|
I have a player who in my games likes to play a Paladin. He is upset that he does not play a Paladin the way others think a Paladin should be played, and we all think that the rules on the Paladins code in the Players Handbook isn’t spelled out very well. Has anyone else experienced this same situation and if so what did you do? Have you spelled out the code in more detail? if so what is it?
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.
I know this must seem a rather dumb comment (not that I have not made a few already) but is Lawful being more then obeying the law, is Good more then helping the downtrodden. What exactly will cause a Paladin to loose their abilities?
other people's moral failings.
I have a player who in my games likes to play a Paladin. He is upset that he does not play a Paladin the way others think a Paladin should be played, and we all think that the rules on the Paladins code in the Players Handbook isn’t spelled out very well.
I am confused, why is he upset? Is he upset at himself for not playing in a "standard" fashion or is he upset that others view paladins in a way he thinks is "incorrect"?
Has anyone else experienced this same situation and if so what did you do? Have you spelled out the code in more detail? if so what is it?
Well it depends on how much they want to push the edge, most of the stuff is pretty common sense when people aren't trying to push the limits as to what is allowed. Of course, there are some DMs that purposefully go out of their way to try to make paladins fall, which I view as poor DMing. I heard somewhere that the creators of the official book description didn't intend for the paladin's code to be used to bludgeon the paladin's roleplaying.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Ok, so I'll put on my "LE"-argument hat. What is an evil act? If a paladin is dominated or mind-controled in some fashion, is it then willingly. What if they are fooled by some kind of illusion or enchantment (someone detects as evil but isn't really due to a casting of misdirection). I have heard of horror stories of a vegan DM that thought eating meat was an evil act and had a paladin loss their powers for having "meat, chunk of", and the DM didn't even bother to tell the play ahead of time.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority,
What is "legitimate" authority and what does it mean to respect it? Can a paladin respect some authority and yet still break the law if the needs of the innocent are present?
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),
What is honor in the setting? Is attacking an unarmed person honorable? What if they are a monk or spellcaster, can they ever really be assumed to be unarmed? Does a paladin have to wake up a foe before they can attack them? (Excuse me Mr. Dragon, I am sorry to disturb your rest but I must slay you for attacking the villages nearby) Is turning invisible dishonorable? Ambushes? Using concealment?
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),
Does this mean they can't help the CN rogue in the party if they are about to be beat down in a LE village?
and punish those who harm or threaten nnocents.
Since to be evil you must "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." Does that mean that killing anything that is evil is acceptable as punishment (though other punishments may be acceptable as well)? Does the paladin have the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner or should he leave the punishing to the "legitimate" authorities?
I know this must seem a rather dumb comment (not that I have not made a few already) but is Lawful being more then obeying the law, is Good more then helping the downtrodden. What exactly will cause a Paladin to loose their abilities?
Dumb? Not necessarily. Ignorant? Maybe. Being Lawful does not mean following the laws, though lawful individual certainly more often do so. Being lawful means believing in organizations and codes of behaviour (that is why they often follow the law). And this is a good thing, you don't want your paladin to visit a LE nation and find out he has to suddenly start doing evil acts in order to follow the laws of the land. Batman could arguably be described as lawful. He has a strict code of conduct, he believes in the organizations of the state (mental institutions, police, etc), but also recognizes that they can't handle all of the things out there, and so he breaks some laws (vigilante laws for example) to support society. Of course agruments could be made for other alignments.
As for Good, in D&D, well it depends on the game. In D&D, Good and Evil are real tangible forces. Being good or being evil isn't just a matter of perspective. Being evil isn't be misunderstood or having a bad family life growing up or what have you. Evil is Nasty, not just mean. In this case, it may be good to eliminate evil beings from the world. These beings do more harm than "good" to others. Might there be negative consequences to eliminating them, sure, but might things be better off with them gone, possibly. Relating to a RW situation (forgive me, just to make a point), if it was possible to "detect" the evil in the heart of the guy who went into the mall and shot people, before he did so, would it have been "wrong", not illegal, but morally "wrong" to take him out? For some people, the answer would be yes, for others no. The DM in the end has to make these decisions, and those will determine if one can be good for eliminating evil or if that doesn't make one good but helping people directly does.
Great paladins are more concerned with justice and charity than with meting out punishments and preaching about other people's moral failings.
Certainly that can be a way to play. Yet in D&D, being Evil is not about your "moral failings", you aren't usually evil because you cheat on your wife, or lie on your taxes or whatever. You are evil when you "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." But any DM can decide exactly where the lines are drawn. Maybe to be evil all you have to do is be willing to give a nerdy kid that likes to play with strange dice a swirly in the bathroom at school, in other games maybe you have to be a vile, unredeemable fiend in mortal form to be evil. Most people usually fall somewhere in between. Where exactly will determine how a paladin should act.
Something I think a DM should think about when it comes to paladins, paladins are a martial class. The great many tools they get are geared to destroying evil doers. Usually INT is the 2nd lowest, if not lowest stat, this means they don't have a lot of skills at their call to focus on non-combat options. Expecting paladins to not be the holy warriors that face the armies of evil, but instead to be the priestly fellows that spread the word and do good deeds means ignorant the basic facts of the class. Can a paladin be played in a less martial way? Sure, but that is not the default way the class is set up, and so that is something that should be discussed by both player and DM before any game consequences ever occur.
Probably the easiest thing to do though is just give the paladin a phylactery of faithfulness at first level, given to them by their order.
Generally, I work with the player to develop the character's specific code. I always start by asking the question, what is the character a paladin of? A paladin of a deity would define his or her code on the goals and actions of that deity. A paladin of an ideal, would have a code that holds that ideal in a place of importance. A paladin of a city, kingdom, or ruling body would likely have a code focused on the beliefs of that body.
I've always seen the paladin as a protector of good, the knight in shining armor astride his white charger. However, what the paladin defines as good, what aspect of good a specific paladin decides to symbolize, provides a lot of character building options.
For example, for the Superstar contest (if I had made it through the first round) I was considering the possibility of using a paladin as a villain. He would have selected a good deity of war as his patron, but his code and personality would be built around the need to complete an ancestral vendetta for a crime committed long in the past. As such, his sense of good and law would be somewhat skewed in a way that a traditional paladin would see as chaotic and maybe even evil. At the same time, his actions would remain within the acts allowed by his faith and his paladin code.
|
|
My oringinal responce was very acusitory and as such I am editing it so as not to appear as such a jerk I beleive the crux of my question was misunderstood and as such I will restate that I am more intersted in hearing how others have dealt with this situation, or even if they have had this situation to deal with.
|
I guess there are multiple takes on what Lawful Good is. There are different flavors of it.
A recent paladin that I came up with serves Lawful Goodness itself. As such, he considers Goodness the Law. At its heart, in his mind, that is most concerned with the defense of innocents.
There is such a thing as innocent evil (goblin babies, etc.), and he serves that as well. True Goodness makes no distinction between innocent Good or Evil.
At the same time, he has a certain level of disdain towards those who preach their own version of Lawful Goodness in an obstrusive manner, since he believes they should be more concerned with the purpose of Goodness rather than forcing others to believe in it. Goodness is in deed.
If Evil is minding its own business, he'll leave them alone and might even converse with them if the situation calls for it. But the moment innocents are threatened or attacked, his sword comes out - and he will make that very clear beforehand.
And if a DM disagrees, fine. I probably won't play him then :)
|
|
Hey Crimson, here's my take on the code.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Evil acts include (but are not limited to) cold-blooded murder, rape, intentionally causing harm to an innocent or good creature, etc.
A paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority. Legitimate authority includes laws enacted by the paladin’s church and any organization she belongs to. Legitimate authority usually includes the laws of the paladin’s homeland, unless such laws are evil or morally ambivalent. Legitimate authority includes the laws of any nation that the paladin finds herself, except where such laws are evil, immoral, contradict the laws of the paladin’s church, organization or homeland, or where they would otherwise cause the paladin to break her code, or where the local government is not ‘legitimate’.
A paladin must not lie. Note that refusing to answer a question is not lying. Half truths, white lies etc are lies.
A paladin must not cheat. Using advantageous, even “dirty” tactics in battle is not cheating, unless a code of battle has been agreed to before-hand.
A paladin must not use poison.
A paladin must act with honour. Depending on customs this may or may not include “chivalry”.
A paladin must help those who ask for her help and are in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), if the means of helping is within the paladin’s capability.
A paladin must help those who are truly in need, even if they cannot or do not ask for help – with the same provisos as above.
A paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents – punishment may include capturing and delivering to a legitimate authority for punishment, or it may include death at the hands of the paladin – there is some discretion depending on the situation.
A paladin must bear responsibility for her actions, and make any morally or legally required amends where applicable.
A paladin is required to combat evil where doing so is within her capability. Combating evil may take the form of physical combat, foiling evil’s goals, converting evil to good, etc.
A paladin may not knowingly travel with an evil companion, except to keep others from harm, to serve a greater good, to defeat a greater evil, or where concerted effort is made to convert the evil companion. Even with these exceptions, such travel must be limited to a reasonable time-frame.
I have always been a big fan of paladins (who would'a figured?) but I have a lot of problems with the codes of honour, even as written.
For example, I'll draw on one of my (otherwise) favourite paladin books- the good old 2nd edition Complete Paladin's Handbook. The section on codes of honour in that required paladins to tell the truth all the time even when it isn't nice. For example:
Prevost, a young companion of Sir Geffen, asks about his performance on the battlefield yesterday. Sir Geffen believes that Prevost fought ineptly. "With your permission," says Sir Geffen, "I prefer not to answer."
"Please," insists Prevost. "I want to know."
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You allowed an opponent to escape. You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was poor."
Prevost glowers at Sir Geffen, then angrily stomps away.
OK, I understand telling the truth. I understand telling the truth when your listener doesn't want to hear it. But it says nothing about having to be a prick about it. You don't say "excuse me King Arthur, I believe your dirty harlot of a wife is cuckolding you with your favourite knight", you say "My Liege, perhaps you should look to the behaviour of your queen with the good Sir Lancelot."
Anyway, to the original question: I'm fond of the KISS approach ("keep it simple, stupid", not "spiked armour and facepaint").
* Do no evil. (this one's a biggie)
* Do your best in all you do.
* Do what you can for others before you think of yourself.
As a martial defender of the church (or of the principles of goodness, read Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion trilogy for a good example of how this differs), you must be a beacon of hope and a role model for others. If bards around the kingdom are telling tales of a paladin's disgrace (or, for a real-world example, of police corruption) it puts others off trying, and it tars all others with the same brush. Let's even go down the Rudyard Kipling path: If a paladin can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of goodness done, then theirs is the earth.
Of course, no D&D paladin is going to be totally capable of pure goodness: playing a class with a moral code is like painting a target on your forehead for the DM to aim for (and I say this as a paladin player and as a DM). It's an ideal. That's what paladins are all about. Living their ideals and motivating others to try to live the same ideals (NOT out of fear of the "smite makes right" code, but out of emulation, out of aspiration and out of respect for the paladin's difficult choice to live their ideals on the front line).
I use a combination of the Paladin/Cavelier chart from the old Unearth Arcana; not the 3.5 one; and the Paladium alignment list of would and would nots from Principled; that has a list like; never lie, never cheat; never murder, protect innocents; but then, in my game there are paladins for every alignments so am thinking you are only thinking LG; so have lists for other alignments as well; ie CE is always take advantage of someone weaker or wounded; likes to murder; likes to lie.
There is such a thing as innocent evil (goblin babies, etc.), and he serves that as well. True Goodness makes no distinction between innocent Good or Evil.
Just to point out, that besides outsiders, dragons, animals, and a very few other creatures (which does not include any humanoids that I am aware of), creatures are not born with an alignment. So your baby goblins would not be evil, they would probably be neutral, being incapable of moral action. If they are capable of moral action and have done so and thus earned the evil alignment, then they would not be considered innocent.
Actually a stronger case can be made for why a paladin shouldn't strike a fiend on sight than attacking an evil mortal on sight/detect, if we want to look at it from the viewpoint of innocent of evil deed.
Actually a stronger case can be made for why a paladin shouldn't strike a fiend on sight than attacking an evil mortal on sight/detect, if we want to look at it from the viewpoint of innocent of evil deed.
I completely disagree with this. I believe I udnerstand the logic behind it- fiends have no choice but to be evil, and are thus somehow being construed as victims of their nature. If one believes paladins should be merciful, then this is, supposedly, a great reason to show that mercy.
But that's a poor image of what a fiend is. A fiend is a , in the traditional sense of the word. It is a creature of pure evil, an incarnation of the primal essence of evil, an opposition to everything good. They are incapable of redemption, or even the remorse needed to seek or desire redemption. Their very existence is a blight on the multiverse. Not in the same way that humans or dwarves might say orcs are a blight, while in truth, there are some good orcs and the opinion can easily be classified as subjective. No, fiends are objective agents of an objective, universal evil. They have no redeeming qualities at all. Their existence is and evil deed, inherently.
A paladin should never feel any doubt in his mind about the morality of his action when he does battle against a fiend (unless his motives for battling the fiend are corrupt, but that's another issue all together).
Actually a stronger case can be made for why a paladin shouldn't strike a fiend on sight than attacking an evil mortal on sight/detect, if we want to look at it from the viewpoint of innocent of evil deed.I completely disagree with this. I believe I udnerstand the logic behind it- fiends have no choice but to be evil, and are thus somehow being construed as victims of their nature. If one believes paladins should be merciful, then this is, supposedly, a great reason to show that mercy.
But that's a poor image of what a fiend is. A fiend is a , in the traditional sense of the word. It is a creature of pure evil, an incarnation of the primal essence of evil, an opposition to everything good. They are incapable of redemption, or even the remorse needed to seek or desire redemption. Their very existence is a blight on the multiverse. Not in the same way that humans or dwarves might say orcs are a blight, while in truth, there are some good orcs and the opinion can easily be classified as subjective. No, fiends are objective agents of an objective, universal evil. They have no redeeming qualities at all. Their existence is and evil deed, inherently.
A paladin should never feel any doubt in his mind about the morality of his action when he does battle against a fiend (unless his motives for battling the fiend are corrupt, but that's another issue all together).
I would like to point out that fiends did have a choice wether to be evil or not. They are mortal souls given to evil so much so that when the person died they decended to the lower planes and became pure evil.
I completely disagree with this. I believe I udnerstand the logic behind it- fiends have no choice but to be evil, and are thus somehow being construed as victims of their nature. If one believes paladins should be merciful, then this is, supposedly, a great reason to show that mercy.
One could think of fiends (and evil dragons and such) as being mentally defective, thus it is not truly their fault for being evil. But even more than that, a creature that is created evil (such as a fiend), might have had no opportunity or even real desire to do evil. Is participating in the Blood War evil? Is killing other fiends evil? I would argue no, as long as no innocents are being harmed. Thus if a paladin kills a fiend merely for being a fiend, they are practicing a form of racism, which is a characteristic of LE, who judges individuals on who they are, not what they have done.
But that's a poor image of what a fiend is. A fiend is a , in the traditional sense of the word. It is a creature of pure evil, an incarnation of the primal essence of evil, an opposition to everything good.
Actually I think there are a lot of fiends out there that if they do interact with mortals, on do so by tempting them. Not all fiends are going to be the baby killing and then eating them for dinner type. To me, limiting them to only the most truly vile is a "poor image" and poor imagination.
They are incapable of redemption, or even the remorse needed to seek or desire redemption. Their very existence is a blight on the multiverse. Not in the same way that humans or dwarves might say orcs are a blight, while in truth, there are some good orcs and the opinion can easily be classified as subjective. No, fiends are objective agents of an objective, universal evil. They have no redeeming qualities at all. Their existence is and evil deed, inherently.
Well evil outsiders can change alignment:
Evil Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).
*emphasis mine.
A paladin should never feel any doubt in his mind about the morality of his action when he does battle against a fiend (unless his motives for battling the fiend are corrupt, but that's another issue all together).
While I agree, I would also say that a paladin shouldn't have any doubt of the morality in killing someone that detects evil as well. Yet some DMs and groups frown on that perspective, I am merely playing "devil's advocate" here (pun intended).
except for the whole fact that mortals can and do change their alignments and outsiders/things with perscripted alignments generally don't.
Except for the fact that most people do not change their alignments any more often than outsiders do. A person that is LE, is and probably will stay so for their entirely life (once they actually developed the ability to make moral choices). If someone is switching alignment willy-nilly then they should be neutral as they have no dedication to any one particular alignment (L,C,G,E). Behaviour and mindset are incredibly hard to change. Not to confuse evil with illegal, but just look how often people that break the law continue to do so even after spending time in jail.
I would like to point out that fiends did have a choice wether to be evil or not. They are mortal souls given to evil so much so that when the person died they decended to the lower planes and became pure evil.
The soul, not the "person" is the issue here. Yes, fiends are created from the souls of evil people. Yet does a fiend have any memory of the person they were in life? No, not usually, except in some homebrew settings. Another thing is fiends, and outsiders, are not undead, they are not ghosts, where the memory and the spirit are still tied together (at least in the case of ghosts and some other undead). Blaming the fiend for the actions of the mortal during their life, is like blaming a child for the actions of their parents.
|
I allow paladins of different alignments in my games, so I've had to adapt the code to fit any of the allowed alignments.
The Paladins’ Code
1. Thou shalt believe all that the church teaches and shalt obey her commandments.
2. Thou shalt defend the church and the faith.
3. Thou shalt respect all weakness and shall constitute the defender of them.
4. Thou shalt not recoil from thine enemies.
5. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy
6. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they not be contrary to the laws of thine faith.
7. Thou shalt neer lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
8. Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
9. Thou shalt be everywhere and always champion the right and the good against injustice and evil.
Pres man... are you serious?
Tell me then when someone can be evil? Apparently it's never any ones fault. You are spending a lot of time obfuscating the issue.
The soul, not the "person" is the issue here. Yes, fiends are created from the souls of evil people. Yet does a fiend have any memory of the person they were in life? No, not usually, except in some homebrew settings. Another thing is fiends, and outsiders, are not undead, they are not ghosts, where the memory and the spirit are still tied together (at least in the case of ghosts and some other undead). Blaming the fiend for the actions of the mortal during their life, is like blaming a child for the actions of their parents.
If I jump of a cliff and suddenly no longer remembered jumping then its not my fault for hitting the ground... apparently.
Since memory is so important I'm going to forget writing this post and then you can't respond to it because that would be like yelling at a child for what it's father did.
Why are you arguing about a paladin's code? Apparently you should be arguing "Is there really evil?"
Any way there is a good section in the Book of Exalted Deeds that explains paladins and their code. Both priorities of the code and "what is good", "what is evil", what willing means, etc.
I completely disagree with this. I believe I udnerstand the logic behind it- fiends have no choice but to be evil, and are thus somehow being construed as victims of their nature. If one believes paladins should be merciful, then this is, supposedly, a great reason to show that mercy.One could think of fiends (and evil dragons and such) as being mentally defective, thus it is not truly their fault for being evil. But even more than that, a creature that is created evil (such as a fiend), might have had no opportunity or even real desire to do evil.
What? It is evil. Fiends aren't created and told by their superiors "Go be evil!" and then mope as they spread sin and terror because they really wanted to go to art school instead. They are evil; they are filled with thoughts of evil; they desire nothing but evil.
They
Are
Evil
But that's a poor image of what a fiend is. A fiend is a , in the traditional sense of the word. It is a creature of pure evil, an incarnation of the primal essence of evil, an opposition to everything good.Actually I think there are a lot of fiends out there that if they do interact with mortals, on do so by tempting them. Not all fiends are going to be the baby killing and then eating them for dinner type. To me, limiting them to only the most truly vile is a "poor image" and poor imagination.
Where exactly did I say "succubi and glabrezu are less evil than vrocks and balors because the former are tempters and the latter are destroyers"? It's all evil.
Well evil outsiders can change alignment
Not of their own volition. As I said, fiends don't even have the capacity to seek or desire redemption. That doesn't mean one couldn't magically wrench them away from their true natures, but the effort involved would be great, and I'm not really sure what you would be hoping to achieve. At any rate, the likelyhood of encountering such a creature is phenominally low, and the thing would certainly make its changed nature known if the paladin erroneously attacked it (and the paladin could easily verify the claim by using detect evil).
In other words: yes, in theory, an egg can be made whole once broken. But it ain't gonna happen.
Pres man... are you serious?
Tell me then when someone can be evil? Apparently it's never any ones fault.
If I jump of a cliff and suddenly no longer remembered jumping then its not my fault for hitting the ground... apparently.
Why are you arguing about a paladin's code? Apparently you should be arguing "Is there really evil?"
If you believe that is what I am arguing then you must have not read my statements carefully enough. I said that if you want to argue that someone can be considered innocent based on whether they have done evil acts or not, not based on whether they are "Evil", then a stronger argument can be made that a fiend is more likely to be considered "innocent" than a typical mortal. Mortals have to EARN their alignments, fiends are created with it. A mortal that (correctly) detects as evil has done evil acts, and intends to continue them, a fiend that detects as evil is merely detecting as any fiend would irregardless if any evil deeds have been done or not.
You tried to claim that the evil deeds of the fiend were done when they were mortal (I assume this is where the whole jumping off the cliff thing is from), the problem with that argument is that was a totally different creature. The fiend might be built from the soul of that creature (just as a baby might be built from the elements of the mother's body), but the fiend is not the mortal that died. They are different creatures, and it would be LE to judge it based on the actions of its forebearer.
You tried to claim that the evil deeds of the fiend were done when they were mortal (I assume this is where the whole jumping off the cliff thing is from), the problem with that argument is that was a totally different creature. The fiend might be built from the soul of that creature (just as a baby might be built from the elements of the mother's body), but the fiend is not the mortal that died. They are different creatures, and it would be LE to judge it based on the actions of its forebearer.
Fine. Lets assume for a moment that they are "cleansed" of their previous life's sins. What about the selfishness, the desire to dominate, to hurt, to cause people to bleed for their amusement that they currently have? Those thousands of sins that they have done to earn their rank in their hierarchy (demon or devil). Their fellows that they have stepped on. Oh so innocent. Just like a baby. That is a baby that has killed other babies and covets others mothers and fathers and torturers animals.
pres man
Just thought I should say: I don't agree with where you are coming from nor do I understand why you are arguing what you are. But I don't have anything against you as a person.
(Didn't want this to get personal.)
|
|
Ah yes, the paladin. The only core class whose very limited and sucky abilities are tied to a completely arbitrary set of standards. :) If I had a GP for every time I've read a thread about this very topic, I'b be well over my wealth-by-level guideline. ;)
I agree that the Code of Conduct for a paladin should be based heavily on the diety or ideal that he/she champions. The CoC of a paladin of Ilmater will be wildly different than a paladin of Kossuth or Jergal (creeeeeepy).
Societal conventions are also a big factor. Mulhorand, for example, is a LG state run by a LG church, but slavery is legal there. How does a paladin or Horus-re (the state religion that was, until recently, run by the god himself) justify that, since slavery is an evil act?
Bottom line is that player and DM need to hash out the details of the CoC before the paladin is even introduced into the game. It reduces friction and misunderstandings that can ruin your fun, which is why we all play, right?
I agree that the Code of Conduct for a paladin should be based heavily on the diety or ideal that he/she champions. The CoC of a paladin of Ilmater will be wildly different than a paladin of Kossuth or Jergal (creeeeeepy).
I agree as well, a specific code is kind of the meat on the bones of this class's RP potential. Seems to me that it ought to be the very thing that separates the paladin from LG characters of any other class.
What? It is evil. Fiends aren't created and told by their superiors "Go be evil!" and then mope as they spread sin and terror because they really wanted to go to art school instead. They are evil; they are filled with thoughts of evil; they desire nothing but evil.
They
Are
Evil
SO
WHAT?
You are missing the entire point, I am not nor have I argued that fiends are not evil. What I am arguing is that if a paladin must protect "innocent evil", then it is more likely to have this in the case of fiends (a creature made with an evil alignment that may not have done any evil deeds yet, thus "innocent" of evil deeds), than it is in the case of a humanoid (a creature not born with an evil alignment and thus must earn that alignment through deed). Go back up to Pygon's statement about evil innocents like baby goblins, and see how my statement was about that.
Not of their own volition. As I said, fiends don't even have the capacity to seek or desire redemption. That doesn't mean one couldn't magically wrench them away from their true natures, but the effort involved would be great, and I'm not really sure what you would be hoping to achieve.
Do you have any evidence to validate this viewpoint? Because I don't see anything in the description of the evil subtype to suggest that alignment for these creatures can only be changed through magic. As evidence that this might not be the case, I would point you to the Paladin Succubus.
At any rate, the likelyhood of encountering such a creature is phenominally low, and the thing would certainly make its changed nature known if the paladin erroneously attacked it (and the paladin could easily verify the claim by using detect evil).
Actually they would still detect as evil.
Evil Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).
On the other hand, they would also detect as good, so detect good would be more reliable to proving it is in fact good (if it was of course, one can be non-evil without being good). Of course paladin's can't do detect good at will so ...
Fine. Lets assume for a moment that they are "cleansed" of their previous life's sins. What about the selfishness, the desire to dominate, to hurt, to cause people to bleed for their amusement that they currently have? Those thousands of sins that they have done to earn their rank in their hierarchy (demon or devil). Their fellows that they have stepped on. Oh so innocent. Just like a baby. That is a baby that has killed other babies and covets others mothers and fathers and torturers animals.
If a humanoid babe is evil, then yes it has done exactly that. But is it evil to harm fiends? If it is then that must make practically all paladins evil. Sin =/= Evil, is it EVIL to cheat on your wife? And not all fiends are sadists, just as not all evil mortals are sadists. If evil beings (mortal or fiend) are limited to being sadists than that seems to be a lack of creativity to me.
|
|
I would generally prefer that there be some sort of hostile act from the demon, but I would not fault a PC for killing one out of hand. Fiends are not supposed to be walking around the prime material plane (they call them outsiders for a reason), so they could, at least, bust them for trespassing. :)
After reading all of the above posts I'm curious about one thing.
Would any of the DMs who have responded so far allow a paladin in their games to attack an evil being on sight, without regard to its actions or circumstances?
For instance, if the paladin is walking through the desert and encounters a demon, would you allow the paladin to simply attack without being provoked?
Because this is where I think many of the above points become somewhat moot. I don't believe that simply detecting evil is a solid enough reason for a paladin to use force. They need to be provoked by something more than this. An evil act that incites them to use violence.
An evil demon, possibly. Not the smartest as there is no good reason why a demon would be on the prime material plane but it could be a trick. An evil creature no. Creatures can be evil without being murders and the like that would get the death penalty. A merchant can be evil and all he does is screw his customers over.
I would generally prefer that there be some sort of hostile act from the demon, but I would not fault a PC for killing one out of hand. Fiends are not supposed to be walking around the prime material plane (they call them outsiders for a reason), so they could, at least, bust them for trespassing. :)
Plus "killing" it on the prime would only send it back to its own realm. It can only be truely killed on its own home plane.
If a humanoid babe is evil, then yes it has done exactly that. But is it evil to harm fiends? If it is then that must make practically all paladins evil. Sin =/= Evil, is it EVIL to cheat on your wife? And not all fiends are sadists, just as not all evil mortals are sadists. If evil beings (mortal or fiend) are limited to being sadists than that seems to be a lack of creativity to me.
Harming fiends evil? No. Torturing fiends (or anything else)? Yes.
Babies can not be evil because they are not aware of their actions and the consiquences of thise actions. They are like animals until they are aware.
Baby = neutral
Child = can be evil
Don't confuse evil humaniods with humaniods of an evil race. They are two distinct things.
Evil humaniod = Evil
Humaniod race with an evil alignment = Majority of the race is evil
sa·dism –noun
1. Psychiatry. sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others. Compare masochism.
2. any enjoyment in being cruel.
3. extreme cruelty.
How is it a lack of creativity to think that fiends are sadists? They are nice now not cruel? Is mental and emotional harm not counted as sadism now?
Plus "killing" it on the prime would only send it back to its own realm. It can only be truely killed on its own home plane.Ah. This is a good point. Although I am not sure that the PC would have this information. . .
I am just trying to say that simply "being evil" is not justification enough for a paladin to attack. "Doing evil" is another story, however.
I completely agree. A paladin is not a dumb killing machine. He (or she) must understand justice and redemption. But he (or she) must also be able to fight with righteousness.
Would any of the DMs who have responded so far allow a paladin in their games to attack an evil being on sight, without regard to its actions or circumstances?
For instance, if the paladin is walking through the desert and encounters a demon, would you allow the paladin to simply attack without being provoked?
Yes. No. Maybe. It really depends on the type of game that I am running. Where the lines are drawn to be evil, how likely is redemption. What does it mean to be good.
So in a game where evil is EVIL, cheating money-changers are not evil, bullies are not evil, only the most foul are evil and redemption is almost non-existent (forced alignment change is not redemption), then yes a paladin could smite the demon without concern, as well as the drider next to it or the red dragon above or even the human necromancer riding his zombie horse (and the horse he rode in on).
In a game where evil is selfish, and calling people bad names and making them feel bad will get you an evil alignment, then no. In that case the act of attacking the demon for merely being a demon would be unreasonable. Or if there is a "reasonable" chance of the demon being redeemed (you notice how it is accepted that angels can fall, but somehow a demon rising is "crazy"), it would be inappropriate.
In most games it would probably be ok, but it depends. I once had a group of devils approach under a flag of truce to parley with the party. Had the paladin attacked them under those conditions, that would definitely be a strike against their code (not acting honorably), would it have been enough to cause the paladin to fall, no, but if it was part of a larger trend it might be the last straw.
|
|
However I do have particularly unpleasant fiends hanging around in some of my campaigns who speedily notice and exploit such behaviour by paladins. (For example: release a magical plague on a village a couple of days before the soon-to-be-ex-paladin to be is due to arrive, that can only be cured by cure disease spells cast by a fiend. Then, twenty minutes before the paladin is due to arrive, send an obvious fiend minion with cleric levels in (with a magical staff and a couple of bodyguards) to start curing people and nicely set the paladin up for when he/she arrives.)
How would this put the paladin's status at risk? The fiends are obviously up to no good even if they appear to be performing an act of mercy (they're incapable of committing a good act for its own sake, that's their nature). It's just up to the paladin to determine what thier intent really is.
An evil demon, possibly. Not the smartest as there is no good reason why a demon would be on the prime material plane but it could be a trick. An evil creature no. Creatures can be evil without being murders and the like that would get the death penalty. A merchant can be evil and all he does is screw his customers over.
Why couldn't a demon manifest its evil in exactly the same fashion? Why couldn't there be a demon of "adjustable rate mortgages"?
|
|
My oringinal responce was very acusitory and as such I am editing it so as not to appear as such a jerk I beleive the crux of my question was misunderstood and as such I will restate that I am more intersted in hearing how others have dealt with this situation, or even if they have had this situation to deal with.
My apologies for yesterday's advice Jester; it seems that the thread has after all devolved in the direction you thought it would.
I hope you got some decent answers to your questions before that point.
Ok. File this under T, for "To each his own game", but I would certainly revoke the player's paladinhood if he instigated an attack on anyone or anything under a flag of truce. It wouldn't matter if it were part of a larger trend or not. That would be it. It seems dishonorable and merciless. Not good paladin behaivour.
True, each to his own. For me, only a grossly evil act would cause a paladin to immediately fall. A grossly dishonorable one wouldn't, especially when involving something like a group of fiends. Especially this group. The party had rescued a lantern archon that had been trapped in a magical prison that looked like a crystal ball (wall of force, dimensional ancher, etc). He was then forced to witness unspeakable evil acts for several centuries before the party found him. He was so disturbed by the acts, all he could say was yes or no (for those of you that remember Tron, you'll know I like to steal ideas).
Well the devils showed up and said he was a criminal and the party had "unintentionally released him, presumably". The fiends wanted the party to turn over the lantern archon to them, otherwise the fiends would be forced to try to take him back by force, and it was likely several of the settlers the party was escorting would get hurt in the chaos. To do the most "good" the party should agree to the devils' request. The paladin told them to take their sorry rears and get out while they can, because next time they will have their skulls split.
"Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Be Brave and Upright that God may love thee.
Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death.
Safeguard the helpless.
Do no wrong.
That is your oath."Thats from Kingdom of Heaven.
Thats a pretty good paladin's oath.
The funny thing is, Orlando didn't include the line "Do no wrong." When he knighted the group of people later. Maybe his character was feeling guilty for sleeping with a married woman. ;)
|
|
My apologies for yesterday's advice Jester; it seems that the thread has after all devolved in the direction you thought it would.I hope you got some decent answers to your questions before that point.
Yes, well I guess I should have listened to another and expect the flaming to have begun. Didn't even think we might get into a discussion about Demons and Morality. Guess Im just Ignorantas others have pointed out. :)
Although it seems to me that this is an issue that others have thought on and or have actually had a ready made solution or at least considered. I find the concepts suggested quite subtly in Pathfinder #1 and the following discussion with that to mean I am not the only who wonders what happens to this particular Paladin let alone one that may be played in one of my games. And yeah though I feel making a Paladin be a Vegan is a little absurd, even if you could have a LG Druid in the game, this does bare some thought for players and GM's alike.
I hope that people realised that the first spoiler in my initial post was in fact the rules taken from the players handbook in verbatum, and that the second spoiler was in fact an addendum to those said rules from the WotC website. not actually my opinions of the matter.
|
|
"Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Be Brave and Upright that the Heavens may love thee.
Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death.
Safeguard the helpless.
Do no wrong.
That is your oath."Thats from Kingdom of Heaven.
Thats a pretty good paladin's oath.
I like that and it would work but my player wants something closer to
the code of the Chinese Knight:
"Right any wrongs that you see,
Correct any social injustices,
Keep any oaths of loyalty that you take, and meet all obligations you accept,
Honor Good people,
Spend all wealth on good deeds and good times."
Another paladin code thread! Woohoo!