Baatorian Law vs Paladin

[pawsplay]

Heh. Oxymoron.

How about: "At least it aint the Abyss"?

At least the Abyss is direct in its purposes. Baator is a perversion of justice.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

A Chaotic society could have tons of laws, they would just not be very consistent in form and purpose.

Kinda sounds like my society's laws...

At least the Abyss is direct in its purposes. Baator is a perversion of justice.

It could also be that Baator is justice without mercy, in some cases...

The Abyss might be more straightforward, but that doesn't make it "better" from a Paladin's perspective. The Nine Hells at least have justice, twisted as it may be. Not that either is a good place for a Paladin to be imprisoned, but if given the choice, I'm pretty sure 100 out of 100 Paladins would agree on the "lesser evil."

 

[pawsplay]

Kinda sounds like my society's laws...



It could also be that Baator is justice without mercy, in some cases...

The Abyss might be more straightforward, but that doesn't make it "better" from a Paladin's perspective. The Nine Hells at least have justice, twisted as it may be. Not that either is a good place for a Paladin to be imprisoned, but if given the choice, I'm pretty sure 100 out of 100 Paladins would agree on the "lesser evil."

Sometimes a lesser heresy is more offensive than an opposite doctrine. Speaking hypothetically, while a paladin would consider "might makes right" anathemic to his principles it is at least a comprehensible viewpoint and somewhat congruent in respects that force has a purpose in asserting the will of individuals. On the other hand, a belief like "the weak must be culled" would be unacceptable to the paladin, even though ultimately they may agree in the value of creating fitness, because it implies a moral positive to destroying someone who is innocent. "I'm culling you because I feel like it" is more amoral and less immoral than "the weak must be culled."

I would not classify LE as being "the lesser evil" and I think that's a common fallacy. I don't think a paladin would consider LE less evil simply because it's more lawful. Generally speaking, Law tends to have the consequence of making evil worse and good better. Conversely, Chaos makes evil and good more personal. Since the paladin is lawful, the consequences are likely to be a stronger consideration. A CG person might consider LG "the lesser of two Lawfuls," but a LG person, to consider LE "the lesser of two evils" would have to agree that less evil has occured. The CG person has the privilege of preferring a LE regime to a LG one if they feel it punishes the correct parties. LG? No such option.

Paladins do not weigh Law and Good equally. They can lose their status for becoming un-Lawful, but they can lose their powers for a single Evil act. In fact, because the Good alignment espouses certain moral tests of dignity and protecting life, while it will not trump Law, Law would tend to obey Good's demands. It's Lawful Good, not Goodly Lawful. Obeying both Law and Good means you can make certain things prerequisite only if it is congruent with both alignments. Everything else is, by definition, lower on the ethical totem pole.

 

[Voadam]

Here's the situation that has come up in one of my sessions where I am a DM.

One of the PCs, a female paladin, by bad luck and poor choices ended up as a prosinor and slave to a horned devil in the lawful evil plane of Baator. And the question of how far does a paladins lawfulness goes came up. A paladin normally must abide by the law of the land, but what if that land is the Nine Hells. Does she follow the laws of Baator in order to simply survive long enough to escape, or does she follow the laws out of her lawful nature (forgoing any evil acts of course). Further more, does following the law of the Nine Hells make her non-good, or on the flip side does breaking the laws there make her unlawful?

I would give her a lot of lattitude under the RAW

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

She can lose her paladin abilities for willingly committing an evil act.

She can loser her paladin abilities for GROSSLY violating her code of conduct.

She can lose her paladin abilities if she ceases to be CE.

Evil:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Not much to go on for evil acts under the RAW, but mostly if she is not debasing or destroying innocent life she is not an evil character. Debasing or destroying innocent life seems the big call out. I'd be guided by that.

The code requires respecting legitimate authority. I would be hard pressed to find that disobeying baatorian law is a GROSS violation of the need to respect LEGITIMATE authority.

For changing alignments you have to sort of hunt around to find stuff about it.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment

. . .

Normally, changing alignment is up to the player.

But note

Helm of Opposite Alignment
This metal hat looks like a typical helmet. When placed upon the head, however, its curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required. The curse only works once; that is, a character whose alignment has been changed cannot change it again by donning the helmet a second time.

Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.) If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.

Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp;Weight 3 lb.

So unless she chooses to become non-lawful good or puts on a helm of opposite alignment she should be OK with her alignment and with her paladin powers.

The rest I would leave up to her to roleplay out without mechanical alignment consequences.

 

[Dausuul]

This is the problem with the Law/Chaos axis. There are four or five different definitions of what Lawful and Chaotic mean, and the PHB conflates them all into a single axis.

Do bear in mind, however, that the paladin ethos clearly places Good above Law in terms of importance - paladins who commit chaotic acts have to atone, but paladins who commit evil acts Fall.

Basically, would the situation that resulted in the paladin becoming enslaved be considered morally and ethically legitimate by the laws of her order and deity? If so--say, for example, the paladin made a bargain "Let these innocents go, and I'll stay"--then she has made her bed and must lie in it, although she should probably keep an eye out for violations of whatever agreement or conditions started the transaction. That, however, falls more under 'keeping your word' than 'respect for law'. If it's a case of force or fraud on the cornugon's part, though, then grab the nearest spoon and start digging.

I would agree with this, not because of the "by-the-book" alignment definition (since that definition is not at all clear) but because it fits what I think a paladin should do.

 

[Andor]

Also note that Devils are smart and patient. He's not going to say "Welcome to Hell. Now eat this puppy." He's not going to bring her alignment and her actions into conflict for a while, and it will be a gradual and slippery slope.

 

[Celebrim]

Here's the situation that has come up in one of my sessions where I am a DM.

One of the PCs, a female paladin, by bad luck and poor choices ended up as a prosinor and slave to a horned devil in the lawful evil plane of Baator. And the question of how far does a paladins lawfulness goes came up. A paladin normally must abide by the law of the land...

This is where the confusion comes from. A paladin is in no ways bound to abide by 'the law of the land'. A paladin is bound to abide by the laws of a lawful and good authority that they recognize. A paladin that is traveling abides by the lawful authority of that land in so much as doing so does not contridict his duty or the necessity to do good.

but what if that land is the Nine Hells.

On one level, this is a very uninteresting question. The fact that the land is 'the Nine Hells' doesn't really matter. So long as obedience to the lawful authority of that land does not contridict his higher duty, then he will obey the lawful authority. But, in this case it is very easy to imagine that obeying devils is going to contridict his duties as a Paladin and a Paladin would be to say the least loath to enter into any non-adversarial relationship with a devil. I would go as far as to suggest that you couldn't remain a Paladin should you find yourself with some sort of personal duty to obey the powers of Hell. So at one level, the answer to this question is probably going to be in practice the very straight forward and intuitive, "His duties require him not to obey the powers of Hell."

On another level though, this raises a very interesting point - to what extent do the lawful authorities of Good (with a lawful bent) share duties with the lawful authorities of Evil. That is, does a treaty of some sort exist between these powers, and does each side recognize the other as having certain rights and obligations as part of an orderly universe? For example, do the lawful good authorities recognize perhaps the right of the lawful evil authorities to the souls of the condemned, and vica versa, of the right of the lawful good authorities to the souls of the redeemed? Are there points of law that they could share between them, and if so what would they agree on?

Such answers are probably too dependent on a specific campaign world to answer here, but it does raise the real possibility that a 'Paladin in Hell' could lawyer his way around some situations by forcing the devils to adhere to their own laws. To a certain extent, as the Paladin is an 'honorable foe', I would also think that the question here is equally, to what extent are the devils bound by their own laws to treat fairly with a Paladin? That isn't to say that they aren't hellbent on subverting, tricking, and decieving such a foe, but I think they'd be forced to do so within the letter of their own code of behavior - whatever that is.

Does she follow the laws of Baator in order to simply survive long enough to escape, or does she follow the laws out of her lawful nature (forgoing any evil acts of course). Further more, does following the law of the Nine Hells make her non-good, or on the flip side does breaking the laws there make her unlawful?

It's inconcievable that you could follow the laws of a lawful good domain without being good, and equally inconcievable that you could follow the laws of a lawful evil domain without being evil. Such laws would be intrinsicly good or evil and would codify a life that would be utterly benevolent or depraved. I would say that a Paladin is bound to follow the laws of Baator only insofar as those laws are just and fair. Afterall, for all that separates the two powers, they are united in a common opposition to lawlessness, individuality, license, disorder, and so forth. However, as even two lawful good powers might have very different laws in the details and practices thereof, it is very hard for me to imagine how an utterly good code and an utterly evil code would share much in common.