Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Farland Nov 08, 2003 22:50:52	Make no mistake, faithful paladins and devout clerics, this is a war, and you are soldiers in that war. The sides are arrayed, and the battle-lines are clearly drawn. It is a war of good against evil, of light against darkness. Your duties in that war are clear, and your code of conduct is well delineated. There are certain forces in this universe, absolute forces of good, neutrality, and evil; and some creatures are born intrinsically allied with those ontological powers. Indeed, the universe itself seems to be made up of three ethical substances: good, neutrality, and evil. Some creatures seem to be spawned from those powers, and their souls are colored through and through with them. Celestials, for example, are goodness personified, while demons and devils are their evil counterparts. These creatures could never change their intrinsic natures, and even if given the chance to change their alliance with the ethical powers of the universe, they would be unable to do so. It is as impossible for a demon to choose goodness as it is impossible for an angel to choose evil. Similarly, certain acts, actions, and even inanimate objects, like poison, are allied with the cosmic ethical forces and cannot be separated from them. The gods themselves do not determine what is good or evil; rather they revere and hold good or evil things holy or unholy because the gods are the utmost example of beings that are ontologically aligned. The most holy Heshtail, ruler of the Celestial hierarchy, is an emanation of Absolute Goodness in the universe. Your role, then, is clear. You must slay with no compunction creatures such as demons that are intrinsically allied with evil. Have no concern for their appearance or what they profess their intentions to be. Have no concern for their race, age, or gender. Certain creatures are our eternal and definite enemies and they must be destroyed if goodness is to win our ancient war. A list of creatures that have been identified over the centuries as irreparably evil by nature is held in the sacred Book of Heshtail in St. Quentin’s Church and is to be memorized. Other creatures are not quite fully evil by nature but have a strong attraction towards evil, have evil tendencies, and nearly invariably choose evil when given the option between it and our holy and pious ethical outlook. Your duty towards these creatures, such as orcs and goblinoids, is hardly less certain. You need to dispatch them if they do not immediately surrender and throw down their weapons. Show them no mercy, for they are foot soldiers of the enemy in our cosmic war. Pay no heed to their gender or age either. The correctness of this dictum has been born out through the use of many divination spells as well as the fact that many paladins have lived by this code of conduct throughout the ages and have retained their holy status. Finally, certain creatures have no clear transcendental ethical alliance and are as likely to choose goodness as evil. Creatures like this, such as humans, are not to be slain, but are to be judged by their actions first. They need to be given opportunity to surrender and indeed to change their ways. Proselytization here is imperative, for these creatures have the potential to become staunch allies if their societies and cultures can be influenced to revere the law and goodness that the Lord Heshtail embodies. While fighting this cosmic war, there are certain methods that must be followed and certain methods that are intrinsically unacceptable to those who align themselves with transcendental Goodness. Charity towards the church and the poor is hallowed by the cosmic powers and it is something that we must always strive to do, and a straightforward, declared, and honest onslaught is our method of attack. We state our intentions—to destroy evil and to selflessly aid all that is good—and we do not lie or violate our word. We respect legitimate, goodness-sanctioned authority; we help those non-evil creatures that need our help, even if it means sacrificing our lives to do so. Conversely, we must never employ torture, poison, or deceit in our war, for these are things that have been consecrated by the unholy powers of the universe and are inherently aligned with them. These are the laws of our war, and they will take us through to victory. --Burcan the White, Holy Potentate of the Church of Heshtail in Dragonspur City (Metagame comments—The D&D universe is a universe that is not at all relative. In a sense it is a cross between Zoroastrianism and Platonism as laid out in the works of Plotinus, with actual Forms of Goodness, Neutrality, and Evil extant. When this cosmology is used to outline a paladin and lawful good clerical code of ethics, the player can expect that the enemies of his church have been well documented over the years. It has certainly been noted when and why paladins have fallen from grace, and the ample use of detect evil and divination spells, as well as plane travel, have revealed creatures that are evil and thus enemies of the church. These are ontological enemies and are to be destroyed. The Monster Manual lists the creatures that are ontologically evil—they have an “always” next to their evil listing in the alignment category. This couldn’t be clearer; paladin PCs are always to slay all members of this intrinsically evil race, regardless of whether or not they are children of the race. Monsters with a “usually” evil listing are usually to be slain, unless some exceptional circumstance, such as an immediate surrender and expression of a desire to convert ethical alliances, occurs. If a creature is listed as “often” evil, unfortunate statistics dictate that the paladin will often end up slaying this creature, but the paladin is first to give the creature the benefit of the doubt, help it if it is in need, and give it every opportunity to ally itself with the lawful and good transcendental forces of the universe. The paladin should only slay these creatures if they express an overt and immediate inclination to do real evil, which unfortunately it seems they will frequently do. The objection to this point, of course, will be that there is no real distinction between good or evil in this cosmology. Both creatures slay the others, and both slay children. This is not, however, the case. Good creatures are good because they ally themselves with objects, creatures, methods, and techniques that are ontologically good, holy, and pious. They revere charity towards the poor. They do not lie. They never employ torture or poison, no matter the circumstances. They are good because there is a real, concrete goodness in the universe with which they choose the align themselves.)
#2 tzor Nov 12, 2003 9:07:30	The Universe is torn by extreme opposites, the order of law against the destruction of chaos; the self-sacrificing good against the corrupting evil, and make no mistake, this is indeed a cosmic war on a grand and eternal scale. Both eternal vigilance and eternal action is needed on a daily basis. However the forces of good and the forces of law can only win when they adhere to the principles of goodness and order. That some beings are formed from the very essence of the far aligned planes there is no doubt. Such beings are aligned to that plane in such a matter that it would indeed a miracle were they to be other what they are. While redemption cannot be denied to anyone or anything, it can be assumed impossible for the most part and unverifiable unless there are exceptional circumstances. The forces of evil, demons, devils and all that lie in-between should be terminated with extreme prejudice. There are some beings that have been so corrupted by their life experiences, especially in large groups, that redemption en masse would be nearly impossible. Unfortunately, such beings often tend to spread their corruption to others through inflicting misery and suffering. Self-defense and the protection of good demand that aggressors be stopped in the most effective way possible, an act that often requires termination. Unlike beings from the far infernal regions, there is a very valid question on the matter of non-combatants and especially young of those races. Care must be made to determine a true non-combatant, and one needs to judge the situation quickly and impartially. The needless killing of such non-combatants is both against the principles of good and efficiency, because ones time should be spent against active opponents of goodness and order. It is as right and proper to separate these non-combatants from those corrupted by evil and chaos to the point where they are active in their aggressive tendencies, because evil and chaos is like any malady; it will spread to new victims if it can. The care of a widow or orphan is no less diminished by the race of that orphan, or of the lineage of its parents. Moreover, where bigotry exists, love must fight harder, lest the forces of evil corrupt the average mind by pointing out the lack of vigilance of good. But for the combatant, the good of the whole is paramount. With some races even the young of their kind is so corrupted at an early age that they too become combatants in the truest sense. Care must be used, but once done, one should never doubt ones own judgment. False surrender is a tactic of chaotic evil, so even surrender does not guarantee a change to a non-combatant status. While your nature may be to trust, always verify! We are fighting in a cosmic war, and our actions are sometimes dictated by necessity. Yet only being true to ourselves and the cause we espouse can be victorious in the struggle at hand. To do otherwise would cause the enemy to win the war, for we would have become that enemy, and our cause would be defeated. The cause, always the cause! (Meta-game comments: While the notion of good, evil, law and chaos are absolutes, the notion that any race is “usually” evil does not give a blanket excuse for genocide. An orc baby should be treated no less than a human one. Children need to be determined according to how the DM presents them in the given case, since even in the real world children can be used as combatants. Killing non-aggressive sentient beings is not espousing good. “‘Good’” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.”)
#3 finarin_panjoro Nov 12, 2003 10:11:27	Farland, You present an interesting analysis of the role of good and evil in the D&D universe. While I agree with you that D&D is not a relative world, where good and evil are culturally based distinctions, I disagree with the manner in which you are restricting the paladin's actions. While we can say that the D&D world is not one of relative morality it is still a world of complicated issues. While on the surface it might seem that saying a paladin must always kill demons and devils is consistent with a morally non-relative world, it ignores the possibility that a greater evil may be done by following that creed without considering the consequences. Even where creatures that are 'always' evil are concerned situations may arise where killing them on sight is not an appropriate or acceptable thing for a paladin to do. For example, both devils and demons are always evil, but they are also at war with each other. Devils being lawful will not lie or break their agreements so it is possible that a neutral party may make an arrangement with the devils for protection from the demons. A paladin in the home of that neutral party cannot begin slaughtering the devils without overruling both the will of the neutral party and without disregarding the safety the devils aid affords them. Another example would be a case in which a devil is the guardian of a hideously powerful imprisoned demon. If the paladin just slays the devil because he is a devil he ignores the possible consequences of releasing a far more powerful evil from imprisonment by slaying an evil who is effectively neutralized by his responsibilities as jailer. The problem with saying that someone must always do something is that it fails to recognize that circumstances may arise where that is not an appropriate or philosophically consistent thing to do. Rarely does saying never do something have the same effect because it is easier to restrict action than to demand it. That is why most laws are framed in the negative, do not steal, do not kill, etc. So we can tell the paladin to never lie or never use poison and there is far less danger of creating this sort of quandary. Paladins must, like everyone else, evaluate the situation they are in and take the path which best follows their ethical belief structure. In the case of the paladin this is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The root problem of your argument is that it may put law (always kill demons and devils) above good in some situations. Paladins are first and foremost champions of good, law is important, but secondary. This is why a paladin does not lose his powers for willingly committing a chaotic act, only an evil one. If he repeatedly takes chaotic actions his alignment may change resulting in the loss of his abilities, but a single chaotic act will not affect him. Even a single violation of his code will not cause the loss of his powers, for example lying. If he lies to serve a good cause the paladin will not lose his powers because nowhere in the description of the code does it state that a violation of the code results in the loss of the paladin's powers. Again repeated violations of the code would result in alignment change, but not occasional necessary violations. I believe this was a deliberate choice on the part of the code's creators. They recognize that they cannot predict every situation that a paladin will find himself in and thus seek to provide him with guidelines, but they also recognize that they must not straight jacket his ability to make informed decisions and compromises in complicated situations.
#4 Farland Nov 12, 2003 16:24:21	Great response, Tzor. Good imitation of style. To read your post though, I didn't quite anticipate your metagame comments. I almost thought you were agreeing with "Burcan the White"! Thanks, Finarin, for a well thought out response. You bring up good points. I didn't mean to suggest that Paladins should be stupid, i.e. that they have to charge a demon like a brainless automaton whenever they see it. Of course they can and ought to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the encounter before they work towards what their ultimate goal must be: the creature’s destruction. Another example would be a case in which a devil is the guardian of a hideously powerful imprisoned demon. If the paladin just slays the devil because he is a devil he ignores the possible consequences of releasing a far more powerful evil from imprisonment by slaying an evil who is effectively neutralized by his responsibilities as jailer. Your example is a good illustration of this point. The paladin ought to leave the devil and go get some powerful allies, or increase his own power, before he returns to slay them both. I disagree with you on several points, however. You say: Paladins must, like everyone else, evaluate the situation they are in and take the path which best follows their ethical belief structure. In the case of the paladin this is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I don't think this is the paladin's moral code at all. Paladins are not utilitarian. They do not live by the "greatest good for the greatest number" rule; rather I would argue that they are deontologists (duty-ethicists). They know their duty and they are bound by transcendental law to follow it. The fact that their duty always corresponds with goodness is, of course, an advantage. Take Kant's classic example illustrating deontology, but let's place it in a D&D setting: the soldiers of the Dark Lord come to seek the family that the paladin is protecting. "Are they in the house?" they ask the paladin. Knowing that they are, the paladin cannot take the utilitarian route and lie and say that they are not. He can choose not to answer, or, possibly more in character, he can draw his holy avenger and say, "why yes, they are. Now try to come and get them." It is his duty not to lie. Utilitarian ethics lead us to some sticky situations. If a paladin could achieve the greater good for a whole city by torturing a small child for all eternity, should he do so? A utilitarian would, but a paladin would not, I submit to you. I believe this was a deliberate choice on the part of the code's creators. They recognize that they cannot predict every situation that a paladin will find himself in and thus seek to provide him with guidelines, but they also recognize that they must not straight jacket his ability to make informed decisions and compromises in complicated situations. Good point about the paladin code of conduct, but the code does stipulate that those a paladin helps cannot use the help for chaotic ends either. Thus although law is second, it is still quite important, a close second. But you do well in having me clarify my point that a paladin need not foolhardily rush into battle with evil without evaluating the circumstances. One of my main points, of course, is that age and gender are not a factor to him. He certainly must, however, ultimately slay that evil.
#5 zombiegleemax Nov 12, 2003 18:12:47	Flexibility is a chaotic concept.
#6 zombiegleemax Nov 13, 2003 7:25:41	One thing you guys are missing, if the paladin has a black and white code set by the DM, then the DM has better not set up shades of gray adventures. So if Oscar the orc is always evil, then Bucky the Wonder Paladin has better get a phone call, beep, vision, etc. before he draws his sword and enters the lair. So, no junior has a secret and he won't tell resulting in Bucky pulling out the cat of nine tails, a bucket of salt water, and a hungry goat. If Orcus and Marshall Dillion has Amosdeus under lock and key in the Dodge jail, Bucky would get a telegraph to meet a hunting party at Dead Man's Curve. Then the hunting party would return as lynching party for both Orcus and Amosdeus while someone tackles Matt.
#7 archtyrant_terevoth Nov 14, 2003 0:30:02	Being evil can be defined by a bunch of things, from theft to exploitation, to torture... And not all of these crimes are instantly reason to put someone or something to death. Yes, the thief may be evil... but what has he done? He's a dirty pickpocket and robs people commonly for money on the street. Yes, he's certainly evil, but his crimes warrant jail time, or perhaps the loss of a hand...certainly not death. While a paladin may be a servant of good, he is also a servant of justice and certainly knowing someone is evil is not sufficient reason to kill them. Sure a drow might be "usually evil" but if he's not attacking you now, is it really just to hold a sword to his throat and say "convert to good or die!" I don’t' think so. Who is to say that his crimes warrant death? You don't even know that he's even committed any crimes, you just know he's "evil". He could just be extraordinarily selfish, he could be a pickpocket. You can't be sure what exactly got him there. You know he's not attacking you now though. Since when does "evil" automatically mean you have the right to kill him. Just because you know of a greedy evil merchant who overcharges his customers and sells them shoddy merchandise all to make a few extra coppers, does not give you the right to walk into this guy's shop and skewer him on your spear while his family watches helplessly. Even in a world of absolute moralities, there are still degrees of good and evil, and a paladin must honor that.
#8 zombiegleemax Nov 14, 2003 23:49:14	Yes, the thief may be evil... but what has he done? He's a dirty pickpocket and robs people commonly for money on the street. Yes, he's certainly evil, but his crimes warrant jail time, or perhaps the loss of a hand...certainly not death. Uhm, according to the PHB this thief is not evil. Being selfish is a neutral thing. Going out of your way to disrespect the life of other sentient beings is evil... While most people agree that the D&D universe has absolute notions of good and evil, it seems that their is no agreement (yet) on where good stops, neutral kicks in, neutral stops and evil starts. This being said: I like the original post and am handing it out to my (clr and pal) players Geek
#9 finarin_panjoro Nov 17, 2003 12:46:15	Farland, you make a good point about utilitarian ethics and perhaps my saying the greatest good for the greatest number was a bad choice of expression. However the example you give of torturing a child to save a city would not be available to a paladin. Torturing a child in a world of non-relative ethics is an evil act. Paladins may not take evil actions and remain paladins. Still your example does illustrate your point well. Perhaps I should have stated that paladin should seek to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the manner most consistent with his code. Vaxalon made a clear, if brief, point about flexibility being a chaotic concept. This point illustrates a problem in people's understanding of the alignment system in my opinion. Alignments are not absolute. Being lawful does not mean never taking a chaotic action. It refers to the general method that character uses to interact with his world. I support this by pointing to the paladin, who is lawful good, but has guidelines and limitations IN ADDITION to his alignment restriction. The paladin is more strictly bound to a lawful good course of action than a lawful good fighter. Saying that a lawful character can never be flexible is like saying a chaotic character can never be law-abiding. It implies that alignment is the sole decision making tool in the character's toolbox. I do not believe this to be the case.
#10 zombiegleemax Feb 25, 2004 12:22:41	I agree with Finarin, any form of mortal can take an action against it's alignment (even a dragon or some other such creature with "always X alignment" in it's description). I define "mortal" by things that are able to die, but more importantly, they have a soul. Mortals have the freedom of choice while the Divine (for lack of a better term) do not, nor do the Divine have a soul. The Divine are mostly outsiders such as Demons, Devils, Angels, and Archons. These creatures cannot take an action against their alignment. However, they can unwittingly take an action against their alignment. There are many stories of Devils and Demons being tricked into saving a town (or some such thing), and there are stories of Angels and Archons committing an atrocity (if you've played Diablo then the example of that angel who gave human the Soulstones. He did that out of an act of good, however it turned out to be horrible horrible mistake resulting in millions of deaths and said angel’s imprisonment). Having the ability to choose to torture the child in order to save thousands is something only a mortal can do, however it is not something a Paladin would do of his own free will.