Paladins with powers being deluded/deceived?

[Umbran]

That seems a little strange if they think the deity _knew_ what really happened.

I'm picturing a known evil sorcerer having captured a dozen or so officers of the law. He says some magical mumbo-jumbo (casts a spell apparently), seems to take over the mind of one of them, and the taken over one kills one of the other officers of the law. Evil guy then escapes. Has he set it up so that the other officers of the law must now execute the one who did the killing even though they witnessed the whole thing?

In that case there could be some doubt (maybe their fellow officer was just faking)? But presumably the deity wouldn't have the doubts. (If one of the other officers had detect magic running the whole time and could verify a charm spell was cast, would that change things?)

Moreover, the whole thing gets kind of tangled when you consider the clerical Divination spell, and Discern Lies. Not only does the god know, but a cleric of sufficient power will also know.

The setup kind of requires such spellcasting to be rare (say, you're playing E6, so 4th level spells are rare indeed), or viewed with suspicion by the populace. If the local high priest of the LG god says, "I know, by the power of my god, that this man is not lying!" the people aren't going to trust it? When the LG god would be reasonably expected to remove the cleric's ability to cast the spell if he lied about the results?

 

[Celebrim]

I really like your explanation of how something like this could arise -- changed me from hating the set-up to seeing the potential and how it reasonably could have developed that way in a not-crazy society.

Thanks. I've spent 30 years thinking about the implications of a 'magical medieval' society. I'm not claiming this is the only way to look at things, but I think its an internally consistent one.

That seems a little strange if they think the deity _knew_ what really happened.

Only if you are accepting of the very modern notion that guilt isn't a literal stain or corruption on the person in question. You see the problem here is that you are fundamentally tied to the idea that if you weren't consciously aware of what you are doing, you aren't guilty. And this isn't a universally accepted idea, and its really one that is still evolving. In any event, it's not universally accepted in the game world's fiction.

What you have to understand is that from the perspective of those villagers, it doesn't really matter in terms of guilt/innocence whether or not the perpetrator of the act had a 'guilty mind' if the act is actually guilty. As I said, it in their minds only reduces culpability, it doesn't elimenate it. The notion that Justice should prevail itself is something that isn't universally accepted, even today. The prior notion is that Vengeance should prevail, and you can see this even today in customs of places like Afghanistan. Under that notion, it doesn't matter why something happened at all - only that it did. Justice gradually replaced vengeance (from a practical standpoint) because it set a limit on Vengeance - some stopping point where you could say "Enough" and it just wouldn't keep going and going.

But even in places in my game world where Justice prevails over Vengeance as a standard (LG vs. LE), the notion that the 'guilty mind' and not the 'guilty action' is what's important isn't universal. After all, even if I accept that Justice demands you don't recieve the full punishment that is due your action, surely Justice demands the innocent victim - the one who wasn't possessed and was on the receiving end of the guilty act - recieves the full recompense for the harm done to them. The complaint to the deity here would be, "I have suffered greiviously at the hand of your servant. Why do you continue to exalt, glorify, and reward you servant when I have been brought low?" This is why Atonement, when the guilty act was gross or willfully, generally requires some quest to make things right again before you get your powers back.

One of the biggest challenges I have as a DM in my homebrew, is that modern Americans are so radically different in outlook from most people living in the homebrew. Maybe 20% or so of players are really able to get in the head of a 'lawful' character. Most players so strongly believe in Individualism, that they strongly gravitate to what are in my world highly chaotic positions and are simply unable to really comprehend anything else until we've been playing together for a long time.

I'm picturing a known evil sorcerer having captured a dozen or so officers of the law. He says some magical mumbo-jumbo (casts a spell apparently), seems to take over the mind of one of them, and the taken over one kills one of the other officers of the law. Evil guy then escapes. Has he set it up so that the other officers of the law must now execute the one who did the killing even though they witnessed the whole thing?

Pretty much, yes. Especially if the widow or family of the slain officer demands full restitution, or if the community/judge feels that there is a possibility of a reoccuring offence - which is certainly implied by the warlock escaping. (Incidently, I hope you see now why known sorcerers are treated as if they were inhuman fiends.) In practice, if the widow doesnt' have a grudge, and the offending officer is beloved, some lesser sentence than death is agreed upon - loss of citizenship and banishment for example would be typical in a case like you raise, with the officer's property being forfieted to the widow. The guilty party could concievably atone himself with the city by capturing and killing the evil guy and otherwise performing acts of reknown and honor. But there is certainly an understanding by all involved that a terrible evil has hpapened and the officer was involved in it.

This happens to you in my game, you roll a madness check to see if you go insane.

In that case there could be some doubt (maybe their fellow officer was just faking)? But presumably the deity wouldn't have the doubts. (If one of the other officers had detect magic running the whole time and could verify a charm spell was cast, would that change things?)

Again, the facts of what happened aren't the only source of dispute. They are an important one, because in most cases you dont' have multiple authoritative witnesses who can attest that they saw diabolical spell-craft (a suggestion spell, for example) occuring. Few magistrates have enough spellcraft to make that judgment. More likely, you have a priest (or a PC) witness the event and give testimony.

On the other hand, I can imagine lots of people being pissed at the gods for not having created a world where such evil mind control existed and not having provided a corresponding way to detect the innocent (a wandering order of marshals with the ability to detect whether someone had been charmed in the past 24 hours?). Of course the world is set up where lots of other bad things happen to good people that no divine minions come to save them from.

If you are saying that you think lots of people in my world should be angry at the gods, then you are starting to get it. If you are getting meta-enough that you can undertand that I sympathize with the complaints of those angry with the gods (because the gods are well, me, and I'm not worthy of worship), then you are really starting to get in my head.

Do your peasants have some belief that those executed in such cases get justice in the after-life?

Not necessarily. Many do. Many don't. Many believe the afterlife is just as unjust as this one. Pretty much everyone agrees that there is something wrong with the world, and are hoping at some future date - after some sort of climatic battle or apocalypse - that a new world without the essential flaw (whatever they think it is) will come into being. Incidently, the philosophy of the Nuetral Evil sects in my world is that sense no truly good world can come into being as long as this world exists, the most moral thing you can possibly do is burn this one done to its roots. If the world starts over, great. But if it doesn't, that's a pretty good outcome too.

 

[Umbran]

Which I why I think that from a level of artful game mastery, the real rule here is that you should never be playing 'Gotcha!' with the PCs. Whatever you rule, the PC needs to be expecting you to rule that way.

Generally agreed.

There may be one caveat, between a Player and a GM that have a trustful relationship - the instance where the player is surprised/confused by the event, and that is an indicator of something important going on. It is incumbent upon the GM to make sure this is actually going to be an interesting thing for the player.

 

[Cadence]

Flashing back to posts #42-43, and #52 concerning the alignment of the philosophical sword master in #41...

Well, if I'm not yet convincing, consider a person with the opposite description than what I provided.

1) He places law and tradition above his own dictates.
etc...

Using that tact consider, a person who meets the defining traits of Chaotic Neutral from 1e & 2e (since you don't like 3's) ...

a) places randomness and disorder [above good and evil] - 1e PhB
b) life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end - 1e DMG
c) life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combated, and in the end it too will pass into entropy - 1e DMG
d) believe there is no order to anything, including their own actions - 2e PhB
e) tend to follow whatever strikes them at the moment - 2e PhB
f) they are almost totally unreliable - 2e PhB

The hypothetical sword master is in direct contradiction to all of those.

I guess that leaves Neutral in the sense of being between the other alignments. (It seems like he would fail the N that is actively seeking to maintain a balance between L/G/C/E.)

 

[Cadence]

If you are saying that you think lots of people in my world should be angry at the gods, then you are starting to get it. If you are getting meta-enough that you can undertand that I sympathize with the complaints of those angry with the gods (because the gods are well, me, and I'm not worthy of worship), then you are really starting to get in my head.

I completely get that.

I let my own DMing limitations color my thinking too much. I have no trouble playing NPCs or most gods in ways that would really piss me off in real life. I'm also ok with a limited-revelation/interaction cosmology, where the gods don't give huge volumes of rules or send their 20th level Paladins and archangels hither and yon regularly, so that the mortals have to work out the big questions on their own. Or similarly one where the "gods" who interact are more like big spirits and don't have the ultimate answers . But if the top-line gods of good take a very pro-active role in the world with all kinds of mega-magically endowed paladins, clerics, divine beings, and maybe even a manifestation... well, then they darn well better have a system that agrees with my sensibilities (prejudices?) if I'm going to run them. (I often wonder why lots of people with some real world religious beliefs still find the divinity of their choice worth worshiping instead of merely appeasing - of course I never have such qualms about my own beliefs ).

On the other hand, as a player I'm ok with getting into a character whose beliefs don't come anywhere close to my actual ones. I'll just make sure and shift my perspective over to that side when reading your campaign descriptions.

 

[Celebrim]

Flashing back to posts #42-43, and #52 concerning the alignment of the philosophical sword master in #41...

Using that tact consider, a person who meets the defining traits of Chaotic Neutral from 1e & 2e (since you don't like 3's) ...

a) places randomness and disorder [above good and evil] - 1e PhB

Based on my reading 'a' is true. He places his own (personal and random) code above alturism. We may presume that the code actually encourages people to avoid altruism.
Likewise, the code also seems to encourage people not to do active harm to others. So we are dealing with a code of passivity, which makes it neutral on the good/evil axis.

b) life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end - 1e DMG

I think you are misusing this quote and taking it out of context. What the quote in the 1e DMG means that Chaotic Neutrals view death as part of the process of life, a necessary step leading to growth and renewal. They believe that life is a circle, and that death and rot, properly viewed are beautiful things. The believe that destruction is really just part of the creative process, a necessary step in preventing the undesirable state of stasis (true deeath). But CN's would be just as appalled as NG at the process of life ending without renewal, and of stopping the process. And they would likely also consider it tragic for life to be cut short in its fruit, but they'd probably also point out that the blooming flower just fed an antelope and the young antelope just fed the lion, so who is to judge?

From what we know of the swordsmaster, this belief isn't incompatible with his code.

c) life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combated, and in the end it too will pass into entropy - 1e DMG

Ditto with this. It's entirely possible that this is congruent with the code of the swordmaster.

d) believe there is no order to anything, including their own actions - 2e PhB
e) tend to follow whatever strikes them at the moment - 2e PhB
f) they are almost totally unreliable - 2e PhB

Here 2e shows the general trend of being less intellectual, less consistent, and less deep in its understanding of alignment compared to the prior edition - the 1e Gygax write up. Second edition makes the mistake of thinking alignment is personality and confuses the description slightly. However, it's not a wholly bad description - chaotics do believe that there isn't (or shouldn't be) underlying order and consistency, that actions are always situational, morales are always relative, and that true wisdom requires being changable and adaptable rather than persisting in a single mode of behavior. So we aren't yet as bad off as we will get in 3e, where they start going from slightly confused to just totally incoherent.

And here I still maintain what I told you the first time. Without actually looking at the code, we can come to no conclusion about 'd', 'e', and 'f'. It's entirely possible that the code would make him unorderly, unreliable, and subject to mainly his own whim - because the code might well encourage him to do that (consider my examples of Discordianism or the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition).

The hypothetical sword master is in direct contradiction to all of those.

So, again, I disagree. At most we can't say for certain whether he is or not. But there is in my opinion strong hints that he's not in direct contridiction to some of them and could potentially be congruent with all of them.

I guess that leaves Neutral in the sense of being between the other alignments. (It seems like he would fail the N that is actively seeking to maintain a balance between L/G/C/E.)

Again, I left this open as a possibility. It could be that this is exactly the intention of the code. But without seeing the code, I can't give a definitive answer.

 

[Celebrim]

But if the top-line gods of good take a very pro-active role in the world with all kinds of mega-magically endowed paladins, clerics, divine beings, and maybe even a manifestation... well, then they darn well better have a system that agrees with my sensibilities (prejudices?) if I'm going to run them.

Naturally, the dieties whose outlook I agree with the most are the ones who are deemed 'neutral good' or 'pure good' in my system.

Everyone tends to rotate the great wheel so that what is pointing up agrees with what they believe.

But even so I don't think this is as trivial of a point as some would make it. Justice is a very difficult concept. I understand why people would be appalled to think that Mercy would prevail when they feel Justice or even Vengeance is called from, and even where I disagree Mercy is always at tension with Justice.

I like to think that at some level, all the different viewpoints in my homebrew have a point. The advantage of being the DM is I don't have to choose between them. I'm a neutral referee. I can leave it ambiguous which is right, and where my heart lies, and let the players create their own meaning. It would be a mistake to think I'm fully identifying with any of my NPCs. I consider it a huge secret which deities of the game world I would prefer myself and which I pour my ideas of nobility into.

To a certain extent, I get away from this problem also by not having Paladins in my world. You'll see me using the term 'Champion'. That's the actual devoted of class used in my game, and they are explicitly in service to something and it could be anything. So I don't have to defend any Champion as being devoted to the Highest Good. The Creator expressed doesn't dwell in my campaign world, and his nature is only speculated on. So what 'Highest Good' was intended is not known and very much argued over within the campaign world.

 

[Dandu]

That's not necessarily the the case with magic. Heck, that's not necessarily the case with science.

It's quite possible to work magic without understanding how it works.

You just used a very simple procedure to post on the internet. Loads of people do, every day.

How many of them know how HTTP protocols work, and how semiconductor processor chips work, and how the sensors that register keystrokes work (or how voice recognition software or touchscreens work)?

I know more than most do about semiconductors, as I know some stuff about solid state physics. HTTP protocols? I know there is such a thing, and know it is insecure, while HTTPS uses encryption. If I put myself to it, I could probably understand it tin full, but I've never bothered.

Miracles can be enacted with little or minor understanding.

It is possible to use technology without understanding how it works. It is possible to do simple things like mix chemicals according to certain instructions without understanding the basic principals governing the reactions. However, neither case involves people who would have ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill, which I imagine determines how much of the process you actually understand.

On the issue of automatism, I would note that there is even in our spectacularly wealthy societies a great deal of popular skepticism over defenses of insanity, and (especially) temporary insanity and automatism. What for example gaurantee's temporary insanity won't overtake you again, and wow that sure is convienent isn't it? Isn't all or almost all crime at some level a sort of insanity anyway? So the skepticism of my homebrew world to the defense, "Well, it wasn't me doing it", isn't I think that unusual.

Interesting that you bring up temporary insanity. In real life, very few people doubt that mental illness exists. Indeed, exemptions in the law for the insane from full criminal punishment date back to at least the Code of Hammurabi, so its not even a modern concept. Rather, its use in legal defense is treated with skepticism for certain people, which is why the defense is rarely used, and succeeds even less often.

Of course, there is much literature on the subject to help professionals distinguish the sane from the insane, and some people have legitimate need of the defense.

Losing your powers temporarily is not a big deal. You are a slightly weak fighter for a short duration. Find someone that can provide you penance, play out your penance, and so forth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in D&D, a paladin needs to receive the Atonement spell. If spellcasting is rare, this will not be a quick and easy task. If it is common, spells such as Magical Polygraph (Zone of Truth) should be available as well...

 

[Celebrim]

Interesting that you bring up temporary insanity. In real life, very few people doubt that insanity exists.

Sure. But I'd be willing to bet the number that believe 'temporary insanity' exists is measurably lower than those that believe 'insanity' exists.

Rather, its use in legal defense is treated with skepticism for certain people, which is why the defense is rarely used, and succeeds even less often.

People in my homebrew don't doubt that possession and bewitchment exist. They just are very skeptical of its use in a legal defense.

Of course, there is much literature on the subject to help professionals distinguish the sane from the insane.

Many people aren't nearly as trusting of 'expert' opinion, or the social 'sciences', as you seem to be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in D&D, a paladin needs to receive the Atonement spell. If spellcasting is rare, this will not be a quick and easy task.

Should it be?

So he has to make a pilgrimage. This is odd or unusual? In most cases it would be a few days to at most a few weeks journey to find a confessor. I guess it is relative whether this is 'no big deal' or not. Or he might have been able to ask for a divine intervention check to see if his diety was willing to send a confessor to him (though, granted, he'd probably have to burn a destiny point to succeed under such conditions, and even then its a long shot, though I might give a circumstance bonus if the player did a really good job of pleading for intercession). There are also sacred locations where you can get atoned just by bathing in the sacred water (or breathing the sacred smoke), for example. I'm a generous enough of a DM I'd probably invent one a few days away if the circumstances were right.

If it is common, spells such as Magical Polygraph (Zone of Truth) should be available as well...

And if Magical Polygraph's are really common, then the magical devices that allow them to be decieved are also very common and any NPC specializing and in deciet and infiltration would have one. Likewise, if Zone of Truth is common, then surely the power to erase or alter memories - allowing people to testify in full conviction that something is true - is also not unknown. The ordinary villager though knows only that some spellcasters - those very untrustworthy beings whose ability to alter the minds of others is at the heart of the problem - are saying something that they have neither the knowledge nor the power to evaluate is true.

In most parts of my campaign world, the use of a Magical Polygraph to determine veracity is not submissable as evidence because, in the past, the reliance on these devices has created a false presumption of utter reliability and accuracy allowing the truly fiendish and deceptive to use these devices and the evidence that they provide to overturn other evidence - even say eye witness testimony or forensic evidence. Conversely, devices have been tampered with by fiends to unjustly punish the innocent who might otherwise be above suspicion.

Beyond that we'd have to get into the specifics of my rules, but you know how people are always complaining about things like Magical Polygraph, Speak with the Dead, Detect Evil and the like making investigation and mystery pointless? Well, they are a lot easier to thwart and a lot more unreliable the way I've written them. Zone of Truth for instance doesn't make lying impossible. It just gives you a penalty on your Bluff check. So again, the people of my homebrew don't have any easy answers for the problem, to an even greater extent than would be true of any generic D&D game world.

 

[Dandu]

Sure. But I'd be willing to bet the number that believe 'temporary insanity' exists is measurably lower than those that believe 'insanity' exists.

I'll take your bet. Now we just need some numbers...

Many people aren't nearly as trusting of 'expert' opinion, or the social 'sciences', as you seem to be.

Many people couldn't find their rear end with both hands. The more important issue is how much the government/justice system/ruling council/leadership trusts expert opinion.

Should it be?

I'm not saying it should be, only that the world should be internally consistent, and having 5th level divine spells be easy to obtain, but 2nd level divine spells be hard to obtain makes little sense.

So he has to make a pilgrimage. This is odd or unusual? In most cases it would be a few days to at most a few weeks journey to find a confessor. I guess it is relative whether this is 'no big deal' or not.

If a 9th level or higher cleric is consistently a short distance away, then this weakens the argument that magic is too rare for it to help in cases of enchantment.

There are also sacred locations where you can get atoned just by bathing in the sacred water (or breathing the sacred smoke), for example. I'm a generous enough of a DM I'd probably invent one a few days away if the circumstances were right.

Quick note: while this is great, is it actually part of D&D?

And if Magical Polygraph's are really common, then the magical devices that allow them to be decieved are also very common and any NPC specializing and in deciet and infiltration would have one.

I would imagine a competent investigation would not allow NPCs to possess gear while being interrogated. Seems like a reasonable and simple precautions.

Likewise, if Zone of Truth is common, then surely the power to erase or alter memories - allowing people to testify in full conviction that something is true - is also not unknown. The ordinary villager though knows only that some spellcasters - those very untrustworthy beings whose ability to alter the minds of others is at the heart of the problem - are saying something that they have neither the knowledge nor the power to evaluate is true.

The only way to alter memories that I know of are Modify Memory, which can be detected with Detect Magic and undone by Break Enchantment (same level as Atonement), and Mind Rape, the latter of which is so high level that encountering it would be an uncommon experience. The presence of memory altering magic does not throw out the usefulness of Zone of Truth.

And, of course, there's always divination...

In most parts of my campaign world, the use of a Magical Polygraph to determine veracity is not submissable as evidence because, in the past, the reliance on these devices has created a false presumption of utter reliability and accuracy allowing the truly fiendish and deceptive to use these devices and the evidence that they provide to overturn other evidence - even say eye witness testimony or forensic evidence. Conversely, devices have been tampered with by fiends to unjustly punish the innocent who might otherwise be above suspicion.

In real life, I do not believe that a polygraph is regarded as infallible, nor is it the only means of evidence used to convict people. (Though, granted, I think it was different in the past.)

Ideally, multiple pieces of evidence are used to determine guilt or innocence; if you have an anomalous result that seems the result of tampering, then it is reasonable to throw it out. However, if a professional interrogator thinks the subject is telling the truth (high sense motive), the Zone of Truth spell indicates the subject is telling the truth, and there is reason to believe the person was Charmed, would it not be reasonable to admit the possibility?

I mean, it would be like having a psychologist attest to someone being mentally ill and medical examiners show his brain chemistry was haywire at the time, and friends and family testify that he was normally, er, normal. This really helps the case that the person was temporarily insane.

Incidentally, if it is this hard to prove that you were the victim of an enchantment, how does anyone get prosecuted for magical date rape? Or do we go the Monty Python route? (She turned me into a newt!)

However,
Beyond that we'd have to get into the specifics of my rules, but you know how people are always complaining about things like Magical Polygraph, Speak with the Dead, Detect Evil and the like making investigation and mystery pointless? Well, they are a lot easier to thwart and a lot more unreliable the way I've written them. Zone of Truth for instance doesn't make lying impossible. It just gives you a penalty on your Bluff check. So again, the people of my homebrew don't have any easy answers for the problem, to an even greater extent than would be true of any generic D&D game world.

I am going to assume that you have changed how Zone of Truth works?

I don't think there's anything wrong with your game, but if your rules deviate from the standard rules, you shouldn't expect us to know them or understand the impact those rules changes have on your game.