A Paladin Question

[Sagan Darkside]

I guess it depends on how you deal with the nature of evil. Evil to me is....

I am not touching my beliefs on good/evil with a stick- it will hijack this thread. I stated what I thought a paladin would believe.

A paladin that lives in a world where evil is a tangible force.

It can be measured. There is no debate if the Detect Evil is his personal world view, religous upbringing, or cultural definition- it is gauge on if someone is evil or not.

Now- a paladin is a champion of good. Not because he claims to be, but because he has been empowered to be a champion of good. It is not a hat they can hang up whenever they find it inconvenient to wear and then pick up again when it is easy.

Should it be killed for being evil?

Should a paladin kill a half-fiend for being evil? Yes.

SD

 

[Enkhidu]

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.

I have to disagree with the idea that you can bend the rules for the greater good. For a pally (once again, in my book - remind me I have to send out free copies of "Enk's Guide to Paladins" as soon as I get it written. ), there is no such thing as the greater good if it means compromising a principle.

And example of how the pally could deal with the urchin. He catches the urchin stealing food from a street vendor, and the shopkeep doesn't see the urchin do it. The paladin might - knowing that the theft could be punishable by death - follow the urchin and apprehend him, only to verify that the urchin is stealing only to fill his or her little belly.

So what is the pally to do? Should he turn the child over to the authorites and have him or her put to death? Or should he let the urchin get by with it and go on to live a life of crime in order to survive? The answer is neither.

Instead, the pally should do something similar to this - impress on the child that - even though hunger was the reason for the theft - that stealing is wrong even if it is a matter of survival. Then, provide alternatives to stealing (in this case, do honest work for honest pay). Then, find a way for the urchin to actually take advantage of the alternative (possibly by taking the urchin in as a page or squire so that the paladin can teach and lead the urchin to better things). Of course, the urchin would have to make sure he or she paid the fair worth of thing stolen (maybe by purchasing something else under the watchful eye of the pally and then paying something extra as well in oprder to make up for the theft - all without the knowledge of the shopkeep, who might try to turn in the urchin, therby leading to the child's death).

These are the kinds of things paladins do!

When this rational is applied to the original question, it follows the same method - verify evil, confront evil, give an alternative to evil. Then if the person commiting the evil takes the alternative, support them in their good deeds. Or, if the refuse to change their wicked ways, smite them. And Smite them if necessary.

 

[Darklone]

Yeah. Paladins should give an example for the common folks without simply killing anything that looks a little bit evil.

In this case, as others have pointed out: That other guys tends towards evil, not away from it... so no cooperation.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

As it has been pointed out: we have different views of the paladin. Mine's that the paladins code depends on his patron deity (and surely on his race - a dwarven paladin will behave differently from a human or halfling one), and he may or may not put the greater good over principles.

Remember that it might not be possible for the kid to earn money in a honest way, and that the paladin might know that.

Neither your nor my vision of the paladin is wrong, but I think mine is more liberal (I'm more a 3e person, loathing the restriction-based AD&D rules, instead liking options)

 

[kigmatzomat]

Just to fun and games I figured I'd actually read the rules. Here's the SRD's description of the Paladin's code.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever willingly commits an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents.


Now individual dieties will have their own flavor of the code. But with this as the only universal baseline, paladins do not HAVE to smite evil creatures where they find them. They don't HAVE to avoid associating with evil beings. They may choose to or it may be part of their diety's specific edicts, but it is not inherent in the class. It means that if an evil creature (follower of hextor) is trying to do something that has a good end result and "acts with honor" while doing so, the paladin can work with them.

If the follower of hextor acts without honor or will have evil ends, the paladin SHOULD act. If he doesn't wander off the path of acceptable behavoir then the paladin is not required to oppose him.

 

[IceBear]

But this has nothing to do with 2nd Edition or 3E. The designers have said that in the generic D&D world evil is real and can be detected by detect evil. There is no moral abiguity - if your alignment contains evil then you are evil. It doesn't matter if you just lie and do minor crimes, you are defined as being evil.

Now, if in your campaign world you do away with this core foundation (ie, do away with alignments and spells that deal with alignments) and deal with morals and actions, then I could see your point.

IceBear

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Our paladin in question could either refuse to work with a servant of en evil entity, or he could watch him (entirely his choice). As soon as our hextor-worshipper commits an evil act (harms an innocent, attacks without provocation, uses deceit), he has to act accordingly (deceit will be uncovered, violence will be answered with violance)

 

[Enkhidu]

As it has been pointed out: we have different views of the paladin.

Fair enough.

Incidentally, I've run into this same sort of problem (slight differences in opinion about behavior as dictated by code and alignement) with all the different alignments. That's one of the big reasons I don't pay all that much attention to them.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, if you notice none of the other d20 WotC games use alignments.

IceBear

 

[clark411]

I was going to post a good long "paladin wouldn't suffer a fiendish companion" post.. but then I read Elder-Basalisk and he pretty much took all the words out of my mouth and went to the trouble of making them far more eloquent than I ever could.. so i'll just throw my 2 cp in with a concurrance.


It seems really odd though, how the paladin in this campaign is required to walk a very fine line but I'm also hearing the DM argue that the fine line isn't the fine line out of the book but instead on a case by case basis... Since the paladin posted on this board with this as a conundrum, can I assume that this fine line isn't explained? Altogether is the paladin a person who steps over lines and then retreats when he makes mistakes (begging and atoning for forgiveness to silent gods) or do they instead recieve some sort of explanation for their behavior? Paladins walking a tight rope doesn't necessarily mean they should do so blindfolded...

Personally, looking at Silverbeard - I'd say the paladin would thwonk him readily- put him out of his misery. If he wants to be a devil, he can do so for eternity as an insignificant petitioner in Hades, rather than an active evil in this world.