|
Im playing STAP and im want to know oppinions about:
"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."
Can you negotiate with demons to kill Demogorgon? (working with the less evil to finish the greatest evil one.)
Please, not spoilers!!!!!
This is a question largely left to you and your DM to decide.
Personally, I think it adds a great RP element into the game, having the Paladin do this. He can negotiate with the demons to overthrow Donkey Kong the Demon, and then sweat it out in RP for awhile, whether or not he did the right thing, and so forth.
The ultimate question is: Can a paladin consort with evil to thwart a much, much greater evil?
I think ultimately the answer is yes- the greater good is served. But that doesn't mean he'll sleep well at night over the decision.
(this is assuming the negotiations don't involve the paladin doing more than working along side the demons. Obviously the exact terms of the bargain can vary, and could very easily alter the outcome with the Paladin's powers).
-S
|
The Age ol' question: Does the End justify the Means?
If I were playing the paladin in question, I would fully expect that a some sort of atonement would be in order after Demogorgon's demise.
I would also not be shocked if the DM had my diety rescind some of my pally-powers for making such a pact.
Straight and narrow is the gate and all that...
But every campaign and DM is different. So whatever.
|
|
This is a question largely left to you and your DM to decide.
Personally, I think it adds a great RP element into the game, having the Paladin do this. He can negotiate with the demons to overthrow Donkey Kong the Demon, and then sweat it out in RP for awhile, whether or not he did the right thing, and so forth.
The ultimate question is: Can a paladin consort with evil to thwart a much, much greater evil?
I think ultimately the answer is yes- the greater good is served. But that doesn't mean he'll sleep well at night over the decision.(this is assuming the negotiations don't involve the paladin doing more than working along side the demons. Obviously the exact terms of the bargain can vary, and could very easily alter the outcome with the Paladin's powers).
-S
You've pretty much summed up my feelings here. It's sort of the "Lawful Stupid" paladin vs. the Lawful Good one. Lawful Stupid couldn't make this alliance, and LG could, but he wouldn't feel very good about it, and he certainly wouldn't like how the demons would want to do it.
The best way to play it out might be something along the lines of Deep Space Nine's "In The Pale Moonlight" episode. The final monologue is just awesome, if you ask me.
The ultimate question is: Can a paladin consort with evil to thwart a much, much greater evil?
I think ultimately the answer is yes- the greater good is served. But that doesn't mean he'll sleep well at night over the decision.
If by "consort with", you mean "associate with", then I would say "no", because it specifically states "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters".
But on the other hand, it's entirely possible for a demon and a paladin to have the same short-term goal (e.g. killing a rival demon); there's nothing wrong with that. But committing an evil act to ingratiate yourself with a demon would be out.
By the way, this is the wrong forum for this discussion.
|
|
My interpretation of a paladin's code is that it can also exist in degrees. Some can choose never to consort with demons in any way, shape or form and destroy them on sight (which is suicide in the Abyss). Others can be very aware that even though demons are very evil, as long as they remain in the Abyss, they aren't actually harming innocents, so there is no immediate reason to expunge them while he is there. And if consorting with them will help prevent the harming of innocents elsewhere, that is fine justification.
I use the word "consort" here loosely, meant as a temporary agreement. Once the job is done, the paladin doesn't stay there.
You don't need to look at the code or worry about what your GM will do, if you think it is within your characters personality then do it. Just be ready to accept the consequence.
Because, really, if you have to ask this question then you already pretty much know the answer and you're hoping you're wrong.
Personally, there's no way a Paladin I was running would deal with demons, no matter what the desired result was, here's why:
1. The moment you deal with a demon you have shown them that you can be corrupted. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions - and the demon (or others) will come back with more and more "good intentions" and before you know it your paladinhood is toast.
2. You will be responsible for every evil act that demon makes while carrying out its goal. It may use poison to weaken Demogorgon and if it's wrong for you to use poison it's just as wrong for someone you ask for help to use poison. Now people may say that it's just poison and it's just Demogorgon, but what if that poison is made from the blood of tortured Solar's, or the tears of a thousand mothers watching their children be killed. You're Paladin would feel pretty bad when he found that out, and the demons would make sure he did. You'd also be responsible for whatever evil the demon committed with whatever it gains from your alliance.
3. Once you deal with demons it becomes rank hypocrisy for you to castigate others for doing the same. You can but they can't?
4. Dealing with an evil mortal is bad, but at least there is always a chance of redemption for mortals. Demons are made out of pure chaos and evil, they are the complete opposite for what you stand for.
5. By asking a demon for help (which is what you would be doing) you are saying that your faith, your belief, your intellect, your might, your friends, your very way of life, isn't enough. You need the help of pure evil to accomplish your goals.
I hope you can see why it's probably a bad idea to deal with demons, especially when you're a Paladin, and why your GM would probably come down on you pretty hard.
Being a Paladin isn't easy, but it shouldn't be. If it was everyone would be one (free detect evil, whoo-hoo!).
Hogarth:
If the demon and paladin are unaware of each other and are both trying to accomplish the same dead that is overall "good", then I agree.
The situation from the OP though seems to be more of a parley scenario.
Paladin and Pit Fiend sit down at a table together and hammer out a non-aggression pact until Donkey Kong Demon is dead.
Lets assume the pact is just non aggression rather than cooperation- Can the Paladin do it? He is consorting with an evil outsider, aggreing not to harm them, so that the greater good can be done. Is that allowed?
I say- maybe. Talk to your DM about it. And be ready to do /alot/ of RP concerning this, after the fact. The question here is more RP than "mechanical crunch". If your paladin nonchalantly wanders around making pacts with devils and demons then perhaps he's not so much a paladin anymore.
But the single act of making a single pact with a demon or devil for the overarching purpose of overthrowing a Demon Lord isn't exactly the pathway to damnation. BUT even having done so, it *should* Bother the heck out of the paladin in question. "Atonement" worthy? I don't think a spell is the answer- I think RP is the answer. Its something that will haunt the Paladin through his lifetime even if no one knows he did it but him.
I think the Paladin is capable of doing some "unsavory" things without losing his Paladinhood- as long as they are few and far between, rather than constant rationalizations in order to try and side-step his obligations and the Oath.
But as I said- this is something largely to be decided by the player and DM. (Commune as is necessary ;p )
-S
|
|
I´m agree in all the terms of all the posts, because i think all are valids. The scenario is the key. I dont know how could be done the pact, i dont know the future of the STAP.
I always believe in the Paladin code, for that i always plays other characters (lol). The problem is "all my partners want to ´play with demons to defeat the evil one´if i didnt...my party will die for my acts"? I dont want to see the others players die, i dont mind if my player dies but, if his dead means all the others dead....well, i have a problem.
Its easy to charge to smite a Balor, when your partners run to try to get save (if they do and not stay with you), and having a paladin's typicall dead.
I dont want to deal with demons, but if that pact could save millions...
Thanks for your answers, but its a very difficult scenario and im agree with Hogarth, the best way to solve that questions is a good interpretation about the player intentions.
Hogarth:
If the demon and paladin are unaware of each other and are both trying to accomplish the same dead that is overall "good", then I agree.
The situation from the OP though seems to be more of a parley scenario.
Paladin and Pit Fiend sit down at a table together and hammer out a non-aggression pact until Donkey Kong Demon is dead.
Lets assume the pact is just non aggression rather than cooperation- Can the Paladin do it? He is consorting with an evil outsider, aggreing not to harm them, so that the greater good can be done. Is that allowed?
I say- maybe. Talk to your DM about it. And be ready to do /alot/ of RP concerning this, after the fact. The question here is more RP than "mechanical crunch". If your paladin nonchalantly wanders around making pacts with devils and demons then perhaps he's not so much a paladin anymore.
But the single act of making a single pact with a demon or devil for the overarching purpose of overthrowing a Demon Lord isn't exactly the pathway to damnation. BUT even having done so, it *should* Bother the heck out of the paladin in question. "Atonement" worthy? I don't think a spell is the answer- I think RP is the answer. Its something that will haunt the Paladin through his lifetime even if no one knows he did it but him.
I think the Paladin is capable of doing some "unsavory" things without losing his Paladinhood- as long as they are few and far between, rather than constant rationalizations in order to try and side-step his obligations and the Oath.But as I said- this is something largely to be decided by the player and DM. (Commune as is necessary ;p )
-S
Paladins by their very nature have no room for gray or arguments about the greater good. An act is either right or wrong and to label that point of view as "Lawful Stupid" is to miss the entire point of what a paladin is.
If I was the DM it would mean sacrificing your paladin-hood, it's up to you to decide if it is worth the price :)
The point of the paladin code isn't to lock the paladin into chains and prevent action or decision.
The point is to reinforce a broad set of ideals on what the is or isn't supposed to do.
While I would strip a paladin of his abilities for slaughtering a bunch of children in order to appease the demons and "serve the greater good", making an agreement to work with demons to overthrow a demon lord, assuming the demons behaved themselves in the interim, would not necessarily make him lose his powers.
It Would be something that Haunted the paladin. His dreams, his thoughts.. always wondering if he did the right thing.
That is what separates him from jo schmo rogue who makes the agreement and never looks back.
The paladin cares, looks back, and second guesses even years later.
-S
As a GM, my guideline for this kind of interaction (a paladin brokering with demons to achieve a greater good) would be Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal. I wouldn't restrict the Paladin's ability to make agreements with evil forces if he thinks good will come of it, but the Paladin has to play fair and the other party almost certainly won't. In the end, no good should come of it, but that doesn't mean it's not a good story if he tries.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You've pretty much summed up my feelings here. It's sort of the "Lawful Stupid" paladin vs. the Lawful Good one. Lawful Stupid couldn't make this alliance, and LG could, but he wouldn't feel very good about it, and he certainly wouldn't like how the demons would want to do it.
The best way to play it out might be something along the lines of Deep Space Nine's "In The Pale Moonlight" episode. The final monologue is just awesome, if you ask me.
Yes. That is an example why DS9 is the best Trek.
Ever read The Lost God trillogy from the Scarred lands? The Hero is in a similar mind at the end of that too.
But he can live with it.
It's certainly a situation where the paladin would have to toe the line. Obviously no sane, good aligned person would want to ally themselves with the forces of evil, but as pointed out above, sometimes it is more desireable than the alternative. I would say the conduct of the paladin in question would go a long way towards determining adherance to his code.
Additionally, the term 'associate' seems a bit loose... After all, it's not like the paladin plans on cracking open a few cold ones with the demon in question after the erstwhile 'alliance'. In fact, in a case such as this, one could even make the argument that the paladin would be adhering mightily to his code of honor. Imagine a paladin, wading into the darkest, deepest pits of the Lower Planes, through gods-forsaken realms of agony and despair in order to secure the cooperation of one of the foulest beings in the multiverse. Any paladin worth the tabard over his plate-mail would surely be grimacing in disgust at the very concept! Yet, in the end it may very well be the only way to prevent unimaginable disaster. A willingness and determination to do what must be done, regardless of personal feelings or desires, is in my mind one of the defining aspects of a paladin.
And in the end, it pays to heed the words of Hinjo... "They wouldn't have an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used every once in a while." :D
The Book of Exalted Deeds has a discussion of this right at the beginning which can help to understand the matter at hand. While it is in no way tolerable to do an evil act to prevent an even greater evil from happening,* it is possible for a good character to work together with evil entities as long as it is ensured that the evil part commits no evil deeds. The parties may not even be pursueing the same goals, as long as the goal to be achieved by the alliance itself is worthy and just. So, yes, a paladin might consider to cooperate with demons to overthrow another demon, but he travels on thin ice.
--
* This is view is held by the neutral faction (in regard to good and evil).
|
It's certainly a situation where the paladin would have to toe the line. Obviously no sane, good aligned person would want to ally themselves with the forces of evil, but as pointed out above, sometimes it is more desireable than the alternative.
Yeah, it's the Tharizdrun example. Sometimes good and evil have to team up because the cost of not doing so would allow even greater evil to come to pass. Scenarios like this need GM's that aren't eager to hit the "fall" button.
Of ocurse, the player should be aware of what a slick slope he's standing on the entire time he's involved in such a situation. Being a paladin shouldn't always be easy(and should never be impossible).
5. By asking a demon for help (which is what you would be doing) you are saying that your faith, your belief, your intellect, your might, your friends, your very way of life, isn't enough. You need the help of pure evil to accomplish your goals.
I'm having trouble understanding this one. It seems pretty close to saying that a Paladin can't ask for help from anyone not lawful good.
I'm having trouble understanding this one. It seems pretty close to saying that a Paladin can't ask for help from anyone not lawful good.
5. By asking a demon for help (which is what you would be doing) you are saying that your faith, your belief, your intellect, your might, your friends, your very way of life, isn't enough. You need the help of pure evil to accomplish your goals.
Or rather "make a deal" with anyone who is not lawful good. But there are lots of literary and cinematic precedents for pure-spirit warriors doing exactly this.
(BTW, I really like that quote above, "Why is there an atonement spell if they don't expect you to use it?")
|
|
I'm having trouble understanding this one. It seems pretty close to saying that a Paladin can't ask for help from anyone not lawful good.
5. By asking a demon for help (which is what you would be doing) you are saying that your faith, your belief, your intellect, your might, your friends, your very way of life, isn't enough. You need the help of pure evil to accomplish your goals.
Or rather "make a deal" with anyone who is not lawful good. But there are lots of literary and cinematic precedents for pure-spirit warriors doing exactly this.
(BTW, I really like that quote above, "Why is there an atonement spell if they don't expect you to use it?")
Reminds me of the Nightcrawler variant: "The best thing about forgiveness is being able to have things to ask to be forgiven for."
Also, horrifically mangled parable ahead:
A farmer was trapped on the roof of his house during a flood. The waters steadily rose.
A known thief waded out near the house, calling out to the farmer, "Come down and follow me! It's not too deep yet!"
And the farmer yelled back, "No! God will save me, you thief."
Later the water rose higher, and two known prostitutes rowed a boat near the farmer's house. They called out, "Get in the boat, we can row to safety easily enough!"
And the farmer yelled back, "No! My faith in God will see me through this!"
Later the water rose up to the roof, and a known heretic swam out to the farmer's house and yelled, "Come down, I can swim to safety while you hold on!"
And the farmer yelled back, "No! I only need God's protection!"
And the waters rose further and the farmer drowned.
Later the farmer asked God, "I have shown absolute faith in you, why did you let me drown?"
And God replied, "Look, I sent that first guy, two girls in a boat, and a highly athletic swimmer over to help you out. What more were you expecting? Dumbass."
It may have lost something in the telling.
|
|
I didn't know that Red Foreman was a god. Things you learn on the Paizo site. :)
Seriously, this is a tough nut to crack and is, not a situation a paladin should put himself in. IIRC, there's a post in the STAP forum on options that a paladin can excercise to avoid this situation. Getting allies from celestia etc...
If this is the only option available to succeed in the adventure, I'd call "railroading" in the DM and give him a 5 minute time out.
When dealing with paladin moral issue, I often turn it over to "WWSD" ("What Would Superman Do?") Superman is the comic book superhero equivalent of a lawful good paladin. He's for truth, justice, and the American way, but he'll do what it takes to serve the greater good.
With that in mind, I remember many incidents where Superman temporarily teamed up with bad guys to fight a bigger bad guy that was a threat to all.
I guess if I'd play a paladin in such a situation, I would do what I belive is the right thing to do. And if my special status among the followers of my god is revoked by that, that's a sacrifice I would be willing to make.
In the worst scenario, I would become a fighter/cleric for my god.
But then, I usually play chaotic characters, as you might suspect. ^^
A Paladin could never trust the word of an evil being, even if it is offering something of interest to the "Greater Good." Which, by the way, is the excuse of cowards and moral reprobates.
"Good Intentions" drive neither the means nor the end of a Paladin. He is expected to do the work of good even at the cost of his own life. No matter how noble his own intentions are, he will be judged on his actions and conduct, not his intent.
This isn't to say that a Paladin wouldn't necessarily entertain the notion of a group of demons conspiring to destroy Demogorgon. He is no zealot as he's been portrayed by those who detest paladins; he's a rational holy warrior. And his rationality would rightly view this situation like this: A group of evil demons wish help in overthrowing another evil demon in order so they can rule in its stead (Demogorgon's gender has always been amorphous to me - is it a dude or a chick?). In essence, the Paladin would be conspiring with evil to destroy an evil being only to see it replaced by something just about as evil, if not more so. Kill Tiberius, and you get a Caligula.
So a Paladin would not do it. He wouldn't trust a demon at its word anyway.
Seriously, this is a tough nut to crack and is, not a situation a paladin should put himself in. IIRC, there's a post in the STAP forum on options that a paladin can excercise to avoid this situation. Getting allies from celestia etc...
If this is the only option available to succeed in the adventure, I'd call "railroading" in the DM and give him a 5 minute time out.
Problem: In this case, you are saying that they the paladin has to be able to call in armies from the other side of the Great Wheel or it's railroading?
I'm not saying that the paladin should look to the Demon Lords first and not search for other options, but sometimes you don't get easy choices. Sometimes the most favorable option is just not feasible. I believe it is fair for the paladin to accept help of demons to stop another demon.
---
You shouldn't expect Demon Lords to abide by oaths or such; you should expect to do what is best for them however. And what is best for them, is not necessarily the best way for spreading chaos and evil throughout the multiverse.
If a paladin does not have other options, they should be allowed to work with evil to produce good and law overall.
I can see a paladin doing it.
|
|
So a Paladin would not do it. He wouldn't trust a demon at its word anyway.
This creates a dead end in the adventure as written in this specific case. The PC's are *SUPPOSED* to make a deal with one fiend in order to take down another. If there's a paladin in the party, how are they supposed to approach this option? The player should not be forced to bow out of the adventure or sacrifice his character's moral code just to keep with the rather railroady plot. The DM must be willing to consider other alternatives where the paladin can still participate AND keep his code of conduct.
|
|
I think that Paladin Code must be more....easy to understand in the way as a Knigts code, better than 5 or 6 lines:
Loyalty. A Paladin must be sincere with his partners and God. The entire kingdom would be ruined if it was trumped to the promises of loyalty. Be a loyalist to your lord.
Comity. The comity supposes more than the mere follow-up than the rules of etiquette. Also it is an attitude, forms of appearing to the world. A Paladin proves to be proud, supports the control, and accepts the vast behaviors prettily. He is polite and respectfully with the friends and strangers equally. The Paladin must consider the feelings of others and have taken care of not offending them.
Honesty. A Paladin always tells the truth as him knows her. He can decline to speak or to choose to retain information, but he will never lie meaningfully either to anybody, or even to his enemies.
Bravery. A Paladin must be sincere with his profession. A warrior who is a coward is not a warrior by no means, he provokes arcades dreessing an armor, spreading lies around it. You cannot gain the respect in that way, and cannot support a calm conscience fleeing of the glory of the battle. It is better to die for your reason that to give up yourself. (Never surrender, with glory will fall. -Hammerfall-).
Honor. A Paladin must choose before the death that the dishonor. Why to live, if one is going to live without honor?. It is supposed that the Paladin will die before that to give up itself. Nevertheless, though a Paladin who charge blind against a barbarians' horde could look like insane, the final result is the same, to keep the honor. A Paladin must be sincere with himself. Only you and your god know if you have acted with honor indeed, and to lie himself only it can lead a major corruption lying to the others.
(Sorry if my english is too bad, but im spanish ^^u)
I've not played or read SCAP:
It's a demon. They'll betray you. It's their nature. It won't be worth it. There's any number of demons ready to take this one's place. Find a better way. If there's not a better way, then you aren't ready for the task you've set to yourself. Wait until you're good enough to accomplish this without compromising everything that you stand for.
To me, this is not an example of a particularly tough paladin dilemma.
If my player did this, I'd probably require an atonement for taking the superficially easier path and there'd be social penalties as well. I'd let him do it first, but only if SCAP's written the PCs to be so stupid as to trust demons and I didn't have time to write them out of that particular corner. In short, I'd let him get away with this if I felt guilty.
I wouldn't say trust the demon to keep to his word, but I would trust it to do what is best for itself.
I would also say that it isn't in most the demon lords natures to destroy a group, before they accomplish their mutual goal. They didn't get to be demon lords by killing their one hope to survive.
I wouldn't say trust the demon to keep to his word, but I would trust it to do what is best for itself.
I would also say that it isn't in most the demon lords natures to destroy a group, before they accomplish their mutual goal. They didn't get to be demon lords by killing their one hope to survive.
Ah. We're just having different interpretations of demons then.
I'd say that a devil honors the deal. A daemon (NE) does what's in its own interest. A demon (CE) does whatever it feels like, without much impulse control at all. It would totally sting the dude in the middle of the river.
It would totally sting the dude in the middle of the river.
Alright, I just was thinking the same thing except I feel most demons (the demon lords at least) have a bit more impulse control (although, not much).
I would think that it wouldn't sting the ride while it needs it, although it would likely still eat your ears along the way because they were not necessary for remaining afloat (still not in the demons best interest, but it doesn't cause immediate death to the demon).
Hiya
Personally, there's no way a Paladin I was running would deal with demons, no matter what the desired result was, here's why:[[snip EXCELLENT reasons/points]]
I couldn't have put it better myself (and I've had this argument/debate a bajillion times since I started playing in '80). Paladins have a strict and absolute moral and ethical compass. They can't "look the other way" when it suits them or there current goals.
Bravo, Cainus, bravo! :)
They can't "look the other way" when it suits them or there current goals.
Of course, that is why the paladin gets to stare into poor little Timmy's eyes as he is consumed body and soul by the Demon Lord Fyd'dt along with his family and friends.
The paladin should be proud that he didn't accept the other demon lords help (even though all the other demon wanted was to spite his rival Fyd'dt). :P
|
|
Im thinking about the best way, it will be "you Malcanet, get out of my way, im going to defeat Demogorgon alone (with my henchmens), if you are in my way...i kill you. And when we defeat Demogorgon i will kill you too."
The Paladin dies alone, the worst thing is to die with your party, and see that your choices can could the other players. It´s not easy to make the correct thing. The Paladin and the other players are brothers, the character, probably, prefers to lose his paladinhood than to lose his family.
They can't "look the other way" when it suits them or there current goals.Of course, that is why the paladin gets to stare into poor little Timmy's eyes as he is consumed body and soul by the Demon Lord Fyd'dt along with his family and friends.
The paladin should be proud that he didn't accept the other demon lords help (even though all the other demon wanted was to spite his rival Fyd'dt). :P
|
|
They can't "look the other way" when it suits them or there current goals.Of course, that is why the paladin gets to stare into poor little Timmy's eyes as he is consumed body and soul by the Demon Lord Fyd'dt along with his family and friends.
The paladin should be proud that he didn't accept the other demon lords help (even though all the other demon wanted was to spite his rival Fyd'dt). :P
This. Paladins above all should beware the danger of falling into an absolutist mindset, lest they really become the Lawful Stupid stereotype(or worse, the Well-Intentioned Extremist). The scenario in Savage Tide is an ugly situation and it's meant to be. The paladin is going to have to decide what is more important: his personal sanctity or the lives and souls of countless innocents?
It's an ugly choice AND a dangerous one. If he goes with the latter, he should know that he's on a slippery slope that could lead him towards commiting all sorts of evil in the name of the "greater good". It's how he carries himself during that time that should decide whether he falls or not.
It's not a kind of situation that you want to throw at paladins regularly, but if it does happen the DM and player really really need to take a look at it and ask themselves what good and evil are rather than defaulting automatically to the code. Self-sacrifice is a virtue. Paladins should be no stranger to that one.
|
|
Addendum - However, if the paladin is able to think of a way to Take A Third Option and it actually has a good shot at working, the DM should let him do it.
Addendum - However, if the paladin is able to think of a way to Take A Third Option and it actually has a good shot at working, the DM should let him do it.
That's exactly what the paladin should do. Actually, it's what most parties facing this kind of dilemma should do.
However;
Do please remember that unless it's a party of Paladin, the one character should not be allowed to ramrod his/her thoughts/code down the other's throats.
If the PC's find a perfectly acceptable way to deal with the solution that isn't particuarly morally reprehensable then the Paladin should also be allowed to go through with it. (in a general sense. Specific instances with specific details should always prevail over the general rule, however).
In the OP's scenario you have a party who is expected to side with demons to overthrow a greater demon. Bad planning on the AP? Probably. But it's still something that the Paladin PC should be able to do. Why? Because siding with evil isn't inherently evil.
If you and Ted Bundy were standing outside a burning building and people were dying inside, and he jumped in to help pull them to safety.. Would you help? Or stand and watch? The mere fact that he's a murderer doesn't mean you can't assist him in doing a good deed.
That doesn't mean you have to help him to kill someone.
The Paladin normally doesn't associate with evil creatures. But, provided the evil creatures are behaving themselves and are working towards a /much/ greater good- I don't think I'd have the Paladin lose his powers, provided he RP's appropriately to the situation.
(i.e. tried to talk the group out if it, looked for other options and couldn't find any, and then dealt with the emotional/spiritual conflicts as the event happened and even afterward).
The Paladin code is as much an RP construct as it is a chiseled in stone "rule book" they must follow. Alot of it is left for the DM to adjudicate, and I think this is one of those instances.
However, if You, the DM, are going to take away his powers for making him side with the Demons then you HAVE TO offer some other method for dealing with the problem(s). You can't take the AP as written, screw over the paladin, and keep going. While the Paladin doesn't always have to like his choices, no one wants to lose their powers just 'cuz the DM was too lazy to provide some sort of alternative. (not saying the Paladin doesn't have to search for the option- but it needs to exist, and you as DM, knowing of the Paladin issue, needs to have prepared and paved the way for that 3rd option.).
In this case, if the DM rules the Paladin would lose his powers, the players need to be able to still thwart Demon Lord Donkey Kong without their assistance.
Maybe celestials come in and help (after sufficient supplication).
Maybe the Demons help even without the party agreeing to it.
Whatever it is, the DM needs to have thought about it and should have a scenario planned for when it happens.
Paladin Players want to have fun too. Being given a strict "lose your powers or lose the AP" choice isn't fun.
-S
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's no "one right way" to play D&D. Or even to play "Savage Tide"
Here's how I would present the issue to my party's paladin, in the character of a venerable master cleric:
It's theoretically possible to "make a deal" with infernal creatures, particularly Lawful Evil ones, to serve a cause that is good and just. There are stories about such alliances, each with a carefully crafted contract, constraining the fiends as well as the paladin.
But there are many more stories about good men who have been tricked and lured by such infernal beings. And, good sir Paladin, as you contemplate striking a bargain with infernal allies, hoping to get the better of them, consider that you are not half as clever as you think you are.
You are voluntarily letting some evil thrive in your sight and under your aegis. You know that it will grow stronger this way. You know that you will be setting an example for young knights who follow you. You know that the creatures of the Pit will now re-double their efforts to "make friends" with all members of your Order.
And in return, you trust that your ally has not lied to you, that he will not turn on you, and that together, your powers will triumph over some other evil. Have you any evidence of your fiend's truthfullness, or loyalty, or puissance over evil? How have you bound this infernal thing to your dictates?
Can you make this pact with no regrets? With no second thoughts? Can you stand full in the sunlight and proclaim that these, your actions are the model for all paladins to follow?
If not, then what does that tell you?
If you must do this thing, then go, follow your heart. But understand that to take hands with malevolence is to lay aside your paladin powers. What need have you to detect evil, when you see it ride beside you? What power have you to smite the foes of the innocent, when you stand as aly to the greatest of these? What authority have you to channel the divine energies, which would insult your new-found friends?
Go now, o man. Take with you either the divine shield of your Order, or the fellowship of the infernal. But whichever you choose, may the heavens guide you and may you save the world.
And know that, if you should take a single step too far, we will meet again. You have my solemn word on that.
But your campaign might very well differ, and that's okay.
Given the choices that a Paladin might make, you as the DM might have to step off the railroad that is an Adventure Path. Give a former paladin enough advantages as a Fighter that he can still contribute to the party. Pring in some outsider powers that the paladin can strike deals with, in good conscience. But don't force the player to wreck the character in order to advance the rigid storyline.