|
Xuttah. May I please clarify?:
You're saying, that on the basis of nothing more than a 'detect evil', and that someone happens to look like a fiend, it would be perfectly acceptable for a LG paladin to cut down those apparently engaged upon an act of mercy?
Please do clarify. If the beings sent are evil and are, in fact, fiends in the active service of another fiend, then they are incapable of performing a good act for its own sake. They were responsible for the disease in the first place in your scenario and are using thier supposedly selfless behaviour in a premeditated plot to trap a paladin into falling from grace. Does that about sum up the situation?
Any paladin worth his salt knows that fiends (which you have stated these beings obviously are) are personifications of evil and are, by their very nature, incapable of perfoming an act of true mercy. This basic foreknowledge should be enough to warn the paladin that something is amiss, and a greater evil is likely afoot. Whether the creatures in question are actually fiends or not is immaterial because they are pawns (willing ones by the way I interpret your post) of a greater evil.
How the paladin reacts to the situation depends greatly upon the god he follows, but the only act that I could see endangering the paladin's grace would be inaction. Once the paladin has routed the obvious enemy, then he can investigate and unmask the true plot and bring aid from a source that does not bear evil intent. This sounds like a really great mini adventure to test a paladin character and introduce a mastermind enemy. I like!
|
|
Xuttah:
So in the next circumstance that a paladin meets like that he charges in the same. Even though this time, he could be being fooled by a veil, and those are members of his own church that he's cutting down?
I presume you will answe 'yes', since the point of being LG is that you do not vary your behaviour patterns in a chaotic fashion..
If he is the victim of trickery (although he'd have a fair chance of disbelieving an illusion, what with being a paladin and all), then there is no misconduct. He will feel great remorse and perhaps seek redemption, but is guilty of nothing more than zealously attacking who he believes are enemies of good. If the paladin sees through the veil and attacks anyway, then you have an arguement.
Of course, a smart paladin would be wary of falling for the same trick twice. That, and there is the rest of the party to take into account. What are they doing all this time?
[boy, you edit like a fiend ;)]
As for the not learning from your mistakes and failing to take responsibility for your actions, see seeking redemption and the whole unmasking the plot from my last post. If a paladin acts blindly and without accountability, then yes, the danger of falling is great. Temperance is an important virtue, as is Prudence.
|
|
Xuttah:
May I take it that your stance on any kind of outsider with the [evil] subtype in 3rd edition/3.5 is that they are IRRETRIEVABLY evil?If you think so, then put in the context that in 3.0/3.5 that celestials (outsiders with the [good] subtype) can quite clearly fall (and become corrupted into fiends), does this imply that (unless you can kill EVERYTHING and wipe the D & D universe clean of all intelligent sentient life) evil is the inevitable end product of the D & D universe?
(I could of course be mistaken, and that you are in fact suggesting a 'better safe than sorry' stance for action upon a paladin's part.)
In answer to your first question, I would refer you to the Book of Exalted Deeds page 8, under "Redeeming Evil". Please make special note of paragraph three. It's pretty cut and dry in official WoTC b&w.
I actually recommend pages 5-12 of this book as a good starting point for the definition of good from a D&D perspective. BoVD has a similarly good article on sin and evil. Check it out! Between these two articles, you've got a good start on navigating the moral minefield that is paladinhood.
[edit] Final thought before I go of to sleepytown: Even if the whole world is doomed to slowly spiral into evil, it is the role of the paladin to oppose it and provide a beacon of hope for those who still look to the light. They are supposed to be paragons of good and the antithesis of evil and chaos. Sure, some fail and fall into darkness, but there are many, many more that succeed.
|
|
Hi Charles,
As long as sapient creatures have free will, there is the danger of sin. That's the trade off for being able to choose for ourselves. Evil is easy and selfish, that is why it thrives. Good is difficult and selfless, and that is why it needs champions.
That is the line we walk every day; choosing between good and evil and (ultimately) being held accountable for our actions (by secular authorities or by the divine, depending on your personal beliefs). It is the role of the paladin not only to fight evil, but to be living (or martyred -as is often the case with PC's) examples of good and law. Their example of how to live a just life can have a larger impact on the world than their martial exploits.
This does not mean that free will is a bad thing. A paladin, above all, must respect the right of beings to make their own choices. To strip away that choice and dictate behaviour totally is Lawful Evil, and one of the most common pitfalls in paladinhood.
|
Xuttah. May I please clarify?:
You're saying, that on the basis of nothing more than a 'detect evil', and that someone happens to look like a fiend, it would be perfectly acceptable for a LG paladin to cut down those apparently engaged upon an act of mercy?
I call that a great roleplaying opurtunity for a catch -22
|
|
Xuttah:
Pleased to see that you're back. I'm fairly certain that your position with regard to the hypothetical paladin attacking the hypothetical apparent fiend on a mercy mission who detects as evil is going to be that the presence of 'an irredeemable' (according to the source) fiend on the prime-material plane is itself a provocation. It 'might' be possible that the paladin could go to sleep with a clean conscience about directly taking life, because he's simply sending the fiend back to its home plane by 'killing it' (I think archlich suggested that in one of his posts). I have some concerns over whether or not the paladin is (in)directly responsible for the deaths of those that the fiend was treating, who will not now be cured, but I suspect that you can argue a reason to validate this...
Hiya Charles,
This is a very stimulating mental excercise. I'm enjoying it a lot. I always enjoy the quality of the discussions that pop up on this forum.
The paladin is in the right to seek to defeat the fiends according to the abilities of himself and his comrades. The paladin you describe appears to be of the more straight-forward martial type, so he would likely resort to force. Since the fiends are incapable of actually performing a true act of mercy (one again they are the embodiment of evil, sin, vice, etc...), he is using violence to stop what must a machination of evil. If they truly try to surrender (sense motive folks), then he may be obligated to take prisoners, depending on church dogma and personality. A Knight of the Chalice would send them back to The Pit, but a paladin of Ilmater might give them a chance to run or surrender. That's one of those "it depends" situations were a test of virtue can be placed.
The treatment of the sick villagers is of more concern to me than the smiting of their would-be fiendish saviours though. Once the obvious threat is removed, the paladin's next responsibility should be to the afflicted. He should be honour bound to ease their suffering by whatever means are good and lawful (both local laws and church dogma) and within his power.
The party cleric or the paladin himself may be able to treat the sick themselves with judicious use of heal skills, laying on hands and remove disease. Contagion is only a 3rd level spell with fixed DC's, so the resolution of the "plague" should be within the power of a reasonably well-equipped party.
A truly thorough paladin should then seek a final resolution to end the contagion that has afflicted the villagers. A big showdown with the moustache twirling mastermind will give a very satisfying climax to this little adventure. Once the full extent and intent of the overfiend's plot is exposed, the paladin and his party should be honoured for thier wisdom for seeing through and surviving the fiendish plot (both physically and spiritually). Oh yeah, and xp should be given out. :)
Come to think of it, this reminds me vaguely of an adventure from the WoTC site "The Burning Plague". With a few tweaks and added encounters, this could be adapted to fit the very scenario you have concocted.
[edit] So, final thought in an attempt to bring this back to a discussion about the Paladin's Code: There is no single correct resolution to this problem, but there are many traps and problems to be faced. How those traps are disarmed depends on the personality of the player, the character and the Code of Conduct that the DM and player worked out before the character begins play.
Here's a palidin's code for one of my paladin-like prestige classes. The Knight of the Crimson Mantle referenced is very similar to the PHB Paladin but is a prestige class gained through fighter/cleric multiclassng.
While the teachings of their kindred order, the Order of the Crimson Mantle, focus on the role of the holy warrior in combating evil and driving away darkness, and although the path of the warrior can sometimes free men from the bonds of evil, it cannot drive away the evil which lives in their hearts; it cannot illuminate the path to enlightenment, it can only provide the opportunity for some to choose to seek it out. The members of the Order of the Chalice of Light are taught that after their obvious foe is vanquished, that is the time for reflection, self-examination, and the seeking for truth so that they can vanquish the true enemy of men. Strength and might serve many purposes, for this is often the only tool which evil fears, but strength and might cannot teach humanity to better itself and reject the darkness which curdles the spirit and turns men upon men. Purity of purpose and strength of soul can inspire another to strive to improve themselves and inspire others in turn.
Although doughty warriors armed with skill and divine powers, the vanai serves as more than a slayer of monsters. Martial prowess is an important ideal, and helps inculcate and bind the concepts of honor, duty, and loyalty, but the finest warriors do not allow the thrill of battle and the lure of conflict to blind them and turn them from the path of righteousness and justice. The greatest warriors transcend the role of fighter, soldier, or mere killer and discover within themselves the capacity to surpass their mortal limitations, or even their role as divine champion, becoming true spiritual warriors. The spiritual warrior battles the darkness which encroaches on the soul as much as that that which inflicts the flesh.
The vanai are not simply warriors, divine though they might be, but must be diplomats and arbitrators, sometimes scholars and teachers, or healers, and may called on at any time to exercise the portfolio of their patron by acting as judge, jury, or even as executioner if no one else can serve the cause of justice in this manner. The code of the vanai teaches that mercy and redemption must temper justice, and law serve the ends of men and the gods, strengthening them, shielding them from chaos and anarchy, but not subjecting them to whimsy or capricious or arbitrary legalism. Justice is not blind in the teachings of the vanaar, and the spirit of law must be cherished and held in the heart lest law become a tool of tyranny and corruption.
Courage in the face of danger tempers the spirit, but foolish risks teach a false lesson, that of conceit and arrogance. A vanai is taught not to take pride in their prowess, for hubris leads to vanity and vainglory and other dark paths. A vanai must live in the world and be part of it, for to deny the world is to deny an essential part of themselves, but they should not be blinded by its temptations. The comfort found in the arms of a loved one is a blessing, but a vanai should not allow lust or depravity to fuel their desires. Gluttony is the subtle, silent destroyer which makes the mind and spirit as soft as the body. Greed hardens spirit to the plight of others, while charity uplifts the spirits both the giver and the receiver when without pretense. Righteous anger can focus the spirit and gird the soul for what must come, but wrath shrivels the spirit and ultimately consumes it.
Above all the vanai must remember that the deity is as manifest in the smallest of deeds as in the greatest.
|
|
Life is indeed a quagmire of contradictions and gray areas, so too is D&D. :) I can sum my point up in that I do not believe that the scenario you put forth would automatically cause a paladin to fall from grace. It is flawed in both intent and execution and there are far too many subjective variables to take into account. Sure, there is a chance for a fall to happen, but not an automatic lose-lose outcome.
I, as a player, would cry foul if a DM confronted me with an arbitrary no-win situation where the only outcome would be the loss of my character's class abilities. Repeated use of the same scenario (or variation on the theme), would lead to harsh words and a loss of a player (and possibly a very un-paladinic beating).
If a player is using a character as a mindless killing machine, then it is not only the failure of the player involved, but the DM as well. There are better ways to solve an underlying problem in a game than by ruining a player's enjoyment of the game. [edit] This is, IMO, even worse than a "rocks fall, you die" event since there's an element of cruelty involved (now where does the evil act fall?).
Besides, this is the paladin we're talking about here. It's not like it's a well-designed class anyways. :) A fighter/cleric is much more versatile and doesn't have to worry so much about a CoC.
EDIT:
I would also hope that D & D paladins do not just 'know' that 'all fiends are irredeemable', (an opinion/guidelines/a statement of fact expressed in a rules book of which it is impossible for the character to have knowledge) and that if they occasionally have nightmares of massacred villages, or falling celestials, that they occasionally have glorious dreams of fiends 'the ultimate evil' snatched from the depths of depravity and gloriously converted to the cause of good.
I understand the idea you are going for (I think). You want the player to show understanding and compassion. To face roleplaying challenges and explore moral issues.
It would be a lot easier if you didn't use fiends as the example though. As the DM you might know if a fiend can be redeemed at all. But a player doesn't and their character certainly doesn't.
A paladin (as the character) would not necessarily know the exact game mechanic but they would be able to know their church's position on the issue. Which I would guess is something along the lines of: "Fiends are pure evil and should be fought where ever they are found."
If that is their churches position then you shouldn't punish that for being their first reaction.
As to the case of a fiend tending to the sick. I think the paladin in question should confront the fiend and monitor its efforts. If people aren't getting better, if the fiend doesn't have a good reason to be on that plane, if the paladin found out the fiend was responsible (at all) for the plague, if the fiend doesn't show a true attempt at reforming it's entire actions (including speech, worship, showing kindness) then I think the paladin has justifiable suspicion to chop away and send it back to hell. After all a paladin would have been thoroughly forewarned about how fiends are evil, dubious and try to seduce people into the darkness. I would expect a paladin to be merciful but not lenient.
|
|
All descision making is choosing the most appropriate course of action based on available data and filtered by experience and existing knowledge. The easiest choice is not nescessarily the correct one, but it also depends on what the criteria for the decision is. If the data available is flawed by deliberate deception, then the decision will also be flawed, but if it was made in good faith then there can be no credible blame assigned, at least as far as a fall from grace.
I maintain that it is critical that a paladin's CoC be worked out in advance of playing the character so that the player has a good idea of what is expected of him. If the Code of The Chalice says it's okay to destroy evil outsiders because they are the manifestations of sin, then the paladin has a mandate to do so with a clear conscience ...under all but the most extenuating (and contrived in this case) circumstances. A more moderate order might advocate mercy above all. Like I said, it all depends. LG in Mulhorand is not the same flavour as LG in Waterdeep.
I wholeheartedly agree that the paladin should face challenges to his faith and Code. There should be angst over moral decisions, times where faith is called into question, and soul-searching to arrive at the "right" answers -that's D&D at its best! OTOH, to deliberately set up a PC for failure is just bad or lazy DMing. I believe that the situation you have concocted is the latter.
PS any paladin capable of making a knowledge:the planes check of 10 (common knowledge) would "know" that fiends are irredeemable manifestations of evil. The number of redeemed fiends can be counted on one hand and should require a more difficult skill role to know of their existence.
|
|
Thank-you! This is the sort of response that I (as a DM) would be looking for from a paladin in one of my games, rather than the easy solution of 'it looks like a fiend, it detects as evil, send it straight back to the lower planes'.
Of course, by this course of action, the paladin is willingly associating with an evil character. While not directly or willingly committing an evil act here, and thereby risking his class abilities, it goes against the paladin's behavioural guidelines as established in the class description.
By aiding and abetting the fiend, it can be argued that the paladin is lending to corruption of the souls of the villagers, which is evil. It's all a matter of perspective and scope.
|
|
Okay, so I put my thinking cap on and hashed out a rough adventure plot to turn Charles' "fall from grace" scenario into a real test of virtue for a paladin and his adventuring companions.
1) Party is coming into town for whatever reason (end of last adventure, looking for work, etc...) when they come across a village wracked by some sort of sickness. Establish mood with lots of funeral pyres, weeping widows, suffering everywhere.
2) Test 1: As the PC's investigate, they happen across a (insert usually evil humanoid race), who is doing "something" to a sick villager. It turns out that the (creature) is ministering to the sick. If the party goes into mindless violence mode, the villagers chastise them for killing the only person who has been able to help them. If they talk to the (creature) then they may gain some helpful information about the nature of the sickness and perhaps a clue to its origen. The (creature) is innocent of wrongdoing in this case (it may be evil or not) and has its own motives for helping (profit, fame, guilt, genuine mercy etc...)
3)Test 2: Further investigation shows that some clerics of a local church of (usually good god) are selling their healing services to the highest bidder or for massively inflated prices. How does the party deal with these profiteers?
4) Test 3: The party finds out the source of the illness (an evil maguffin in the spooky caves), but the locals really need help tending to their sick and dieing. Do they fluff off the villagers and go for the BBEG, or do they take some time to ease the suffering of the innocent?
5) The dungeon: Eventually, the PC's will need to confront the BBEG and his goons in the cave. Insert a level-appropriate dungeon crawl and climactic showdown with a truly evil foe. Destroy the evil maguffin and the plague starts to fade.
6) Aftermath: If the characters behaved in a good and upright way, they will be treated with honour by the village and rewarded with cookies and milk. If they were callous and selfish, then the gratitude of the locals will be muted at best and the paladin, depending on his actions, may lose his status until he can seek forgivness (that's a whole other adventure there!).
That's just off the top of my head. Thoughts?
Of course, by this course of action, the paladin is willingly associating with an evil character. While not directly or willingly committing an evil act here, and thereby risking his class abilities, it goes against the paladin's behavioural guidelines as established in the class description.By aiding and abetting the fiend, it can be argued that the paladin is lending to corruption of the souls of the villagers, which is evil. It's all a matter of perspective and scope.
I think your are being picky here. Associating is not the same as tolerating or to bear (with).
|
|
I think that amongst other things this discussion has demonstrated is that it's almost certainly for the best that a DM make absolutely clear before a game starts the way he's interpretting the do's and don'ts of the paladin class- especially if PC or NPC paladins are likely to be making appearances.
...
Edit:
Looks to me a fine outline for a 'test of virtue' for a low to mid-level adventuring party, Xuttah. Taking outsiders out of the question makes it a lot less difficult to put across a DMs reasons for a ruling.
I think that we can finally agree on that one. :) And thanks for the positive feedback. I might even use this adventure one day.
wow this thread name should be changed to "very long discourse on the Paladin's Code" nice to read some threads with some meat on the bones once in a while :)
|
|
Paladins of Sune: (Billy Crystal voice) "'Tis better to look good than to feel good. And dahling, you roook maaahvohlous!"
Seriously, that's a great one! Just because you're suffering in some pit doesn't mean you can't look good while doing it! Leading by example and boosting morale (ie hope) are very worthy goals.
|
|
I thought the 'we're doing this not-quite-good-thing to support a holy-war-against-the-evil-xxx' approach might appeal....
I think this one falls under the "respecting legitimate authority" clause. There is nothing, however, that prevents the PCs from trying to change the priests' minds to adopting a more ethical and needful use of their powers. If they do so peacefully and diplomatically, yay!
Here is a site with complied "Clear answers for Paladins".
|
|
Here is a site with complied "Clear answers for Paladins".
Not to reopen a big debate. Thought this was good to have mentioned again.