Other option as well, they simply go look for the Archon/angel superior or god who gave the order and get new orders for the guard. It's an interesting quest and adventure in itself.
Exactly. There are oppurtunities abound for what you can do when the paladin and angel meet. There is plenty of role playing and oppurtunities for new quests and attempts to contact a deity directly (or indirectly) and somehow secure permission. For a GM to boil it down to "your only option to proceed in my game is to kill that angel" irks me. As a player I would probably say "well, looks like the world is doomed then. guess i'll sit and wait for death here on this very spot, and help this angel defend this place until the universe ends in 5 mins."
Such actions are both equally reprehensible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was the paladin, I'd try for diplomacy, but failing that, I'd slay that angel where it stands. It's for the greater good, and greater good should come before all else.Paladins aren't actually greater good above all else. That's neutral good. Neutral good will put good above all else. They have no other moral compunctions or guidance, they seek only good.
As you say, NG is "good above all else". However, a valid interpretation of LG is "greater good above all else".
LG will struggle to bring the most utility to the largest number of people. A NG character will work do to what is good in the immediate sense.
For example, a LG character might perform a callous act in order to prevent a greater evil whereas a NG character may refuse to do the same because they would never stray from good even in an individual case.
There are many ways to interpret alignments. But LG as "greater good" is a pretty common one.
That's the opposite of what I think of as Lawful Good. To me, it means doing good without violating your principles. Chaotic Good means you're willing to use unethical means to do good. Neutral Good is a more balanced approach.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only huge nerd who flashed back to this when reading the thread title?
The only way I could see this going down is if two beings are given charges by different lawful good gods who think there is only one right way to solve a problem. Say, some elder force of destruction (maybe not even evil, just very unpredictable CN?)is locked away under the charge of a LG god, but it is the only being that might know the secret to stopping a world shattering cataclysm. One good god tells his charge to commune with this creature, the angel is told to let absolutely nobody speak with it ever for fear that even a minor breach will let it free. That I would see as something a good character would see as worth killing for - even though they would feel absolutely remorseful about it.
|
If I was the paladin, I'd try for diplomacy, but failing that, I'd slay that angel where it stands. It's for the greater good, and greater good should come before all else.Paladins aren't actually greater good above all else. That's neutral good. Neutral good will put good above all else. They have no other moral compunctions or guidance, they seek only good.As you say, NG is "good above all else". However, a valid interpretation of LG is "greater good above all else".
LG will struggle to bring the most utility to the largest number of people. A NG character will work do to what is good in the immediate sense.
For example, a LG character might perform a callous act in order to prevent a greater evil whereas a NG character may refuse to do the same because they would never stray from good even in an individual case.
There are many ways to interpret alignments. But LG as "greater good" is a pretty common one.
This I don't agree with. LG is doing good. within your code (or law).
In the example of Tar, If the paladin knew all future outcomes of letting that child live. He would let the child live, because it is either against his code, or against the law, to kill the innocent child. NG would whack the child then and there.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From earlier in the thread:
You'd have to be the minion of an idiot to fall for that.Why not? Gods, assuming you use them, are not perfect in most game worlds. Especially not in Golarion, where most of them are idiots. They're fallible, they make mistakes, they might have this wrong.
And then there's always the loophole approach. "I have to guard this room at all costs!" "Well, we're not going to damage the room at all, just take that thing inside it." Angel follows orders to the letter.
Actually, I don't think you'd need to be either an idiot or the minion of an idiot... to me, this sounds like a perfect use of the Literal Genie idea in order to get what you want while avoiding a problem. If the Paladin (or similar LG) was concerned about the mild deception involved, they could let one of their party members do the negotiating instead.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has nobody heard of subdual combat? Eesh. It's the Marvel Superhero way - the one who can pummel the other unconscious honorably must be in the right. When two heroes meet, they always fight, right?
Bastion of Broken Souls - You can get around the planetars by Communing with your God (if you are good) and then having the planetars do the same. They will be very surprised at the fact their orders have changed, but they will let you pass without combat.
Erastil example above: Summon up a celestial that worships Erastil to accompany the party and the bow. He lets the paladin of Iomadae use it because she's best at it, with the stipulation that he can reclaim it at any time if he judges it being used incorrectly. Stag releases bow into the care of its fellow celestial, keeping up its guard duty.
Sometimes it is the duty of the celestial just to fight you. After all, if you can't fight and defeat it, there's absolutely no way you can deal with the greater evil you really want to tussle with. In that way, it simply is another test placed by the gods to see if you are deserving of the McGuffin.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you could steamroll any minion of Erastil that tries to make arguments like those posited above.
"So, I should let the evil fester and grow, so that it can swoop down on your homes and farms when it is at is strongest, laying waste to the fields and farms you've built up painfully over time, slaughtering your children and driving you from your lands?
"Or would I rather I fought the evil on their lands, in their homes, when they are weaker, before they can rise to strength?
"And what of those who have already died? Whose farms and fields are laid waste because you sat here and did nothing? Should I not seek to avenge them? To bring their murderers to justice? Should I sit and do nothing so that Evil can rise again and repeat the process?
"No, my friend. Waiting for evil to strike at the place of its choosing, and the time of its power, is a fool's game. They will gobble your little farms and freeholds up one by one, for your small communities do not have the strength, the power, or the discipline and training to take them head on. That is why warriors exist, to defend your lands and people, and the best place to defend them is far from your homes, at the time and place of your choosing. That is why they gather, to face the many with many, not the many with the few.
"All hunters know that you don't want to slay the rabid bear on your doorstep, after it has slain your sons, slaughtered your daughters, eaten your cattle, and destroyed your farm.
"You kill it out far in the wild, before it can do harm - you kill it where you choose, when you choose, not when it does. Because if you do the latter, you only encourage the carnage to come, and you will pay in blood for your short-sightedness.
"Now, give me the damn bow. I am going to kill your enemy, on its ground, at the time and place of my choosing, rather then its, before it can lay waste to the farms and fields. Sit here and do nothing, but it is time for me to hunt down this menace and end it before it ends others."
==Aelryinth
A LG v LG fight could include a lot of nonlethal damage but honestly I'd expect the paladin to be the one doing it. The angel, following orders, very well may not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple solution (if the party is high enough level): The paladin asks the party wizard if he has dismissal prepared.
Simple solution (if the party is high enough level): The paladin asks the party wizard if he has dismissal prepared.
Not always valid. Gods sending a servant to another plane can give them different subtypes.
Evidence: Treerazer, the demon, does not have the extraplanar subtype but has the native one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?
This really just boils down to the Good versus Good trope.
Angels are not always lawful, they can be lawful, neutral, or chaotic.
Guarding something means you want to prevent people from getting into the room, obviously, and the Angel would be hard pressed to allow the party into the room. However, considering there is a Paladin in their midst the angel might listen to his reasons.
"You shall not pass" is only set in stone for Lawful Neutral characters, but even then there are exceptions. If the PCs reasons are good enough, and if they are not evil then the angel might escort them to ensure that they do not disturb his charge. But by his honor, if they dare to disturb anything he'll destroy them to the best of his ability.
That said there will have to be a diplomacy check first. He would be treated as Neutral at best, threatening if they enter his charge without his permission and then refuse to leave, and hostile if they attempt to intimidate him.
This reminds me of Chaucer's time where Word and Intent was a massive issue. What was the intent of the Angel's master? To prevent anyone from entering at all, or was it to ensure that his charge was not molested by outsiders. If someone needs something from within, and that something is needed to save the world, is the angel to stand in the way of scourging evil?
So
Diplomacy to make him friendly. He will explain that he was tasked with defending this place. After the PCs explain that they need something from within they can attempt another diplomacy check to make him helpful. He'll then offer what he will allow them to do if they agree to his terms. A final diplomacy check will have him help them, and send them on their way or allow them to remain in the area as he has decided that they are no threat to his charge.
Remember, when you are guarding something you are guarding it with the intention to protect it. If someone is not a threat to what you are guarding they can be permitted to remain, but on your terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?This really just boils down to the Good versus Good trope.
What's hilarious is under the examples section there is a Table Top Section that says:
When a non-evil party goes up against non-fallen celestials in Dungeons & Dragons, it's this trope. ◦ Discussed in Champions of Valor. To paraphrase the author, good-on-good violence is unlikely to occur in FR since good-aligned characters and nations are likely to have bigger fish to fry.
I mean, can you even trope any harder?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was the paladin, I'd try for diplomacy, but failing that, I'd slay that angel where it stands. It's for the greater good, and greater good should come before all else.Paladins aren't actually greater good above all else. That's neutral good. Neutral good will put good above all else. They have no other moral compunctions or guidance, they seek only good.As you say, NG is "good above all else". However, a valid interpretation of LG is "greater good above all else".
LG will struggle to bring the most utility to the largest number of people. A NG character will work do to what is good in the immediate sense.
For example, a LG character might perform a callous act in order to prevent a greater evil whereas a NG character may refuse to do the same because they would never stray from good even in an individual case.
There are many ways to interpret alignments. But LG as "greater good" is a pretty common one.
This I don't agree with. LG is doing good. within your code (or law).
In the example of Tar, If the paladin knew all future outcomes of letting that child live. He would let the child live, because it is either against his code, or against the law, to kill the innocent child. NG would whack the child then and there.
That's why I said it was a valid interpretation of LG. I got my view of LG from the AD&D days where a LG government suppressed certain individual rights in favor of a safer, healthier populace. And CG folk would find such oppression unacceptable, even if it had an aggregate positive effect. The NG folk would try to thread the needle between both these views, seeing neither order nor freedom as ends in themselves.
So long as those at the table are good with the interpretation of alignments then it works.
My campaign has had the party, (three neutral, one vaguely good, one vaguely evil, overall quite grey), fight LG opponents on a few occasions thus far.
The first was in a nonlethal tournament which had some paladins partaking in the festivities. The good Summoner had to swarm one of them with summoned cockroaches to win his match. Not exactly a clashing of ideologies, though.
The second was in an assault on a farmhouse that was being used by a group of rebels the party had decided to hunt down for a bounty. The rebels were rebelling against the mostly neutral empire with a somewhat corrupt ruling class with a long history of expansionism. The party never discovered what they were doing beyond bandit-like activities on the nearby roads.
Among the rebel's number were a trio of paladins who followed a God of Liberation. By the time the trio had entered the fight, the farmhouse was already on fire with some rebels dead. The neutral alchemist/ninja entered solo combat with one and after a few rounds realized what the paladin was doing to keep itself healed (lay on hands). That paladin was spared, but the other two were already dead in a large flaming melee.
They're set up to possibly come into conflict with another one, this time a 'hero cop' type of guardswoman, but that is somewhat likely to be solved peacefully or avoided entirely.
Heavily grey party, though, despite the good member. Might not qualify as good vs good, but it does involve good opponents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was the paladin, I'd try for diplomacy, but failing that, I'd slay that angel where it stands. It's for the greater good, and greater good should come before all else.Paladins aren't actually greater good above all else. That's neutral good. Neutral good will put good above all else. They have no other moral compunctions or guidance, they seek only good.As you say, NG is "good above all else". However, a valid interpretation of LG is "greater good above all else".
LG will struggle to bring the most utility to the largest number of people. A NG character will work do to what is good in the immediate sense.
For example, a LG character might perform a callous act in order to prevent a greater evil whereas a NG character may refuse to do the same because they would never stray from good even in an individual case.
There are many ways to interpret alignments. But LG as "greater good" is a pretty common one.
This I don't agree with. LG is doing good. within your code (or law).
In the example of Tar, If the paladin knew all future outcomes of letting that child live. He would let the child live, because it is either against his code, or against the law, to kill the innocent child. NG would whack the child then and there.
From Ultimate Campaign:
LG Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property, responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness
LN Core Concepts: Harmony, loyalty, order, organization, rank, rule, system, tradition, word
Note that Rank and Rule don't appear until you get to LN. In contrast to Neutral's rank and rule, Good has duty, responsibility, and the first paragraph of its description specifically refers to them as easily becoming martyrs. It's easy to imagine someone taking an oath of duty to a greater cause. Or, a parent working so hard because of a sense of responsibility. In all cases, they're acting towards an ideal (their country, their children) which is greater than they are.
This interpretation calls on such fantasy classics as the wandering knight sworn to protect the innocent and meek, or the honorable soldier.
Any of the above may easily be an example of putting others before yourself. Even "responsibility." That is, if protection of the weak and the upholding of the good is your responsibility and duty, then these are concepts greater than you, and you're also driven towards their fulfillment.
I'm not saying your interpretation is incorrect, more that it's possible to see alignments in more than one way. Personally, it's nice to see the gradual evolution away from Law = Absolute Legal Law and Chaos = Freedom/Captain America.
There is more nuance than we give it credit for.
To the OP: It's perfectly possible for duties to conflict. It's the classic tragedy, a classic case of heroism in fantasy. Your duty versus mine.
Shed a tear, a brotherly armlock...and draw your blade, brother, for we stand at odds this day.
And you could steamroll any minion of Erastil that tries to make arguments like those posited above.
"So, I should let the evil fester and grow, so that it can swoop down on your homes and farms when it is at is strongest, laying waste to the fields and farms you've built up painfully over time, slaughtering your children and driving you from your lands?
"Or would I rather I fought the evil on their lands, in their homes, when they are weaker, before they can rise to strength?
"And what of those who have already died? Whose farms and fields are laid waste because you sat here and did nothing? Should I not seek to avenge them? To bring their murderers to justice? Should I sit and do nothing so that Evil can rise again and repeat the process?
"No, my friend. Waiting for evil to strike at the place of its choosing, and the time of its power, is a fool's game. They will gobble your little farms and freeholds up one by one, for your small communities do not have the strength, the power, or the discipline and training to take them head on. That is why warriors exist, to defend your lands and people, and the best place to defend them is far from your homes, at the time and place of your choosing. That is why they gather, to face the many with many, not the many with the few.
"All hunters know that you don't want to slay the rabid bear on your doorstep, after it has slain your sons, slaughtered your daughters, eaten your cattle, and destroyed your farm.
"You kill it out far in the wild, before it can do harm - you kill it where you choose, when you choose, not when it does. Because if you do the latter, you only encourage the carnage to come, and you will pay in blood for your short-sightedness.
"Now, give me the damn bow. I am going to kill your enemy, on its ground, at the time and place of my choosing, rather then its, before it can lay waste to the farms and fields. Sit here and do nothing, but it is time for me to hunt down this menace and end it before it ends others."==Aelryinth
I love stuff like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, yes, Lawful Good entities with differing, conflicting goals could find themselves fighting, if there's no alternatives too it.
But the caveat I do see is that both creatures would agree to the duel and give each other a fair chance. An honorable and fair fight to determine the cause more worthy to continue, that's acceptable.
If one of the Lawful Good entities simply shot without asking questions because their fellow Lawful Good creature was in their way, that would be, well, chaotic evil.
I have been known to use good aligned outsiders as enemies for the group.
It comes down to opposing goals for performing good; two groups acting to make things better, but each unable to succeed as long as the other continues. If you have two sides who absolutely believe that they're right, it doesn't matter how good or reasonable they are... end of the day, they have to fight.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin: "My deity has bade me retrieve the scroll you protect, so that we may bring utter destruction upon the pit lord who threatens to lay waste to the continent."
Archon: "But my deity has commanded me to protect the scroll from mortal men, for in the wrong hands it may destroy the entire world."
Paladin: "I would never allow that to happen. You must see that in this case it is a risk worth taking."
Archon: "Say what you will. You may be right, you may be wrong, but I have taken a sacred oath to guard the scroll with my very life."
Paladin: "Then there is no way we can resolve this peaceably?"
Archon: "Only if you leave empty-handed."
Paladin: "This I cannot do."
Archon: "So be it."
Paladin: "I will try to defeat you without taking your life."
Archon: "I cannot make such a promise, for if I spare you, you will surely try again."
Paladin: "Aye, that I would."
Archon: "And you are a fool if you think I would not hunt you down."
Paladin: "Even so..."
Rogue: "Are you done hogging the limelight? Let's just kill this guy and take his stuff."
Paladin: "My deity has bade me retrieve the scroll you protect, so that we may bring utter destruction upon the pit lord who threatens to lay waste to the continent."
Archon: "But my deity has commanded me to protect the scroll from mortal men, for in the wrong hands it may destroy the entire world."
Paladin: "I would never allow that to happen. You must see that in this case it is a risk worth taking."
Archon: "Say what you will. You may be right, you may be wrong, but I have taken a sacred oath to guard the scroll with my very life."
Paladin: "Then there is no way we can resolve this peaceably?"
Archon: Well, you could try your magic to contact my god directly or summon another servant of my god to go in your place and petition my god for an exception. Or you could sally forth and meet the enemy on the field of combat without the mcguffin and try your hand against them. The mcguffin only makes it easier and isn't 100% necessary, though you chances of success and living are low. But such is the life of a martyr.
Archon: Well, you could try your magic to contact my god directly or summon another servant of my god to go in your place and petition my god for an exception. Or you could sally forth and meet the enemy on the field of combat without the mcguffin and try your hand against them. The mcguffin only makes it easier and isn't 100% necessary, though you chances of success and living are low. But such is the life of a martyr.Paladin: "My deity has bade me retrieve the scroll you protect, so that we may bring utter destruction upon the pit lord who threatens to lay waste to the continent."
Archon: "But my deity has commanded me to protect the scroll from mortal men, for in the wrong hands it may destroy the entire world."
Paladin: "I would never allow that to happen. You must see that in this case it is a risk worth taking."
Archon: "Say what you will. You may be right, you may be wrong, but I have taken a sacred oath to guard the scroll with my very life."
Paladin: "Then there is no way we can resolve this peaceably?"
Paladin: No good. The McGuffin is 100% necessary. Without it, total ruin and devastation will result. Additionally, my Deity has commanded me directly in what to do. To try to weasel out of it would be to defy my god and act with dishonor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using the hierarchy of the heavens to get permission to enter a sacred place is dishonorable?! What???
Edit: Whaaaaaaat??????
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin: No good. The McGuffin is 100% necessary. Without it, total ruin and devastation will result. Additionally, my Deity has commanded me directly in what to do. To try to weasel out of it would be to defy my god and act with dishonor.Archon: Well, you could try your magic to contact my god directly or summon another servant of my god to go in your place and petition my god for an exception. Or you could sally forth and meet the enemy on the field of combat without the mcguffin and try your hand against them. The mcguffin only makes it easier and isn't 100% necessary, though you chances of success and living are low. But such is the life of a martyr.Paladin: "My deity has bade me retrieve the scroll you protect, so that we may bring utter destruction upon the pit lord who threatens to lay waste to the continent."
Archon: "But my deity has commanded me to protect the scroll from mortal men, for in the wrong hands it may destroy the entire world."
Paladin: "I would never allow that to happen. You must see that in this case it is a risk worth taking."
Archon: "Say what you will. You may be right, you may be wrong, but I have taken a sacred oath to guard the scroll with my very life."
Paladin: "Then there is no way we can resolve this peaceably?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin: No good. The McGuffin is 100% necessary. Without it, total ruin and devastation will result. Additionally, my Deity has commanded me directly in what to do. To try to weasel out of it would be to defy my god and act with dishonor.Archon: Well, you could try your magic to contact my god directly or summon another servant of my god to go in your place and petition my god for an exception. Or you could sally forth and meet the enemy on the field of combat without the mcguffin and try your hand against them. The mcguffin only makes it easier and isn't 100% necessary, though you chances of success and living are low. But such is the life of a martyr.Paladin: "My deity has bade me retrieve the scroll you protect, so that we may bring utter destruction upon the pit lord who threatens to lay waste to the continent."
Archon: "But my deity has commanded me to protect the scroll from mortal men, for in the wrong hands it may destroy the entire world."
Paladin: "I would never allow that to happen. You must see that in this case it is a risk worth taking."
Archon: "Say what you will. You may be right, you may be wrong, but I have taken a sacred oath to guard the scroll with my very life."
Paladin: "Then there is no way we can resolve this peaceably?"
Shrug. Paladins are good, not necessarily smart. (Ditto archons.) It's not evil to fail to find an alternative solution, just stupid.
Using the hierarchy of the heavens to get permission to enter a sacred place is dishonorable?! What???
Edit: Whaaaaaaat??????
There is nothing honorable about bureaucracy!
Their conflict need not end in death.
An important part of this fantasy archetype is the value of honor and/or reliability. Therefore, "bested in combat" or "bested in contest" is a viable alternative--that way, they both survive to serve the greater good.
Their conflict need not end in death.
An important part of this fantasy archetype is the value of honor and/or reliability. Therefore, "bested in combat" or "bested in contest" is a viable alternative--that way, they both survive to serve the greater good.
Depends a lot on the circumstances. There are a number of reasons the outsider may refuse the paladin under any and all circumstances, and just the same right when they begin the fight the witch in the background may CC the outsider so they can snag the McGuffin just before they escape. Even if the paladin finds no solution the GM wanted, maybe someone else can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think the Paladin and the Angel alike would understand duty to he point where they realize it's nothing personal, but they each must do as they must.
They could even parlay, have a cup of coffee, discuss philosphy, then if still at an impasse, "No hard feelings. I will try to end it quickly".
Neither of them has to compromise anything to carry out their duty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way I see it : the ways of the gods (even the LG ones) are mysterious. If it is the will of the gods that the angel and the paladin fight, even to the death, then so be it.
The fight will be honorable and inspiring and only one (if any) will be left standing, mourning the death of his worthy opponent but still secure in the knowledge that his opponent's soul is bound to Heaven where the deity awaits with open arms.
I go to Tyrael in this instance. He would absolutely knock someone around regardless of how good intentioned they would be if they were about to do something bad or something that could cause undue harm.
I go to Tyrael in this instance. He would absolutely knock someone around regardless of how good intentioned they would be if they were about to do something bad or something that could cause undue harm.
Tyrael from Diablo? I thought Warcraft and Diablo had explicitly evil paladins?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tyrael from Diablo? I thought Warcraft and Diablo had explicitly evil paladins?
Yes, Tyrael from Diablo. The point is that I could see him punching a priest in the face if it meant stopping unleashing something potentially awful. The character of the person does not matter. The sanctity and justice of his cause takes precedence above almost all else.
Really great post. Although in pf rules that get translated to
Paladin: No, you are wrong, I roll my 1d20+30 diplomacy check.
Which is a real shame. The same kind of shame that you can't take actions no matter how common sense because feats of the same thing exist which makes this "do you have x feat" dynamic rather than trying to immerse yourself in the world.
|
|
Wow... Thanks for all the ideas. The circumstances are pretty straight forward. Shield Archon, commanded to guard a church from intruders trying to reach an ancient city. The city has become deserted due to it's evil past. The mission is to track an orc war party to the ancient city that is believed to house an ancient weapon. The orcs want this weapon. The orcs have an inside advantage, which gives them a large lead. They must reach the top of the church, that houses the Archon, and ring the bells to unlock the gates to the city. To top it off, the Paladin and Archon are of the same deity. They have done nothing but fight undead, demons, and dragons until this point, so it kinda threw them off a bit. I just wanted to see how others have dealt with these situations. I think it should make for some good role play. Plus there's a lich that's using the Archon to his advantage, due to the fact that it stops all other intruders from entering the church. This should be good... right? Again, thanks for all the insight.
Wow... Thanks for all the ideas. The circumstances are pretty straight forward. Shield Archon, commanded to guard a church from intruders trying to reach an ancient city. The city has become deserted due to it's evil past. The mission is to track an orc war party to the ancient city that is believed to house an ancient weapon. The orcs want this weapon. The orcs have an inside advantage, which gives them a large lead. They must reach the top of the church, that houses the Archon, and ring the bells to unlock the gates to the city. To top it off, the Paladin and Archon are of the same deity. They have done nothing but fight undead, demons, and dragons until this point, so it kinda threw them off a bit. I just wanted to see how others have dealt with these situations. I think it should make for some good role play. Plus there's a lich that's using the Archon to his advantage, due to the fact that it stops all other intruders from entering the church. This should be good... right? Again, thanks for all the insight.
Wait. Why doesn't the archon stop the orcs?
And why is the lich not an intruder?
I'm sure there are answers here, I'm just not seeing them immediately.