible for the misdeeds of someone else. He is responsible for his own misdeeds. Killing the baby is evil, no matter the justification for it. The demon wrecking the universe because the paladin didn't do so is the demon's moral problem (not that it likely cares).
The BOED talks about this sort of situation exactly (and even uses a similar example) - no matter how good the ends, an evil means is always evil.
Or as it came out in one of the old Ultima CRPGs in a similar no-win scenario, "It is better to be defeated by evil than to submit to it."
Mercy and justice are two elements of a paladin, but they are not elements in opposition. The key to understanding the paladin is to understand not the paladin but the evil the paladin opposes. This evil does not hide in the corner and wish to be undisturbed, but instead tends to actively go forth and seek to harm innocents. The paladin must therefore seek the evil before the evil seeks out the innocent.
All interesting ethical problems involve finding a median between two different good ideals. An example of this would be generosity and self-preservation. Both of these are good, but when they come into conflict, the paladin must balance which path does more good and less evil. The same is true for mercy and justice/deterring further evil. The paladin must decide on a case-by-case basis what is the correct action. As long as the paladin, based on what they know about the world, makes a reasonable choice, they will not fall. In the kill the baby/release the demon scenario, the clear choice is to kill the baby. Especially because, if I was the demon, the first thing I would do is kill the baby. That would be funny, seeing the paladin cry. Ha ha ha ha ha.
In this essay, I intend to tackle some of the most debated topics regarding paladins and their behavior.
Yeah like what does a Paladin do with his own bastard child's mother?
~ Sturm Brightblade died.
How do you face impossible odds? ~ Huma Died.
Most Paladins deal with their problems by Dying.. or "Questing" ... again ... after giving up, failing to uphold their code, ... the poison blade was the only weapon I had....
"Their own sense own sense of deflatable righteousness.
and thats really my opinion on the matter.
God bless the USA,
I stand my ground on the Paladin issue yet again. "Can I swap my Paladin Levels for Bard now that I'm chaotic?"
~ The Hero of most stories.. at that darkest moment before dawn.
I don't think it's always right to choose the lesser of two evils. For a paladin, it's not that easy. The paladin should be compelled to try to find a third way out, where (from your example) he wouldn't have to kill the innocent child or release the demon. A perfect example of this is Vash the Stampede from Trigun. Nicholas D. Wolfwood says, "However, I do know of a guy who whines, cries, throws tantrums and he somehow manages to find a way to save everyone. He's a crazy man, who's not afraid of anything. Even though he's been scarred from head to toe, he'll always be there."
A paladin should try to do whatever it takes to go around the situation and find the 3rd option where he doesn't have to do any evil before he seriously considers the option of choosing the lesser evil. I think this attitude is what makes somebody a paladin.
A potential option 3;
Being a being of purity the Paladin attempts to transfer the child's plight to him/herself so that in an act of great self-sacrifice the demon is kept from entering the world and the child is saved.... Now the player just has to either A)Revive the Hero Paladin or B) Roll up a new character.
I think if a paladin is confronted with a situation where every action might be considered evil, even though one action might seem less evil, he has the duty to do nothing. At the beginning of Baldur's Gate 2 there's an interesting alignment riddle by Irenicus. Let's modify it. The paladin is in a cage with two buttons on a console. if he pushes the left one, one child will die. If he pushes the right one, ten villagers will die. If he pushes none of the buttons within one hour, all will die. IMO he has no right to push a button, because that automatically would make him an actor, a judge. Nobody (no divine power) rightfully gave him the authority to decide. By not acting, he does not usurp this power and the responsibility remains with the evil entity that invented the whole setup.
Passing the blame is not what paladins do! Sitting passively by while evil happens that you have the power to stop is not how paladins work. Paladins are the fists of their deities. They should act. Paladins are there to make the "hard" choices. "hard" is in quotation marks because they are actually insanely easy. One innocent casualty is better then 11.
Consider this: Suppose the paladin chooses to flip a coin to decide which button to press. He first asks the innocents to agree to this action as opposed to do nothing. The child would rather have a 50% chance of survival then a 0%, and the villagers would make the same decision. They agree. If everyone agrees to your plan, how can it be evil?
I have shown your plan is not the best one. I think killing the child is best, but I cannot prove it.
As for some of the positions on the relative morality of Paladins:
1: I think that in general usage the term "sentient" has come to mean intelligent and self aware, and therefore that doesn't really apply to animals. The people arguing that Paladins are doing evil by stepping on bugs, swatting mosquitoes, or exterminating rabbits are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
2: Our moral codes vs. killing arose in a world where there is only one intelligent race. If our society arose in a world with myriad races, some of whom having an overwhelming tendency to attack others with the intent to loot, pillage, ****, and massacre, the moral codes of our society would be quite different. Martial virtue would be much more highly prized, and killing members of those races would most likely be seen as virtuous acts.
3: Deities know that their mortal agents are not going to be perfect. If they were, there would really be no moral lesson in their perfection. Paladins are imperfect beings that strive for perfection in an imperfect world. The constant effort in the face of the impossibility of attaining the goal is one of the things that mark Paladins out as special. Deities who empower Paladins probably cut them some slack when they make well-intentioned mistakes.
4: Paladins are also expected to exercise judgment and discretion. Deities don't empower Paladins to run around and right every petty little banal evil on the planet. Paladins exist to tackle the really big honking evils. A Paladin who runs around slaughtering every person they meet who pings the Detect Evil is being excessive. Furthermore, in most lands unprovoked killing would be regarded as the crime of murder. Paladins would know this, and therefore wouldn't put the evil farmer in the corner to the sword just because he pings the DE-radar. Even if the farmer does commit an evil act, there are degrees of response. Killing is not always justified. A Paladin can alert the local authorities to the act and let them deal with it, as that's what they're for. If, for whatever reason, they don't act, then and only then need the Paladin intervene personally.
I think if a paladin is confronted with a situation where every action might be considered evil, even though one action might seem less evil, he has the duty to do nothing. At the beginning of Baldur's Gate 2 there's an interesting alignment riddle by Irenicus. Let's modify it. The paladin is in a cage with two buttons on a console. if he pushes the left one, one child will die. If he pushes the right one, ten villagers will die. If he pushes none of the buttons within one hour, all will die. IMO he has no right to push a button, because that automatically would make him an actor, a judge. Nobody (no divine power) rightfully gave him the authority to decide. By not acting, he does not usurp this power and the responsibility remains with the evil entity that invented the whole setup.
If the paladin pushes no buttons, and waits for an hour and "the ticking time elapses" and all 11 innocents are killed, he is in trouble. He was given TIME. Time to pray to his deity, time to attempt to break out of the cage, time to try and defeat the EVIL, etc.
Your assertian that nobody gave him the right to decide does not override his "paragon of lawful good alignment" If you were to say he had only 1 standard action, then I could be persuaded that the paladin not acting should not be a "fall from grace" but an hour is just WAY WAY too long to
claim he had no chance to come up with an idea to save them (both).
Paladins. Fight. Evil. That is what they do.
I couldn't agree more.
Just because a Paladin can Smite Evil doesn't mean he must.
Just because a soldier is given a rifle doesn't mean he's supposed to use it.
Both of those statements are foolish...
A Paladin's god gives him the weapon Smite Evil so he can use it on the bad guys.
A government gives a soldier a rifle so he can shoot the bad guys.
This discussion or morality is really interesting and all, but in the end it just makes the idea of playing a Paladin way too much work in a game that is supposed to be fun.
Anyone remember fun?
When I play a Paladin, I am not looking for a moral argument every session about what is evil and what is good. When I play a Paladin, I want to be the great foe of evil in the world, hunting down demons, saving villages from orc hoards and depose tyrants that lord their evil over goodly folk. I want to call out my number in the evil army and have a joust with him, right there, in the middle of the battle to the death. I wish to be my god's samurai, ready to die without hesitation for his or her cause when the time finally comes.
This idea of a Paladin being mindful of all life in his actions, down to insects in the forest, is silly. The Paladin is a warrior of his god, not a Buddhist monk; he is out on the fields of death trading blows with evil to defend what is good and right and not paying mind to ant hills and butterflies while doing it. If you want that level of reverence for life in your character, the Book of Exalted Deeds is out there. Burn a feat, get a bonus and leave the average Paladin to his divinely sanctioned duty: Fighting Evil. The Paladin worries about the lives of thinking beings such as humans, gnomes, elves, dragons, fey, and anything with an intelligence score of 3+... which isn't insects and animals.
If you wish to have a deep, moral essay in place on what a Paladin can and can't do in your game, go for it. Just be mindful, I don't think that is what most players will be looking for in their game... nor is it what the game designers were going for on what a Paladin can and can't do.
Not to mention, most Paladins with the Elite Array put the 8 or 10 into Intelligence; some of this discussion goes into deep philosophy a person with an Int score of the average Paladin would never understand, much less be able to model their life on. The game designers understood that, the gods of D&D know it as well and the DM of the game should keep it in mind when a Paladin enters his/her game. "Don't willingly do Evil" is literal, but literal in the scope of D&D's understanding of morality, which is so simple I'm surprised this conversation even needs to take place.
The Paladin's Code:
"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."
Fairly long, but simple... simple enough for someone with an Intelligence score of 7-11 to understand. Yet the obviously intelligent members of this forum choose to debate it? Kill the baby, you evil; atone if you wish to. Loose the demon, get to killing it oh destroyer of evil, or die trying! Remember, a Paladin's life is one of sacrifice (by virtue of being the proto-typical good guy); dying by upholding the code is by all means legitimate roleplaying. In reality (D&D wise anyways), there wouldn't be many high or epic level Paladins; most make the ultimate sacrifice at some point.
Like Bushido, when in doubt, revert to the most honorable thing you can do, and if that is not possible, end your life with your honor by the sword of your foe, or that of your own blade. As a Paladin, when in doubt, refer to doing what is most good, even if it means dying in the process.
Only in D&D, by doing what is most good, even if it means dying, to uphold the high standard you live by may indeed mean that your god sends down some help to affirm what you are doing is what is expected of you, but it is not yet your time to die. These are interventionist gods; if you make them proud, they'll help you out. One day no help will come and that's when your character should accept his time has come: Take as much Evil with you as possible, Paladin.
And if your DM puts you in a "break the code or go to the grave" choice every time your play a Paladin (some do it at first level!), that is something wrong with the DM, not the player or the system. Biting off more than you can chew and the DM 'hating' on your Paladin are two different things; one is your foolishness, one is someone being a real jerk.
If a demon is threatening to be loosed and you could never handle it, with the help of the party no less, then why again are your faced with this encounter? Meta-Game thinking says you should be able to kill the demon or seal it away again or something so just do what your character would do (and as a Paladin is to save the innocent baby) and trust in the story. If the DM is driving at something for the better of the story, go along... if the DM is being a bastard, then there you go.
As of for a powerful demon threatening to consume an entire village unless you kill the baby... save the baby, let the demon kill you horribly and (in my game) watch as the god you served sends a mighty agent to exact harsh justice on the demon in honor of your most noble sacrifice (because the evil god got you dead out of the deal... guess who your god gets in this pawn for pawn exchange). Please roll up a new character, same level, with the same ability scores you first rolled... and +2 to any one non-17 or 18 score as your reward for damn good roleplaying of your Paladin.
I'd hate to say it, but that's how the game is meant to be played, with loads of fun and flavor... some DMs (and players) just don't seem to get that and care only for their own enjoyment, not for the betterment of the experience of all involved.
...
And yes, I understand how presumptious it is to say "that's how you're supposed to play the game" or "you're playing the game wrong" with a game like D&D, but... well... it is what it is. That's how I run the game and play it.
... oh boy, here comes the flak
...
A Paladin's god gives him the weapon Smite Evil so he can use it on the bad guys.
...
Look, I didn't even bother to read the rest of your argument.. I was gonna but you shot yourself in the foot right there. Take it from the Paladin in the room ;)
No where. At all. Anywhere. AT ALL! Does the Paladin Class say [i]word one[//i] about a god. Nowhere. NO WHERE! :huff: :puff: :whew: sorry. Heres a flak jacket. No offense BM15, I don't mean to get all "mean" but this is the A number one most misunderstood thing about paladins. Their power does not come from a god. It comes from their own deflatable sense of righteousness. Thats right - I said "deflatable" sense of righteousness.
Thats why a Paladin's power fails him if he cannot uphold his ideals. It's not a "his god loses faith in him" scenario its a "He loses faith.. in himself" deal.
And in so much as those arguments being foolish - they are not if you are concerned about the rules. The rules do not require the Paladin to do anything. They require him to not do something. Sure.. all that evil needs to win is for the Paladin to stand by.. and I totally agree that any paladin worth his holy avenger is gonna, should, even must do ..something, but the rules do not require it of him. And were talking about the rules.
Furthermore, (cause I'm already 4
into this) I consider it the DM's job to test the Paladin. Part of a Fighter's story is kicking butt. Part of a Rogue's story is the loot. Wizards want mighty magic secrets, and Clerics should be spreading the word of their faith (again not necessarily their "god" just a higher power greater than themselves). The Paladin's Myth should be about how well they faced the test of their own faith in themselves.
Look, I didn't even bother to read the rest of your argument.. I was gonna but you shot yourself in the foot right there. Take it from the Paladin in the room ;)
No where. At all. Anywhere. AT ALL! Does the Paladin Class say [i]word one[//i] about a god. Nowhere. NO WHERE! :huff: :puff: :whew: sorry. Heres a flak jacket. No offense BM15, I don't mean to get all "mean" but this is the A number one most misunderstood thing about paladins. Their power does not come from a god. It comes from their own deflatable sense of righteousness. Thats right - I said "deflatable" sense of righteousness.
Thats why a Paladin's power fails him if he cannot uphold his ideals. It's not a "his god loses faith in him" scenario its a "He loses faith.. in himself" deal.
And in so much as those arguments being foolish - they are not if you are concerned about the rules. The rules do not require the Paladin to do anything. They require him to not do something. Sure.. all that evil needs to win is for the Paladin to stand by.. and I totally agree that any paladin worth his holy avenger is gonna, should, even must do ..something, but the rules do not require it of him. And were talking about the rules.
Furthermore, (cause I'm already 4into this) I consider it the DM's job to test the Paladin. Part of a Fighter's story is kicking butt. Part of a Rogue's story is the loot. Wizards want mighty magic secrets, and Clerics should be spreading the word of their faith (again not necessarily their "god" just a higher power greater than themselves). The Paladin's Myth should be about how well they faced the test of their own faith in themselves.
There's nothing that says that a paladin's smite evil power comes from himself or herself, so your interpretation is not better than his was.
Lying (or any action, for that matter) is not by itself disrespectful to life, does not by necessity have any relation to selfishness, and does not disregard basic sapient (human) rights. The stricture that a paladin should never lie is quite clearly false then, unless you assume that to lie constitutes a gross violation of the paladin's code as established by the "act with honor" clause. The problem here is one of Law versus Good not Good versus Evil. Under certain circumstances it will be necessary for a paladin, if not to lie outright, then to actively condone the usage of lying. Thus a paladin will be forced to choose between what is morally good and what is honorable.
Likewise assuming that a paladin must never kill, harm, or oppress others would result in a paladin who could do nothing other than radiate small amounts of positive energy.
A paladin is not required to use his martial prowess, smiting power, and armor proficiency, But he sure as heck doesn't get it for no reason. A paladin is the soldier of Good, and this means it is his duty to seek out those situations which conventional methods of dealing with evils: Fail. This means seeking out those who are so thoroughly evil and corrupt that nothing short of serious butt-kicking will do. And a paladin who does not put his talents to use either doesn't believe in himself (disrespecting one's self) or doesn't care enough about others to be motivated to go out and kick-butt (disrespecting others).
A paladin is required to follow so many strictures exactly because the path to the Evil side is so, so very easy to do when your life revolves around seeking out and opposing Evil beings. A paladin gets lay on hands because he is expected to get into situations where quick access to healing will be necessary. A paladin gets martial and armor proficiency because he is expected to get into situations where he will need both. A paladin gets immunity to disease and the ability to cure disease because he is expected to get into situations where exposure to disease would be not only likely but used as a weapon against him.
One little problem with the original post: alignment reflects action man. Personality (motivation/intent) provides part of the context by which we decide what is or is not moral, but it is ultimately by the consequences of our actions that the morality is judged and consequently alignment shifts. Respect for life is asking for a show of respect. If someone does nothing (as in they do not even communicate their desire for evil), then they cannot possibly have an Evil alignment. A person who actively advocates the use of evil in communication, but never actually does murder, theft, robbery, extortion, ****, etc and does nothing else which would be redeeming to life/sentients would then have an Evil alignment.
MTF
There's nothing that says that a paladin's smite evil power comes from himself or herself, so your interpretation is not better than his was.
Actually, if you look at the Religion paragraph for Paladins, he is quite correct. Paladins do not need to have a deity--devotion to righteousness is enough.
Devotion to righteousness is the source of their power. When a paladin falls from grace, it is not typically some power out there saying "George screwed up" it is his own sense of justice that causes the fall, his lack of faith.
Any fall from grace and repentance comes from inside, not outside. It is your own sense of self/justice that does this, even if it is just a nagging unconscious part of yourself. Sure a deity may send some kind of agent (if you happen to be follower of a deity) or GOOD as a raw source of goodness may do so, but in the end, it is the paladin that falls, he is not made to fall by the powers that be.
And thus the paladin either gets raised with divine ranks or the paladin player has serious words with the DM...
Or at least the Half-Celestial or Saint template, with a free true ress thrown in for good measure.
And don' forget, even if a paladin doesn't have patron deity, he or she still has celestial powers (angels, archons, etc) that might very well assist and come to the aid of a paladin as well, who simply serves the cause of law and good, as opposed to any specific deity.
I played a paladin several years ago, I would love your opinions on what happened.
My paladins group was consistently being attacked by mages dressed in white robes. One day we spot several figures lurking in a deserted building and as we round the corner a figure in white mage jumps out. My paladin won the initiative roll. I thought for a moment and decided to charge the mage and spear him with my lance before he could unleash a spell on my party.
I easily slay the "mage" when several figures step out from the building, a couple of mages and a high level cleric of heironeous who turns out to be the regional authority figure. As it turns out the "mage" I had killed was a commoner dressed up in mage robes and set up as bait to get us imprisoned. My paladin immediately felt his power desert him as he lost his status.
I didn't argue (I firmly believe in the DM is always right philosophy in-game) but I thought that I shouldn't have lost my status without a chance to atone. What do you guys think?
While I am sure that Heironeous has way too much time to keep an eye on his errant clerics, but still, he has agents out there, and I am sure the one watching over this cleric would have gone Aroo?? (heh maybe a hound archon) and report to his boss about the fact one of his clerics (a cleric of the god of justice, valor, chivalry and honor) is duping people into committing murder so that they can arrest them. Sounds like an act that the cleric might have to do some atoning himself?
As to the paladin losing his powers, as attacking and killing someone who simply looks like an enemy of his, who has also done nothing against you yet, he simply walked out of a building, would be an evil and unlawful act. He should however be able to atone for it (lets just hope it's not the cleric that set it up that he has to ask). But still, he was very much in the wrong to attack like that. But kudos for you for not arguing at the time. One of the things that really slows down my games is when a player calls on a ruling of the DM. Deal with the ruling at the time, and let it be retconned or what not later, after the game is over for the night.
Angel or Archon shows up, "Paladin, I offer you a chance to atone for your misdead. YOU must unveil the perpetrator of this farce, and after you do so, you must offer reparations to the family, do so, and you shall receive atonement for your misdeed."
Of course, this follows that the paladin (such as in the example) wants atonement. If he doesn't, and even feels as if he is being shafted buy the powers that be, then a devil may very well show up...can you say Blackguard?
Morality in D&D must be consequentialist in order to make sense. Deontological arguments about right and wrong end up with Kantian notions of Categorical Imperative and cannot possibly take into account the essence of Good: "Respecting Life, Altruism, and Concern for the Dignity of Sentients."
I personally prefer to judge the alignment of actions by judging in light of deity alignment. If the action is something that Pelor would approve, you can bet it's a good action. Even if it's healing an evil-aligned person who really needs it. Likewise, although it may be "for the greater good" Vecna would smile as you walked away from a wounded enemy lying by the road.
Lying (or any action, for that matter) is not by itself disrespectful to life, does not by necessity have any relation to selfishness, and does not disregard basic sapient (human) rights. The stricture that a paladin should never lie is quite clearly false then, unless you assume that to lie constitutes a gross violation of the paladin's code as established by the "act with honor" clause. The problem here is one of Law versus Good not Good versus Evil. Under certain circumstances it will be necessary for a paladin, if not to lie outright, then to actively condone the usage of lying. Thus a paladin will be forced to choose between what is morally good and what is honorable.
I don't know about you, but I feel supremely disrespected when I'm lied to, and I'm rather offended if I even suspect someone is lying. While we can agree that lying is definitely against law, I also put forth that intentionally purporting falsehood for the purpose of misdirecting cannot be altruistic, it is selfish and a shortcut. If a Paladin is in a situation where he is required to lie, the DM is being a jerk. There is always more than one solution or the party is being railroaded.
Likewise assuming that a paladin must never kill, harm, or oppress others would result in a paladin who could do nothing other than radiate small amounts of positive energy.
There's nothing wrong will killing, harming or oppressing, as long as it's done for the advancement of good. Paladins, as we've established, are intended to kill things that are evil. It follows that they (the evils) must also be harmed. If, for some reason, they aren't killed, then oppression (some sort of imprisonment) naturally follows.
A paladin is not required to use his martial prowess, smiting power, and armor proficiency, But he sure as heck doesn't get it for no reason. A paladin is the soldier of Good, and this means it is his duty to seek out those situations which conventional methods of dealing with evils: Fail. This means seeking out those who are so thoroughly evil and corrupt that nothing short of serious butt-kicking will do. And a paladin who does not put his talents to use either doesn't believe in himself (disrespecting one's self) or doesn't care enough about others to be motivated to go out and kick-butt (disrespecting others).
Agreed, completely. This is where the lawful-stupid arguments come in, when an overconfident Paladin tries to take on a challenge too big for himself. Hopefully, his cause or Deity is watching over him at that point.
A paladin is required to follow so many strictures exactly because the path to the Evil side is so, so very easy to do when your life revolves around seeking out and opposing Evil beings. A paladin gets lay on hands because he is expected to get into situations where quick access to healing will be necessary. A paladin gets martial and armor proficiency because he is expected to get into situations where he will need both. A paladin gets immunity to disease and the ability to cure disease because he is expected to get into situations where exposure to disease would be not only likely but used as a weapon against him.
Yup.
One little problem with the original post: alignment reflects action man. Personality (motivation/intent) provides part of the context by which we decide what is or is not moral, but it is ultimately by the consequences of our actions that the morality is judged and consequently alignment shifts. Respect for life is asking for a show of respect. If someone does nothing (as in they do not even communicate their desire for evil), then they cannot possibly have an Evil alignment. A person who actively advocates the use of evil in communication, but never actually does murder, theft, robbery, extortion, ****, etc and does nothing else which would be redeeming to life/sentients would then have an Evil alignment.
MTF
Not agreed. I present to you, as a real life example: A person who has been living in poverty, trying to survive and otherwise unincredible, hits the wall financially. Within the course of a week, he loses his job, his family and his home. He becomes angry, and being somewhat emotionally undeveloped (just for the sake of credibility) he grabs a gun and mugs someone. Now, you can't tell me that this person, having no previous evil-based action, was Lawful-Good before this tragic week. Actions in desperate times do reflect alignment, but apathy should not be considered neutrality, it may simply mean fear of action or change. When life finally demands action, what you do then will show your true colors. Before then, it doesn't say anything about your alignment. It just says...nothing.
There's nothing that says that a paladin's smite evil power comes from himself or herself, so your interpretation is not better than his was.
Actually. I think that the interpretation of a deity-granted ability to heal and what not is directly in converse to the concept of what makes a Paladin and simplifies the whole question of why a Paladin must not do things.
No matter how you break it down a gift of power coming from a demanding god encourages the whole "if there was two buttons and one was less evil, the Paladin could push the less evil" because the God would rather he do the lesser of evils than nothing. Thats true of Clerics who have Principles and Incarnate entities watching their back. The Paladin can get on his white horse and let the town die, but if he is worth his salt he'll take out his sword and will try to break through the wall. A Paladin should never push such a button.
Unless they shortly thereafter found themselves on a quest.
The reason I consider my interpretation as in fact superior is because it makes the rule work out rationally. Superheros don't kill babies. Paladin do not use poison, they cannot take the lesser of two evil actions. They have to die trying or loose their powers for a while.
Either option is actually OK ya'll. Thats whats I'm sayin'.
Save the town kill the baby. Then go back to the church ... and confess.
Atonement and a new mission will get your head back in the right place.
The Paladin's oath is to himself and he can get a quest from any LG priest.
Paladins think they are gods. Paladin don't follow gods, Clerics follow Paladins.
That become gods.
Lying (or any action, for that matter) is not by itself disrespectful to life, does not by necessity have any relation to selfishness, and does not disregard basic sapient (human) rights. The stricture that a paladin should never lie is quite clearly false then, unless you assume that to lie constitutes a gross violation of the paladin's code as established by the "act with honor" clause. The problem here is one of Law versus Good not Good versus Evil. Under certain circumstances it will be necessary for a paladin, if not to lie outright, then to actively condone the usage of lying. Thus a paladin will be forced to choose between what is morally good and what is honorable.
Except that the class ability "Code of Conduct for a paladin clearly states that he must act honorably, with examples of acting honorably: not lying, not cheating, not using posion and so forth).
Now then the question then goes to, does that then extend to others. If a paladin overhears a lie, is it honorable to allow it to be uncontested? My personal feeling is no. If I am to act with honor, and I hear someone tell a lie (wether the person believes it is a lie or not) and I am sure it it a lie, then I should step up and say so. You can do it diplomatically, but honor demands truth. I know a person is being harmed by the lie, even if I am not telling it.
Paladins think they are gods. Paladin don't follow gods, Clerics follow Paladins.
That become gods.
Paladins don't think they are gods. They may be full of righteous indignation and wrath, but unless they are completely deluding themselves, they know very well how mortal they are.
It's true that a paladin doesn't have to follow a god, but that doesn't meant they DON'T. Many paladins follow deities, many more than not. And remember that even clerics don't have to have a deity as a patron, they too can follow/believe in a cause/philosophy. Thus, even their power may very well simply be because they believe in something so powerfully, that they gain power from it. As to clerics following paladins; if they are of the same order and what not, the one with the highest rank is the one who tends to lead. Often that be the cleric, not the paladin. NOW, that is not to say that the cleric may not follow a paladiin's lead in certain areas, and totally disregard the cleric when his actions might violate a paladin's code, which is much stricter than that of a clerics, but still, a paladin is supposed to follow a legitimate authority.
A justified paladin action when it comes to the possessed infant simply would be to pray. Performing an exorcism is an option or referring to a cleric for the service is possible. A paladin who does not exhaust his resources could be found guilty of the great sin of apathy/sloth. If it comes down to it and the infant must die, the paladin could take necessary actions to having the babe revived.
Now an interesting spin on a paladin is a scoundrel. Take from the Eberron novel of "Bound by Iron". The paladin was faced with a situation where he could not strike down an enemy unarmed. Now that doesn't mean his partner could not. Just because one's moral code conflicts with a situation doesn't mean a reasonably good person cannot take advantage of the situation.
A paladin is a righteous warrior by all means but should not be misconstrued that they are completely disabled from advantages.
As to the paladin losing his powers, as attacking and killing someone who simply looks like an enemy of his, who has also done nothing against you yet, he simply walked out of a building, would be an evil and unlawful act. He should however be able to atone for it (lets just hope it's not the cleric that set it up that he has to ask). But still, he was very much in the wrong to attack like that. But kudos for you for not arguing at the time. One of the things that really slows down my games is when a player calls on a ruling of the DM. Deal with the ruling at the time, and let it be retconned or what not later, after the game is over for the night.
I disagree,
In the instance. The question is not what a situation really is... it is how the Paladin percieves it and what he is really reacting to that determines it.
Did the paladin have reasonable belief that innocents were could be in immediate danger from this individual and was he acting to prevent their harm.
Given the situation as described...
By Scarsguard
My paladins group was consistently being attacked by mages dressed in white robes. One day we spot several figures lurking in a deserted building and as we round the corner a figure in white mage jumps out. My paladin won the initiative roll. I thought for a moment and decided to charge the mage and spear him with my lance before he could unleash a spell on my party.
I easily slay the "mage" when several figures step out from the building, a couple of mages and a high level cleric of heironeous who turns out to be the regional authority figure. As it turns out the "mage" I had killed was a commoner dressed up in mage robes and set up as bait to get us imprisoned. My paladin immediately felt his power desert him as he lost his status.
I didn't argue (I firmly believe in the DM is always right philosophy in-game) but I thought that I shouldn't have lost my status without a chance to atone. What do you guys think?
The paladin had reasonable belief that innocents could be in immediate danger and harmed by this individual.
While the Paladin may have made a mistake and killed an innocent... he did not willfully/willingly and knowingly commit and evil act. He believed he was acting to prevent the immediate harm to his group.
He had every reason to believe that the individual was dangerous and would harm his party and possibly other innocents.
While I would expect this individual to roleplay the guilt aspect and offer condolences and even restitution to the victims family without being told and perhaps requiring atonement to keep his paladin status... But at the end of the day, that paladin is still a paladin.
To put it in a better context... to strip his Paladinhood is not a lawful good act... it is a lawful evil one. Nor should it be done. Perhaps some here are truly Lawful evil and don't realize the context in which they themselves are judging the Paladin.
Perhaps it should be noted that there are two sides to the decision... and the question of who really is the Lawful evil one.
Now as a DM, my standing on atonement is, devote enough experience to gain a level- half of what it costs- all for good deeds and powers are gained back but you a put back into a deficit. Like Karma points.
So take a 1st level paladin, being young and unexperienced he strikes down a good fellow or is at wits end and willing aids an evil individual (both are terms for fallen paladins); he falls away. For him to attain a new level of paladin he would have normally to gain 1,000 experience to advance. Half that would be 500 xp, the paladin would have to work off the deficit to regain his paladin title. Be it, it makes sense with paladins at higher levels because of their experience and time of service should have given the wisdom to make smarter decisions. Since DM plays the god, he can set the player up with a series of good deeds or a big good deed to make the atonement plausible.
This is a great alternative to using a spell to make you a better person. It's the actions that speak louder than the words of clerics.