A paladin cannot knowingly and willingly associate with an evil character. If a paladin is trapped in a dungeon with an evil character. The evil character knows how to get out, but needs the paladins muscle. Paladin has the muscle, but needs the evil character's know-how. Could they work together to get out? My co- says that the paladin wouldn't break his code as long as he was trying to convert said evil character the entire time they were together. I disagree, saying that the paladin would be able to give the evil character one chance to turn away from his life of evil. If the evil character refused then the paladin would have to either head out on his own(if he is allowed to let the evil character live, which I don't think he can), or strike down the evil character immediately.
Could we get some input on this, please?
Any other situations that leave anyone unsure of wether or not a paladin would lose his paladinhood?
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?
A paladin cannot knowingly and willingly associate with an evil character. If a paladin is trapped in a dungeon with an evil character. The evil character knows how to get out, but needs the paladins muscle. Paladin has the muscle, but needs the evil character's know-how. Could they work together to get out? My co- says that the paladin wouldn't break his code as long as he was trying to convert said evil character the entire time they were together. I disagree, saying that the paladin would be able to give the evil character one chance to turn away from his life of evil. If the evil character refused then the paladin would have to either head out on his own(if he is allowed to let the evil character live, which I don't think he can), or strike down the evil character immediately.
Could we get some input on this, please?
Any other situations that leave anyone unsure of wether or not a paladin would lose his paladinhood?
Use common sense. Making amends at temple would be about the most that I would require of a paladin under those circumstances. I don't think that the code's "death penalty" is warranted.
Nor is a paladin a walking terminator. He should not kill people because they are evil. That's a vigilante, not a force for law and order. Yes, he should demonstrate through word and deed the superior path of law and good. If he's not making headway with the character's redemption and there's either probable cause or an outstanding crime that he needs to be tried for, then you should bring him to the proper civil or religious authorities. If not, you just inform the proper authorities that X NPC is in town and let people higher up the chain of legitimate command make the correct call.
Paladins do not get to be judge, jury and executioner. That's for Chaotics.
|
Cooperation does not translate to "association" within the context of losing paladinhood. The type of association that would lose a paladin his status I believe implies condonation of the evil acts of the other party.
By the same token, a paladin cannot justify smiting an evil character who is not an immediate threat to the paladin or other people.
|
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?
That is a surprisingly applicable question, and for once in my life i have no answer, twisted logic or meandering rationale. I just don't know.
...wow...congratulations on stumping me...
though, my money's on yes, since it's more important to deal with the immediate threat of the attack then the possible non-threat of the child. he should feel bad, but I don't think it violates the code.
|
|
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?That is a surprisingly applicable question, and for once in my life i have no answer, twisted logic or meandering rationale. I just don't know.
...wow...congratulations on stumping me...
He can if that creature presents a threat to himself and others but only as a last resort.
|
After watching "The Medusa Touch," here's a question for our paladin: would you kill a comatose man who is somehow using his telekinetic powers to destroy a cathedral and kill all the people there?
Hmm...Is the man knowingly using his powers, or is this a side effect of being comatose?
If it's side effect I would try to find nullify the powers, or wake him. His death would be last resort.
|
This, I suppose depends upon how you rule Good and Evil. Are they absolutes in your game? How exactly does the character and most importantly, his religion, view his vow?
It might be perfectly acceptable for the paladin to Detect Evil, and finding an evil aura turn around and Smite the evil character next to him, regardless of circumstances of need. If the paladin takes his vow seriously to destroy evil wherever and whenever he finds it then he will place his vow suprior to his own circumstances and trust in his deity to aid his escape, not some evil character.
On the other hand, if the paladin does not take it seriously to destroy evil whenever and whereever it is found he might be willing to accept the aid of an evil character, rather than having faith in his deity. Of course, if that were the case, I would- as GM- seriously consider making him attone for his lack of faith at the very least.
As I read it, it is the duty of a Cleric to convert evil and the duty of a Paladin to smite evil. The Paladin's deity gave him Detect Evil and Smite Evil for a reason. That reason, to me, is not to indulge in evil's existence, to selfishly use evil to one's own gains, or to trust an evil charcter over faith to owns deity.
Does that mean the Paladin should go out and smite every evil bar keep and shop owner he runs across... maybe (Greedy shop owners are not evil- just greedy. Evil necessitates the active to desire to harm others- not just greed for ones self). He certainly could not purchase anything from the shop and most certainly would be required to take steps against the evil shopkeeper. As a GM I would not penalize him unnecessarily for smiting an evil shopkeep. Doesn't mean the city guard won't try to hunt him down, but it also doesn't mean that his deity can't take steps to reward his faithful servant and protect his valiant paladin from retribution.
Remember, a paladin, in essence is a religious zealot. His beliefs are radical and extreme, requiring him to go forth and kill in the name of his deity. There is no room for moral wavering. Trying to rationalize accepting aid from an evil character would certainly earn the Paladin attonement at the least. Habitual lapses in moral character like that would strip the Paladin of his class.
For Roleplaying I think I would deny the Paladin all spells, but allow him to keep his class abilities otherwise. In fact, before it goes to far, the evil character's aura might just glow evil once more... as a warning... "Fail to obey your vow and you will be punished. Fail in our faith to Me and you will be punished."
IF the Paladin actually used the evil character to get himself out of the problem... I'd likely strip him of his class and require a MAJOR quest to regain his status, and he would bear a taint noticed by all other Paldins of his order.
This all assumes of course, that vows are taken seriously in your game.
Creative Director
|
Personally... I think that it's good for the game for GMs to go easy on the paladins. Situations that force characters to ally with the lesser of two evils or make tough moral choices are relatively common, and if the paladin is so 100% immovable because he's afraid of losing his powers, suddenly you have a restriction coming from a player that's bad for the game. Combine this with the fact that a paladin SHOULD be forced to make some tough choices; that's part of what being a paladin should be.
My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.
Otherwise, that's just encouraging paladin players to be disruptive, I think.
My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.
Freudian slip?
|
Creative Director
|
My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.Freudian slip?
HA! Maybe. Paladins are trouble. The world needs more blackguards.
A paladin cannot knowingly and willingly associate with an evil character. If a paladin is trapped in a dungeon with an evil character. The evil character knows how to get out, but needs the paladins muscle. Paladin has the muscle, but needs the evil character's know-how. Could they work together to get out?
It depends. Has the evil character been rightfully imprisoned? If so, I would say that helping the evil character to evade justice is an evil and/or chaotic act, and the paladin should try to gain his freedom by himself. But if the evil character and the paladin have both been unjustly imprisoned, there's nothing wrong with breaking out together, IMO.
A few things to think about before posting again.
1) At least most of you are assuming that they are imprisoned. Not that there is no reason for you not to, I did say dungeon. However, I meant more like say...hmmm...Ah!! If anyone reads Salvatore you should recognize this reference. The paladin and his group were fighting an evil party in a tunnel, and it collapsed, leaving the paladin and one member of the opposing party trapped with each other and separated from the rest.
2) The paladin does have the choice to try to get out on his own. Does he do that, or ally with this evil person whom he should be attempting to kill.
3) There is no greater cause. The whole point is to survive and escape the tunnels.
I can understand taking the specific deity that the paladin worship and adding it to the equation. It would, after all, make sense for a paladin who follows Pelor or Yondolla to be accepting of a mutual agreement for survival than a paladin of Heironeous or St. Cuthbert...hold that thought, new question.
Paladin's are self-sacrificing. Why would the paladin ally himself with an evil character to survive, when they would not run from a battle that they knew they could not loose? Another thing to take into consideration would be the "help" part of the paladins code.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate
authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison,
and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help
for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents.
How far into the future do you need to look to determine if the help was for an evil of chaotic end? The primary goal at the time is survival, sure, but if the evil character survives then the paladin just help him to continue about his work...in a way.
There was more I wanted to say here, but my time was just cut abruptly short. I will add it next time I'm on.
|
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?That is a surprisingly applicable question, and for once in my life i have no answer, twisted logic or meandering rationale. I just don't know.
...wow...congratulations on stumping me...
though, my money's on yes, since it's more important to deal with the immediate threat of the attack then the possible non-threat of the child. he should feel bad, but I don't think it violates the code.
why kill and not just make inconscious... and hittingthehead should not have any problem with the pregnancy
This, I suppose depends upon how you rule Good and Evil. Are they absolutes in your game? How exactly does the character and most importantly, his religion, view his vow?
It might be perfectly acceptable for the paladin to Detect Evil, and finding an evil aura turn around and Smite the evil character next to him, regardless of circumstances of need. If the paladin takes his vow seriously to destroy evil wherever and whenever he finds it then he will place his vow suprior to his own circumstances and trust in his deity to aid his escape, not some evil character.
so if a school girl or a merchant is found evil... the paladin is in his right to kill them... for being evil?
i have debated this before, as a DM i would make him lose his paladin status... immediately
they might not be "innocents", but they are hurtning no one, killing someone just for being "evil", orc, or from Cheliax is prejuicios and evil.
no paladins arenot zealouts killing machines of evil... they are champions of goodness, anyone can kill another being... its shows a true paragon to chose which is his foe and show by example that the evil is punished, but that the godsare forgiving andmay accept redemers... instead of just killing...
that paladin is either being a zealot... i would go for him being Lawful Good and from another rules (good is to protectlives, not killing evil, but a neutral will take his vow tothe last consequences... be it a small kid, an old granny or an evil cleric) or is playing Lawful Stupid...
Lawful Good is complicated and interesting because there are no easy answer... killing the evil guy is the easy answer... of course it depends on the moral beliefs you use in a game... in your input poeple fromthe Inquisition would be Lawful Good... they did brought down "witches" and people "asosiated with devils"
in my outake they are human, while therewere good people there were also, neutral and sadistic evil inquisitors
|
|
Personally... I think that it's good for the game for GMs to go easy on the paladins. Situations that force characters to ally with the lesser of two evils or make tough moral choices are relatively common, and if the paladin is so 100% immovable because he's afraid of losing his powers, suddenly you have a restriction coming from a player that's bad for the game. Combine this with the fact that a paladin SHOULD be forced to make some tough choices; that's part of what being a paladin should be.
My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.
Otherwise, that's just encouraging paladin players to be disruptive, I think.
i suppose you meant "greater evil" any paladin that choiseswillingly to join to an evil character to defeat a greater good... is brand evil :P
No offence but unless that Paladin had evidence that this person was unredeemably evil then it wouldn't harm for him to gain the assistance to escape since he would therefore have the chance to either show this person that there is a better way and to give him the chance to prove whether he was redeemable or not.
If said villain tried to kill him during this escape then by all means smite him, if he willingly helps to escape the place and then chooses to go their own way also choosing not to harm the paladin then so be it by that paladin's actions they have shown this evil person good can be trusted to keep their word since from the games I've been in I've seen what passes for the fanatic or crusader and I'd say in those circumstances it would be the other way round, it would be the evil person wondering if they can trust the paladin to keep their word and he'd be right to since only someone who has no ounce of redeemable character would choose the scorpion and the fox morale tale to follow (I hope I'm remembering that tale properly).
Time for the OP to clarify who the heck this "evil person" is.
|
HA! Maybe. Paladins are trouble. The world needs more blackguards.My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.Freudian slip?
I knew you just liked those demons a little too much. ;)
|
|
I think many people on this thread are focusing too much on only half of the Paladin, the Good half; they are Lawful as well.
Killing someone simply because you see they are evil is not in line with Lawful Good. I can definitely see it fitting with Chaotic Good and probably Neutral Good, but not Lawful Good. Such characters would need justification to kill someone. Such as the evil character trapped there is still trying to kill them.
However, should the evil character stop fighting(after the cave-in), and request a temporary truce, while the Paladin is not required to resheathe his sword by his code, his alignment would at least make him hear things out. This does not mean he shouldn't ignore the fact that this could be a trick. As stated before, Paladins are vigilant, not vigilantes.
Once the fight stops, if the evil character gives the Paladin no more reason to attack, then the Paladin would be at fault were he to kill the evil character.
Now, should the evil character turn on the Paladin once they are out of their predicament, then the Paladin is in the right to slay him. The whole thing about being a Paladin is having to justify your actions, and the Paladin can't simply use the "ends justify the means" route. The path of a Paladin is a hard road indeed, but it need not, nor should not, be impossible.
I knew you just liked those demons a little too much. ;)HA! Maybe. Paladins are trouble. The world needs more blackguards.My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.Freudian slip?
Dude, Succubi are hot. :)
|
My opinion: A paladin that's forced to ally with an evil creature to defeat a greater good shouldn't lose his paladin powers, as long as he does his best to mitigate the choice and after it's done he sets things right.
People tend to undervalue the importance of penance. I can see a paladin associating with evil folks for the greater good but hating himself the whole time. Still, to not associate with evil and let the greater evil prevail, just to save his own holiness, would be the bigger betrayal of his values. A paladin should be willing to sacrifice his life for the cause, why not his soul? So yeah, the paladin works with evil, then spends weeks/months in seclusion and prayer to make up for it.
This is a very interesting question. It would entirely depend on how war like his church is.
In Eberron did the Paladin that slew the shifters, just because they might be tainted? If it wasn't for the loose alignment system in place on that world I would say yes.
Here is another interesting perspective to take on this; If I were the paladin, and by using the evil person to escape, I knew that I would lose my divine favor as the price I still might do it. If the cause were noble and just (such as saving innocents or the world etc) and by doing so I kept to the morales of my deity and personal code of ethics I think that would be more important. I would make that sacrifice for the greater good.
This is one reason why I like the idea of renaming the Paladin class to that of Exemplars. They are the epitome of the deities values walking the physical plane. They are the examples the the people can look up too and cherish. This is also why I have opened my games to paladins of all alignments.
A few things to think about before posting again.
1) At least most of you are assuming that they are imprisoned. Not that there is no reason for you not to, I did say dungeon. However, I meant more like say...hmmm...Ah!! If anyone reads Salvatore you should recognize this reference. The paladin and his group were fighting an evil party in a tunnel, and it collapsed, leaving the paladin and one member of the opposing party trapped with each other and separated from the rest.
2) The paladin does have the choice to try to get out on his own. Does he do that, or ally with this evil person whom he should be attempting to kill.
3) There is no greater cause. The whole point is to survive and escape the tunnels.
In this case, there's no problem with ceasing hostilities until a more opportune time (IMO). Calling a truce with an evil enemy isn't an evil act, and allowing an evil character to help you with a worthy cause doesn't violate the paladin's code. Otherwise, you would lose your paladinhood if you heard that an evil person donated money to your church, wouldn't you?
why kill and not just make inconscious... and hittingthehead should not have any problem with the pregnancy
Ah, but that is avoiding the question. The question wasn't about other choices, it was would a paladin fall for "kill[ing] a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?" The fact that there may be other viable choices does not decide if the choice of killing said creature is viable. Otherwise all paladins would have to be held to a standard of doing non-lethal damage most of the time. Don't have a sap? Then take a -4 attack penalty to use your sword non-lethally.
so if a school girl or a merchant is found evil... the paladin is in his right to kill them... for being evil?
Possibly, it depends on what it took for them to be evil and what they are very likely to do by the fact of being evil. Remember paladins must protect the innocent and see to it that the guilty are punished.
i have debated this before, as a DM i would make him lose his paladin status... immediately
Which is fine, as long as you as a DM clarified what it means to be "Evil" in your game. Notice in the PHB under lawful good it says, "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." If you are going to deviate from that description as a DM, you should inform the player prior to doing so. Punishing after they act in accordance with the description in the PHB, without telling them the new rules, would be poor DMing.
they might not be "innocents", but they are hurtning no one, killing someone just for being "evil", orc, or from Cheliax is prejuicios and evil.
Again, depends on what it takes to be evil. If you have to debase or destroy innocent life in order to be evil, then the paladin would not be "pre-judging" them, the universe has already done so (hence why they detect as evil).
Lawful Good is complicated and interesting because there are no easy answer... killing the evil guy is the easy answer... of course it depends on the moral beliefs you use in a game... in your input poeple fromthe Inquisition would be Lawful Good... they did brought down "witches" and people "asosiated with devils"
From a subjective perspective, they very well might have been LG to some. But in D&D, alignment is objective. It doesn't matter if the person thinks they are doing good, if they are debasing or destroying innocent lives, then they are doing evil. So if many of the people the Inquisition brought down were in fact innocent, the people in the Inquisition who partoke in its actions would be evil.
Also, let me set up a bit of a "straw man", you say that LG is complicated because there are no easy answers, right? Does that mean that LG people must always choose the hard way of doing everything? Why punish the class unnecessarily?
|
|
if the paladin is so 100% immovable because he's afraid of losing his powers,
The eternal catch-22. Violate your code, and save the village, even if you have to grit your teeth and work with the evil dude, or stand around and let people die or evil win, but maintain your code, and *still* have committed a selfish evil act, but considering your Paladin class abilities more valuable to you than other peoples lives.
If anyone ever wanted to play a Paladin in one of my games, and the other players didn't talk them out of it, I'd go lenient with the code business, both for the sake of the player, *and,* more importantly, for the sake of all of the other players, who aren't getting cool Paladin powers, but still are saddled with having to obey the Paladin's code (or work around it, which never ends well...).
"The Code? It's more of a guideline, really..."
And if someone proved unable to live up to the code, say, by doing something patently selfish and evil like valuing his class abilities more than other people's lives (since being willing to sacrifice even one's Paladinhood for others is, IMO, a Good thing), I'd allow the ex-Paladin to pick up Fighter feats at an accelerated rate and turn his ex-Paladin levels into Fighter levels.
I have no interest in enforcing elements of a class designed to make the game less fun for everyone at the table.
This is a very interesting question. It would entirely depend on how war like his church is.
In Eberron did the Paladin that slew the shifters, just because they might be tainted? If it wasn't for the loose alignment system in place on that world I would say yes.
Just to note, the rules for alignment are no more loose in Eberron than anywhere else. What is "looser" is that the default alignment for a given race is not as clear. So you might see a LG black dragon, but the dragon in that case would still be just as LG as a standard gold dragon would be (for example).
Here is another interesting perspective to take on this; If I were the paladin, and by using the evil person to escape, I knew that I would lose my divine favor as the price I still might do it. If the cause were noble and just (such as saving innocents or the world etc) and by doing so I kept to the morales of my deity and personal code of ethics I think that would be more important. I would make that sacrifice for the greater good.
The fact that you are losing your divine favor might be an indication that what you believe is "noble and just" is in fact not. That you are placing your personal ideas above that of the divine and celestial views. It could be arrogance to assume that you know better than the power(s) that give you those divine favors.
if the paladin is so 100% immovable because he's afraid of losing his powers,The eternal catch-22. Violate your code, and save the village, even if you have to grit your teeth and work with the evil dude, or stand around and let people die or evil win, but maintain your code, and *still* have committed a selfish evil act, but considering your Paladin class abilities more valuable to you than other peoples lives.
To me, that seems like a sign of an extremely linear game. As a DM, you can set up either/or situations like that, but I'd rather see options like "If you compromise your beliefs, it'll be much easier to save the village, but if you stick with your beliefs, it'll be much harder."
Instead of...
DM: In order to save the village, you need to sell poison milk to schoolchildren.
Player: Really? Can't we try another plan?
DM: No; it's either 20 dead schoolchildren or 100 dead villagers. Take your pick, you goody-goody!
;-)
This is a very interesting question. It would entirely depend on how war like his church is.
In Eberron did the Paladin that slew the shifters, just because they might be tainted? If it wasn't for the loose alignment system in place on that world I would say yes.
The Alignment system is more loose in the terms that clerics who turn evil can still get powers from a good god. You can have a Lawful Good Cleric of the Traveler for example.
The fact that you are losing your divine favor might be an indication that what you believe is "noble and just" is in fact not. That you are placing your personal ideas above that of the divine and celestial views. It could be arrogance to assume that you know better than the power(s) that give you those divine favors.
To clarify, I meant a paladins code of ethics as handed down by the deity. Different deities require different things from their paladins. So if I was a Paladin of say Kelemvor I would probably value the destruction of undead more than a Paladin of Sune. If a BBE Undead was about to destroy a city (And I was the aforementioned Paladin of Kelemvor) and the only way to destroy it was to work with a evil character I think I would choose the destruction of the greater evil over that of the lesser even if I lost my powers. Even Luke worked with Anakin to destroy Palpatine.
|
|
Also, let me set up a bit of a "straw man", you say that LG is complicated because there are no easy answers, right? Does that mean that LG people must always choose the hard way of doing everything? Why punish the class unnecessarily?
while i would like to answer everything i have little time
i do not punish it :P
i do play as a player with such standards...
and so i expect other players who play LG play to such standars...
hey i had a CG cleric once and he lost his powers because he was unable to be chaotic at all!
and no... EVIL as stated in the book is not given because you debased life... its given because you have a moral attitude... it means you are ready to cheat, kill, steal, if you have an option to become better or be in a better place
not that you have done it.
i liked how was explaiend in Dragonstar why the goverment decided to judge people by their actions and not their thoughts... that means that they would not judge an evil person for being evil... but they will judge them for killing someone (it doen't matter if the one killed is innocent ot not)... in the same way such gobverment would not judge a paladin for being good... even when the game began in the rule of a Red Dragon... but it will judge them for killing someone for the stupid notion that "he is evil, i should kill evil"
having rampant paladin killing people in the streets because they glow red... is an amonishion of playing like Lawful Stupid... you just need to kill anything that glows...
also hinders intellignet playing, intrigue, and most of all... reason
not all people in a town are good, but not all of the ones who are evil have commited crimes... but even then punishing them for being evil... is as if killing people for being of a country...
in my book that reads evil... so paladin goes down
if they want to play an easy class... don't chose paladin... i am 2nd Edition master... i attain them to the standar presented there... where Paldins where indeed paragons, indeed strange, and indeed difficult to play... and i hail to those who play them correctly
you don't need to be a knight in shining armor to be an efficient and correct paladin... just need to be LG... and first paradignm of being good is... respect life, any life, unless there is no other choice...
and trully about Alhandra... anything that comes from WotC i take with a pinch of salt... they go more for the hack & slash and white and black games i prefer not to play
DM: In order to save the village, you need to sell poison milk to schoolchildren.
Player: Really? Can't we try another plan?
DM: No; it's either 20 dead schoolchildren or 100 dead villagers. Take your pick, you goody-goody!
Agreed, and as an aside, there is no real choice involved there. It will be either 20 or 100 dead; obviously, the paladin will choose the fewer dead. This does not constitute a real moral choice, or a clever situation, just sick amusement on the part of the DM.
The fact that you are losing your divine favor might be an indication that what you believe is "noble and just" is in fact not. That you are placing your personal ideas above that of the divine and celestial views. It could be arrogance to assume that you know better than the power(s) that give you those divine favors.
Or it could be an indication that you are Lawful as well as Good. The paladin has a code which states what he Shall and Shall Not do. But it is impossible for the code to concieve of every possible situation that may ever exist. Therefore, it is conceivable that the paladin may need to actually break the code to do what is right. But the paladin is Lawful, and has already agreed that if he ever breaks the code, he suffers the penalties. If he does not, in fact, suffer the penalties after violating the code, even to achieve Good, then the code is meaningless.
Does that mean that LG people must always choose the hard way of doing everything? Why punish the class unnecessarily?
My eternal exasperated question.
People tend to undervalue the importance of penance. I can see a paladin associating with evil folks for the greater good but hating himself the whole time. Still, to not associate with evil and let the greater evil prevail, just to save his own holiness, would be the bigger betrayal of his values. A paladin should be willing to sacrifice his life for the cause, why not his soul? So yeah, the paladin works with evil, then spends weeks/months in seclusion and prayer to make up for it.
Exactly. This bears repeating (and thus I have repeated it).
The path of a Paladin is a hard road indeed, but it need not, nor should not, be impossible.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
Any rule, law, ordinance, or promise can be strained to the breaking point; the discovery of this fact is not a deep insight or wisdom. Likewise, any of the aforementioned can be interpreted to a rediculous extent in a variety of conceivable situations. That doesn't make the interpretation right or meaningful. I don't understand how people continually translate a paladin's "higher standard" as "impossible rigidity." The impossible is still impossible, even for a paladin, and they cannot be expected to accomplish said impossibles.
Now, to address the OP directly myself, if both the evil NPC and paladin find themselves in this situation as the result of mishaps beyond their control, then there was no real moral choice involved; the paladin is not there with Mr. McEvil willingly. Likewise, if the paladin has no reasonable chance to escape without the help of said Mr. McEvil, then it would only be stupid, not pious, of the paladin to refuse his aid.
Now, if the paladin can reasonably escape on his own without the aid of Mr. McEvil, as you say, then I would be inclined to think that he wouldn't ally with him. But if escape looks to be so easy, I must also ask why the paladin isn't arresting Mr. McEvil as well?
There are further circumstances which could possibly arise from the one in question, I am doubtless, but I will leave their discussion for another time.
But I feel compelled to respond here:
Remember, a paladin, in essence is a religious zealot. His beliefs are radical and extreme, requiring him to go forth and kill in the name of his deity.
I cannot agree with this at all, either from a gameplay persective or from an actual moral perspective. From a gameplay perspective, you're begging every paladin ever to become a massive disruption at the table in virtually every circumstance.
From a moral perspective, I have to then ask you what is the difference between Good and Evil? The spelling?
Holding oneself to a higher standard does not mean a higher standard of unthinking, uncompromising genocide. As has been said, Good and Evil in D&D are objective. Therefore, as has also been said, it doesn't matter if the paladin thinks he is doing Good (to an extent; the importance of intent cannot be overlooked, but the degree of that importance will vary by the situation); he must do what is objectively Good, and killing everything different from himself isn't that.
Now, you do bring up the valid point that, though Good and Evil are objective within the game, the DM and players must decide, outside of the game what that objective reality is. To which I counter that there are still common moral understandings which we must all acknowledge in order for their to be any meaningful discourse. One can indeed take a stance such as yours, but one is then outside the realm of common discourse and cannot expect to be understood, let alone agreed with, unless one also provides qualifiers informing others that one's propositions will vary from the norm.
Now, to the general readership I forward a final statement in this post regarding the "punishing", whatever form it may take, of those who are Evil in mind but, as far as is knowable, have committed no Evil deed thus far:
I posit (without claiming to be the first) that it is better to knowingly allow the possibility of damage to self or others that may be committed by someone of Evil mindset, than to persecute them simply for said mindset. This ties directly into the concept of free will: if one is not allowed to make the wrong choices, and suffer their consequences, one has no free will. Thus, Good, as I assume we all understand it, holds that it is so much better for individuals to arrive at the right choices of their own free wills that it is worth accepting the certainty of damage to self and others that will come from individuals making wrong choices. This is one of the distinguishing qualities of Good from Evil (and not just in D&D, but in life as well).
All in my not-so humble opinion.
In this case, there's no problem with ceasing hostilities until a more opportune time (IMO). Calling a truce with an evil enemy isn't an evil act, and allowing an evil character to help you with a worthy cause doesn't violate the paladin's code. Otherwise, you would lose your paladinhood if you heard that an evil person donated money to your church, wouldn't you?A few things to think about before posting again.
1) At least most of you are assuming that they are imprisoned. Not that there is no reason for you not to, I did say dungeon. However, I meant more like say...hmmm...Ah!! If anyone reads Salvatore you should recognize this reference. The paladin and his group were fighting an evil party in a tunnel, and it collapsed, leaving the paladin and one member of the opposing party trapped with each other and separated from the rest.
2) The paladin does have the choice to try to get out on his own. Does he do that, or ally with this evil person whom he should be attempting to kill.
3) There is no greater cause. The whole point is to survive and escape the tunnels.
I wholeheartedly agree. A temporary and fragile truce is both more realistic and workable than killing the evil person and dying of starvation in a cave-in. I wouldn't take the paladin's status away for working with an evil character in a life-or-death situation, any more than I would punish a chaotic evil character for not killing the shopkeep and paying retail on any given day. The character determines what a fall from grace would be, not the rulebook.
A few things to think about before posting again.
1) At least most of you are assuming that they are imprisoned. Not that there is no reason for you not to, I did say dungeon. However, I meant more like say...hmmm...Ah!! If anyone reads Salvatore you should recognize this reference. The paladin and his group were fighting an evil party in a tunnel, and it collapsed, leaving the paladin and one member of the opposing party trapped with each other and separated from the rest.
2) The paladin does have the choice to try to get out on his own. Does he do that, or ally with this evil person whom he should be attempting to kill.
3) There is no greater cause. The whole point is to survive and escape the tunnels.
Since the paladin was engaged in combat with the evil person I assume there is some motivation here. I see the lawful end of things being more of a constraint than the good part here.
#1 How does the paladin know he won't be able to escape alone or with a prisoner?
#2 Since the evil dude is most likely to betray the paladin wouldn't he be better off capturing or killing him now rather than trying to when he's in a compromised position later (which is inevitably when he would be betrayed)?
#3 Are we talking about a random evil creature in a tunnel or someone who has committed a specific crime the Paladin is aware of?
Myself, I don't see any alternative for the paladin, he should capture/ kill the enemy. However I am loathe to punish a player for inadvertently failing his code of ethics worse, you would be punishing the whole group and saddling them with a broken character. If the paladin made a poor choice (and I believe cooperating with the evil dude is a poor choice logically and according to the paladin's code) then let him suffer the more direct consequences of his action (likely betrayal) and then have him do some atonement to his church.
I wholeheartedly agree. A temporary and fragile truce is both more realistic and workable than killing the evil person and dying of starvation in a cave-in. I wouldn't take the paladin's status away for working with an evil character in a life-or-death situation, any more than I would punish a chaotic evil character for not killing the shopkeep and paying retail on any given day. The character determines what a fall from grace would be, not the rulebook.
Assuming the paladin knows for a fact that he cannot escape unless he calls a truce then yes. In my eyes it's more likely that the 'evil' dude will betray the paladin at an inopportune moment thus destroying any good that might come of it. As far as I'm concerned the paladin should see it that way too.
Now if 'evil' dude were to surrender to the paladin then the situation would be slightly different.
Paladin's are self-sacrificing. Why would the paladin ally himself with an evil character to survive, when they would not run from a battle that they knew they could not loose? Another thing to take into consideration would be the "help" part of the paladins code.
A paladin that can do no good by an action, is failing. If a paladin stays on a field of battle because he is too proud to flee despite the fact that he is not saving anyone and has no chance of victory, then he is failing. If a paladin allows himself to die because he is not willing to escape from a trap/prison/cavein due to having to work with someone, he is failing all the people he might be able to help in the future. Paladins are fearless when it comes to doing good (staying behind to give the rest of your party a chance to escape), but they don't have a death wish and don't throw their lives away uselessly.
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?
Silly Pres Man, everyone knows gibberlings reproduce asexually...
A paladin cannot knowingly and willingly associate with an evil character. If a paladin is trapped in a dungeon with an evil character. The evil character knows how to get out, but needs the paladins muscle. Paladin has the muscle, but needs the evil character's know-how. Could they work together to get out? My co- says that the paladin wouldn't break his code as long as he was trying to convert said evil character the entire time they were together. I disagree, saying that the paladin would be able to give the evil character one chance to turn away from his life of evil. If the evil character refused then the paladin would have to either head out on his own(if he is allowed to let the evil character live, which I don't think he can), or strike down the evil character immediately.
Could we get some input on this, please?
Any other situations that leave anyone unsure of wether or not a paladin would lose his paladinhood?
I've always seen that rule as unnecessary, and often counter to the paladin's goals.
Should a paladin who knowingly and willingly associates with an evil character, conciously looking the other way while that evil character perpetrates more wrong in order to further his own ends, lose his paladinhood? Yes.
Should a paladin who knowlingly and willingly associates with an evil character, conciously attempting to show the evil character the error of his ways and work to bring him around to the light, lose his paladinhood. No. In fact, the character should be awarded bonus XP for the effort and the roleplay.
As for the situation you describe, I've always found that the paladin's detect evil ability is overrated. Unless the evil character is an outsider, undead, or a cleric of an evil diety, he will only radiate faint evil unless he's over level 10. That doesn't seem to be the type of thing that should put a paladin into instant smite mode. Does an evil merchant whose greatest crime is cheating his customers deserve to be put to death? Not according to any laws or courts that would be considered LG in nature. If a fallen paladin can be redeemed, why not allow such redemption for others?
I realize that it has been a long time for most of us, but let's keep in mind what it means to be evil.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
From a moral perspective, I have to then ask you what is the difference between Good and Evil? The spelling?
Surely you are not suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between someone that rapes and murders children and someone who puts a yard of cold steel through the bastard's guts.
|
|
Surely you are not suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between someone that rapes and murders children and someone who puts a yard of cold steel through the bastard's guts.
[moral relativism mode on]
Why not? Aren't both of them making it clear that they don't care who they hurt, so long as they gain satisfaction? That their own internal philosophy and sense of what is right to do and what is wrong to do is more valuable to them than the life or health or God-given right to self-determination of another?One is satisfying base urges, another is satisfying other base urges. In a fantasy world, *both of them* might have been appointed by a god or gods who approved of, or even required them to do, what they were doing. It's all terribly mechanistic.
The measure of a man is whether or not he has the power of reason, the ability to *choose* to do something, or not to do something, and not simply act on pure animalistic feelings of lust or rage. There's no excuse for the man who inflicts himself on others. And there's no excuse for the man who inflicts himself on the abuser either. Both are succumbing to base animal urges, instead of controlling themselves and behaving like human beings with the God-given power of free will.
If murdering people is wrong, and murderers are people, then killing murderers is wrong. You can have your citizenship revoked. You can be excommunicated. But nobody on this planet has the right to revoke someone's *humanity.* Killing people who offend our sensibilities is convenient, and makes some people feel better. Serial killers, in particular, seem to get a sense of satisfaction from their atrocities. And the people cheering loudest at their executions? How is their sense of satisfaction any different? Both parties 'get off' on the death of others, only one of them gets to feel smug and righteous about it afterwards, because it's socially acceptable to celebrate the death of undesirables, just as it used to be socially acceptable to approve of wives throwing themselves on their husbands funeral pyres, or to encourage hanging uppity slaves to serve as an example to the others.
Where is the fine line where society gets to play God and decide who lives and who dies? Where is the line that celebrates the cheering crowd at the execution and the man who kills for pleasure? His great crime? He followed the courage of his convictions, and took lives with his own hands, while the cheerleaders only sit back and cheer other peoples deaths, rather than getting their own hands dirty to satisfy their identical animalistic taste for blood. He made the death-penalty cheerleaders look weak and unmanly, by doing with his own hands what they only get to do vicariously. They don't hate him because he's evil. They hate him for getting to do what they only dream about. They're *jealous.*
[moral relativism mode off]
Also? Eating babies. It's the new hotness. Jonathan Swift was ahead of his time.
Why not? Aren't both of them making it clear that they don't care who they hurt, so long as they gain satisfaction?
And that is where the argument falls apart, because the paladin isn't attacking indiscriminately, he is attacking individuals who the planes have judged to be evil. The paladin is not passing judgement on them, he isn't killing them because they state that Hextor is a cool guy, he smites them because the planes have judged their deeds and mindset to be evil.
To the OP...technically yes, that would be associating with an evil character and thus forbidden. Nobody said it would be easy (and DM who railroads the character into such an situation should be prepared for "my character stays imprisoned then").
That said, the whole "not associating with evil" rule is a bit silly when you consider that the paladins should have high CHA and live a virtuous life to be example to others...which others? If they are not supposed to associate with "evil" people there would be no converts?
Also, should paladins shy away from leaidng armies if they have not checked each and every soldier for their alignment (and thrown out those people who are evil)?
Lest we forget, folks like Jesus and Franciscus of Assis dealt with people considered by common perception as "evil"...
Oh Paladins, a favorite topic for controversy.
The problem here is what people thinks to be lawful good. As it stands, Lawful Good is an enlightened alignment which, to this day, humanity can't achieve with the honored exception every half a millenium or so: Jesus Christ, Ghandi, and similar examples are the few notable TRUE Lawful Good people we've had, all of whom have unerringly paid the price for following through with their beliefs (TSR's old books included comparisons of civilizations throughout history and their respective alignments as a whole, so far we have NO Good-aligned civilizations, and I don't think we ever will).
Another problem is certainly the code. I've read the long version of the Paladin code, and actually it contradicts a Lawful Good character:
The code drives Paladins to destroy evil, in all its forms, wherever it's found... see evil, kill evil. While this policy works for a LN, pharisee inquisitor, for a LG person it's not enough to just know the person in front of him is evil, he will inquire himself as to what makes him evil, and whether he actually needs to die where he stand. I'd like Paizo to give the Paladin's code a revision later if possible.
How easy (or hard) playing a Paladin is depends greatly on the game setting in question. In a high fantasy setting (Golarion, Faerun) with an enlightened, post-humanism population it will be reasonably easy. However, the same decisions and actions that made the people love the Paladin in Golarion will see that same Paladin put to the torch in say, Ravenloft (he refused to torture the woman to get proof of her witchery and consorting with the devil! Burn the infidel!).
Now, Back to the Paladin and the villain in the dungeon...
If we were already fighting to the death when the cave-in happened, then I see no reason why not finishing the fight and kill him -before he kills me- (I mean, wasn't I already on my way to kill him anyway?). Plus, if he calls a truce but is STILL GLOWING EVIL as he promises not to backstab me I'd need to be a complete IDIOT to trust him when MY GOD IS YELLING AT ME "HE'S BACKSTABBING YOU IN YOUR SLEEP DAMMIT!" (it's not an issue with the code, it's an issue with MY DAMN I.Q, I'm 'Lawful Good' not 'Lawful Idiot', thank you very much).
HOWEVER, if we happened to be in a situation where I DO NEED HIM to escape then the best I can do is to bring him with me while trying and keeping circumstances in my favor all the time as to prevent him from getting rid of me in a moment of weakness. Saying we both get out of it alive whatever happens will be rather circumstantial: If his crimes were relatively minor and he shown me throughout our little missadventure that there's still hope for him I let him go with a warning (well he SAVED my life, didn't he?), but if his crimes DEMAND retribution what I'll do is knock him out and bring him to justice ALIVE (he might get hanged, but not by my hand... he still SAVED my life, I'm not a monster).
Now let's say he's calling the truce while still glowing evil BUT my level of skill far surpasses his AND whatever crimes on his list still don't fall under the 'deserve to die' column. I knock him out and bring him out alive (If I can easily stomp any attempts on my life on his part then killing him would be just petty from me).
So, does this Paladin loses his powers for teaming up? No, he doesn't, but he'd need to be very stupid not to expect the inevitable.
The Spanish Inquisition THOUGHT of themselves as LG, and the populance also THOUGHT them to be LG, but if they always were all to quick to torture and kill a pre-pubescent girl just on someone else's say so then LN is the best they can aspire to. Alignments are objective.
|
|
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?
Of course. I don't think that gibberling will put up much of a fight in her state of pregnancy.
Oh, wait, you're talking about that moral stuff you doo-gooders are always blathering about. I guess he may incapacitate her so she's no longer a threat to him, but killing might go too far.
But the situation intrigues me. I shall submit to house thrune the idea of creating an order of warrior women who will be impregnated before the fight (preferrably by devils, because the gestation period would be longer, and we'd be getting half-devils out of the deal, too) and enter the frey in maternity armour. That will be our superweapon should we ever invade Andoran, Lastwall or Mendev.
To the OP...technically yes, that would be associating with an evil character and thus forbidden. Nobody said it would be easy (and DM who railroads the character into such an situation should be prepared for "my character stays imprisoned then").
That said, the whole "not associating with evil" rule is a bit silly when you consider that the paladins should have high CHA and live a virtuous life to be example to others...which others? If they are not supposed to associate with "evil" people there would be no converts?
Also, should paladins shy away from leaidng armies if they have not checked each and every soldier for their alignment (and thrown out those people who are evil)?Lest we forget, folks like Jesus and Franciscus of Assis dealt with people considered by common perception as "evil"...
I don't understand your post, Magdalena- in the first part you say that a paladin should be ready to die down there as opposed to work with an evil character and then you point out the ridiculousness of the no association with evil rule overall and the importance of the good that can come from associating with evil. Which one is it? Would arresting said neer do well be a good idea from your perspective?
Lawful Good is not more Good than Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. In fact if one of the Good alignments would be considered the most good it would be neutral good because that alignment has only the goal of good to be concerned about, while the other two are conflicted (chaotic and good or lawful and good). Jesus most likely would not have been LG, but NG. (assuming you accept he would have been good at all)