A Paladin Question

[Shard O'Glase]

Why don't you leave and recruit some holy warriors to help you defeat the evil agent of hextor who has beffudled a powerful group of adventurers to work for him. This could work really well if you are about to level up to a level where you gain a feat. Disapear for a session or two, pick up leadership and return with your army to apply some judicious butt kicking for goodness.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I don't know. To me- a paladin would not see evil as a lifestyle to be tolerated until it does something wrong. It is a weed that needs to be dealt with when it is found.

I guess it depends on how you deal with the nature of evil. Evil to me is someone whose nature is to not give a crap about other living things in general. (Good = caring, Evil = not caring) Evil may care about individuals but until you become a friend you are likely to be stepped on. But this is merely the being's nature and does not indicate actions.

Let's take an extreme example of a half-fiend. The parentage means that the child's base instincts are to be evil. The child may fight that. Depending on how hard he fights it, he may never actually give in to the desire to be a bastard. (double-pun points!) BUT he would still show up on detect evil because it is in his heart.

Should it be killed for being evil?

Some would say yes because it's heart is evil. Some paladins accept (if dislike) a more gray world. But if that guy does something straight up evil his head goes on the wall.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Let's take an extreme example of a half-fiend. The parentage means that the child's base instincts are to be evil. The child may fight that. Depending on how hard he fights it, he may never actually give in to the desire to be a bastard. (double-pun points!) BUT he would still show up on detect evil because it is in his heart.

Should it be killed for being evil?

No, except that in this case, he is not 'fighting it'. If he was trying to escape his nature, he wouldn't be following an evil god.

In fact, it seems the character is taking steps to fully embrace his evil side. As a paladin, I could not remain passive.

Yes i would work for an evil boss.

Well, I wouldn't. That is what makes me a paladin and you a potential threat to my deepest beliefs. Defend yourself, fiend!

See i take LE to be an oprresive alignment but also very livable. Take Facism and Communism and perhaps the Spanish Inquisition to their extermes and they were mostly lawful evil. It's a tough society with not many freedoms but it most certainly has laws and rigid rules to live by. Corporate bosses can sometimes be this as they must follow rules and codes of conduct but are always trying to move up in the chain of command. Out of all the 'evil's' LE is the most 'tolerable' if done in a certain way.
Remember 'evil' does not have to mean baby killer....

Absolutely.

But as Sagan Darkside mentionned (and you agreed ), LG characters shouldn't consider that the end justifies the means.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

yes it is and there are 3 CG players in the party. 1 advocates killing them, 1 couldn't care less, 1 wouldn't want him dead as he still needs him.

So let me get this straight, you've got a paladin who, according to his code is not supposed to associate with evil. A paladin who knows that the followers of Hextor regularly do lots of things (in fact, are required by their faith to do lots of things) that he would be duty bound to prevent and aren't known for their reluctance to kill someone while they sleep if they anticipate a more difficult confrontation later. And this follower of Hextor, while claiming to be Lawful Neutral suddenly aquired such a "blessing" from his god as to be no longer recognizable as human--in fact to look positively fiendish.

But there's more. The stated aim of said Hextorite is to stamp out chaos (Like at least 3 party members). In fact, that's why it's thought there's a chance he might be LN--because he's so into smiting chaos he doesn't have time to do evil things. And there are at least three chaotic members of his own party!!

It sounds like the organizing principles of this group is: There must be no party slayings and the group must stick together. That's about the only explanation I could come up with for the fact that such a party has stuck together up to this point let alone continuing now that there's (apparently) a bona fide fiend in the group.

But also think about the part about having the paladin trying to rebuild the other dwarves kingdom and helping rid the world of the enemies of his nation. So far the other PC has not swayed from that honorable path and goal and has maintained that he will continue to pursue that up until it happens.

Any paladin with enough wisdom to cast spells ought to be able to figure out that, even in the event that his ideas of restoring the kingdom and the Hextorites ideas of restoring it coincide for the moment, their means are unlikely to be compatible. And, if consorting with Hextor weren't enough to make the character's means unacceptable his transformation ought to.

The closest thing I can think of to a literary example of a paladin working with LN followers of a LE being is Prince Caspian's alliance with Nikabrik in _Prince Caspian_. That came to an end when Nikabrik and his allies decided to try summoning the White Witch in order to gain victory. If nothing has yet happened that would fill the role of summoning the white witch, the Hextorite's transformation certainly does.

The paladin still could/can work with the other PC to make that it happens as reclaiming a kingdom and rebuilding it is neither good nor evil act. Both have stated that they are honorbound to do it.

There's just the problem of how the kingdom will be rebuilt and what it will look like when it is rebuilt. Any paladin worth his salt would rather see the kingdom die stillborn than be rebuilt to follow Hextor. Or be rebuilt by enlisting the aid of devils. Which is exactly what the transformation indicates.

I see that them working together as a long term thing and not a short term goal. Both are more than willing to do what needs to be done within their respective alignments to accomplish it

And that's precisely the problem. There's a whole lot within the alignment of the Hextorite that the paladin would be honor bound to prevent. That's the reason the paladin's code forbids such associations--even when they share goals, they are unlikely to go about them in a way that will not obligate the paladin to fight his "ally" in order to prevent him from "acting within his alignment" in order to achieve the supposed common goal.

rather harsh and rash, but still within being a paladin...evil can be saved and reclaimed for the good, who knows, again anyone who has read Sepulchrave II's story hour knows what i am talking about. We shall see what happens in our next session...

Anybody who reads Sepulchrave II's story hour also knows that Eadric doesn't try to redeem Titivus or Grazz't. They know he doesn't have a chat with Rimmlin. When he had Rurunoth bound in the summoning circle for a day, he didn't attempt to redeem him. Readers of the story hour also know that he wants nothing to do with Shomei and wouldn't even talk to her up to this point. Even if he does eventually follow Mostin's suggestion and talk to her, I cannot imagine him taking an unrepentant Shomei as an adventuring companion. The big difference between Despina and the others demons and diabolists is that Despina was repentant and wanted to be reclaimed. The others gave no indication of interest in being reclaimed. Similarly, the Hextorite in question has apparently given no indication of repentance or of a desire to be reclaimed. (In fact, his actions indicate exactly the opposite). If I were DMing and such a situation came up, a paladin who continued adventuring with such as the Hextorite would get a stern warning from his deity and summarily lose his Paladinhood if he continued to adventure with the Hextorite.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Weird situation. As the paladin in this case, I'd withdrew my help for the party and leave them. If they come to ask for help, they'd better be good at explaining what they want. But this whole situation stinks of something that a paladin better leaves alone or observes... from a distance.

Traveling with that guy and risking the reputation of his religion and church is not an option IMHO.

For me (and, what I'd have done in the situation previously) I'd have to change characters if the other person wouldn't. I might not leave the campaign on just this account, but I couldn't play a paladin under such circumstances. Roleplaying is a hobby, not a chore.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

he's a green dragon cross breed.

I gather he's in his parent's bad books, and vice versa?

 

[Enkhidu]

Paladins, at least in my book, are all about two words: uncompromising principles. This is easily applicable to the situation at hand.

1. Paladins have detect evil for a reason - though it may not be the most "polite" thing to do, giving someone the eye with detect evil is the (if used correctly) surefire way for a pally to find out what he should oppose (based on what his god says is evil, of course - after all the god is the one allowing for the detect in the first place). If you haven't already detected evil in this instance you're wasting time.

2. Evil must always be met head on - there is no room for compromise with real evil, and it must be stamped out at every opportunity. An immediate confrontation should take place if the evilness is confirmed.

3. Defeating evil doesn't always mean destroying the vessel its in (the "you don't have to kill evil to beat evil" clause). If the pally feels he can redeem the Hextorite, then by all means try to do so! If the pally can get the Hextorite to repent of the thoughts in his heart and turn away from evil, then the pally has done an exemplary job! But (there's always a but), the paladin must know when to draw the line - if the Hextorite turns out to be evil and growing in evil power, then there truly is no hope for him, as he refuses to turn away from his dark paths.

So: Detect, Confront, and smite evil (and, if necessary, Smite evil too).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Paladins, at least in my book, are all about two words: uncompromising principles.

Then, I fear, we have different books. I agree that orders where the lawful aspect of the paladin's code is capitalized will be like that (say, paladins of Helm, the lawful neutral god of guards), but paladins that put more focus on the good aspect (like paladins of Lathander, the NG god of renewal) won't. There are paladins who will catch *any* thief they catch red handed stealing. But others will make an exception, if they see that it's just an urchin and the law states that thiefes get their head cut off, so that they'll never think of stealing again (and maybe that's OK as it is for the paladin, since in that city there are a lot of greedy thieves who rob everyone blind or something, but that urchin just doesn't want to die of thirst).

 

[Enkhidu]

I must not be expressing myself well.

Uncompromising Principle does not necessarily mean the absence of mercy. A pally can hate the sin without hating the sinner.

In the example you used, the pally might not turn the urchin in to the proper authorities (as the punishment could be viewed as a greater evil than the crime), but the pally would not let the urchin off the hook - a "stern talking to" would be in order, as would making restitution (even if the person the urchin stole from in the first place doesn't exactly know that its restitution).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Even if a paladin has the principal to not tolerate theft, he will let that urchin go (without stern words, as they won't nourish the lad, and he has to steal again or he will starve). There's a time where you must bend those rules for the greater good. Another paladin will turn over the child, as he values law above all else.