Yes, this is yet another controversial paladin thread.
I have my belief of how things should stand with the following but I am not going to present my thoughts here. I want to see what others think:
With the later books, paladins now have the ability to coerce subjects magically into acting certain ways, including being forced to attack the paladin.
Should these abilities exist at all on the paladin spell lists? Do think carefully about the full implications of them. Do they present a strong risk of the paladin falling if used in any way that deviates from the most just? Can they be justified as just in any situation (again, I'm not saying they can't; just curious to see what others would say).
Consider a scenario: A villain has done no harm to the party but they know he's guilty. He monologues about their folly and turns to leave. The paladin casts a spell on the villain, forcing him to attack the paladin, then uses that as justification to fight him. Is that an evil (or nonlawful) act?
|
Larry the Cable Guy said it best "Guns don't kill people, husband that come home early do". Tools should not be judged because they exist. They exist for a reason, and if a person were to utilize it for another reason entirely, then the person should understand and realize they are responsible, not the tool, for the action committed. The spell that forces the villan to attack the party without provocation is a clear misuse of the tool. The tool was intend to force enemy targets to attack the paladin so that it would prevent them from harming others with the thought that the paladin accepts the consequences of his actions. IF the paladin misuses the tool, he must be aware that the consequence of his actions would be removal of that tool. Personality aside, the lawful code of the paladin must require eminent proof to validate such use of the tool. Even then, should the paladin know that those are the consequences he may face, a paladin in spirit would still probably do the same rather than face the shame of knowing he could have prevented such crimes as could be committed had he not act. The tools themselves are not inquestion, but rather the moral character of the paladin himself.
That's an interesting stance to take. What do you think of the sanctity of the mind and will with regards to such paladin tools? Does such a thing exist? At what point is it justified to subvert a person's control over their own body and/or thoughts? Is it a slippery slope 'for the greater good'?
(incidentally, a character of mine has been called insidiously evil for using dominate person out to interrogate servants of a lich for the location of its phylactery, but as a justified yet still evil act; the character was nongood, so that may be moot)
You can't call it self defense if you magically compel someone to attack you. That's like running into their blade and saying they stabbed you.
Without knowing exactly what spell you're referring to, does it make the enemy attack in general, or attack the paladin specifically? If it makes them attack the paladin to the exclusion of others, it's a tanking spell. The serial killer is about to slash the throat of his victim, but then the paladin forces the baddy to attack him instead.
"Pick on someone your own size."
Zeph - beat me to the punch here, but to follow up on your follow up - I think the sanctity of the mind and how the paladin views such things would depend on the religion they served... for example - Arshea, Cayden Cailean, Shelyn, Bolka, and Naderi all have the charm domain and the capability of employing Paladins.... They surely have no problem with mind-affecting spells used to further their cause.
|
|
It should be noted that there are 2 frames of mind as to the intent of paladin coercive spells. Adventuring Mode, for lack of a better term, would see the paladin able to rationally weigh the pros and cons of his actions and determine the best solution that adhears closest to the responsibilities of Order/Law while affording the best actions to promote the greater good. Then you have the heat of combat. Here you are not afforded the luxury of deciding the best course of action to adhere to the law or attend to the greatest good. Here you are seeking survival. This is where these tools were intended for use. The Sanctity of the Mind and Will are important, but a paladin in combat has already made the determination, or had the determination made for him by his combatants, that the greater good will be served by his survival. Should these tools be the ones he/she was blessed with at the time of the combat, then it his responsibility to use them wisely for that purpose.
Outside of combat, the paladin must adhere to his codes of conduct and realize that he/she will bear responsiblity for her actions. Again, this said the Paladin who believes truly in his cause will make that sacrifice if need be.
Furthermore - your initial post cites an example. If the paladin [i]knew[i/] the BBEGs guilt and was there to bring them to "justice" I question why they would need to cite self defense. Surely ridding the region of such a vile presence is justification enough - also if the paladin was one of Gorum - I would consider this a trial by fighting and the compulsion is more of a "less talking" and let's get down to brass tacks type of situation. So to answer effectively to your situation as it is very situational probably requires more information.
What did the BBGE do? Did he confess in his monologue? Is he resistant to arrest? What deity does the paladin serve? The last one is probably the most important as many deities might not look favorably on the actions describe, but some may.
EDIT - I just thought I'd add in that the Oath of Vengeance illustrates that some deities desire or even mandate that their paladins act in a similar capacity or even assist inquisitors.
Ignoring the spell for a second.
If a paladin intentionally insults a nobleman, then kills him in the resulting lawful challenge to a duel, does that effect his paladinhood?
I suspect this question will have several answers depending on whether the nobleman is good or evil, whether the paladin knew he was good or evil, and whether the paladin had a good idea of what the result would be.
