(Discussion) Red Wizards and Paladins Code of Ethics Issue

[Thels]

The PrC's found in the 3.5 DMG are those listed by Mithreander and the Red Wizard of Thay. Since going by the SRD was already decided earlier, that makes things simple, he's out

IMHO, the Red Wizard is included more as an example for creating realmrelated PrC's than as a usefull PrC in generic DnD. It also has requirements that aren't available in generic DnD, like Tattoo Magic.

Anyhow, since LEW is all about custom player options, Janos could come up with his own order of evil magi. I wouldn't call them Red Wizards though. Using Red Wizards will get too restrictive as a lot of stuff is attached to them (including opposing PrC's etc...).

As for Paladins and Evil, that's something debatable too. IMHO, characters don't radiate evil just because their alignment is evil. They actually have had done an obvious evil act in the past in order to be detectable by abilities such as 'detect evil'. This way, paladins could travel around with characters with evil alignments, but if those characters start killing people without reason, animate dead without authorization, etc..., they are clearly evil, and paladins can no longer accompany them. Exception: Clerics worshipping an evil god and Blackguards attain an Aura of Evil right away, so they're clearly evil.

 

[Lichtenhart]

As for Paladins and Evil, that's something debatable too. IMHO, characters don't radiate evil just because their alignment is evil. They actually have had done an obvious evil act in the past in order to be detectable by abilities such as 'detect evil'. This way, paladins could travel around with characters with evil alignments, but if those characters start killing people without reason, animate dead without authorization, etc..., they are clearly evil, and paladins can no longer accompany them. Exception: Clerics worshipping an evil god and Blackguards attain an Aura of Evil right away, so they're clearly evil.

IMHO, if have never done any obvious evil act in the past, they should not be of evil alignment. I think PHB is quite clear saying that evil pc are out there to do what they want at the expense of others and they really do it, they don't simply consider it. If thinking evil things is sufficient to be evil, then all the DMs in the world are evil.
A character who would sometimes commit an evil act is still neutral IMHO.

 

[Gurdjieff]

When DOES a character become Evil? After enough evil acts? When their intentions are evil? When even thinking of evil?
If a character can not become before they have acted that way, and people do play an evil character, then everyone should have some sort of background in which they point out these evil acts. As Thebis-Ra's story isn't evil in my eyes, he IS evil, in which case the paladin shouldn't be allowed to travel with him.

Now my point is; does the character have the right allignment? His intentions are evil, but his acts (as far as described) are not. Which would make him lawful neutral with evil intentions or something, or maybe even lawful good with evil intentions. The point of Detect Evil is to reveal the person's true being, which way a paladin at lvl1 can easily see through bad lies and such. At higher levels, when people get the ability to avoid detect evil, Sense Motive becomes more important for the Paladin to avoid working with the wrong people.

If you make it so a paladin can not judge a person without witnessing their actions, what use is Detect Evil at that point? If someone Evil does not radiate an aura before they act that way, why are they evil in the first place? I think the problem with this debate is more the way the allignment has been used than a problem with the Code. Why is one Evil again? Oh yeah, because they are acting evil more than they act good. The Paladin, a defender of Good, cannot travel with this person. This seems perfectly logical to me, unless the Paladin decides to take time and show the person the path of Good and keep the Evil person on the Good path. Now this can be very hard for a player to deal with; why listen to this Paladin, he can easily be ignored.

My suggestion is to add to the Code that a paladin CAN travel with someone Evil, but that he should try and keep him from doing Evil. Doing so would be way better than just sending the Evil one away, for this will strenghtened this person's hatred versus Good.
I would keep the way Evil is detected by Detect Evil, but making sure that the allignments are fitting. When Evil is detected it should be a warning, not something to confuse the Paladin (or Cleric, for the matter of detecting) with. People who choose to play Evil should be REALLY Evil in playstyle, not just by putting it on paper. Maybe a DM should see to it that their players play their allignment the right way, or risk an allignment change? This way the Paladin people will learn to trust the Paladin, as he can make sure the people they travel and work with do not have any intentions of backstabbing, stealing, etc.
In the case of Rogier the Paladin and Thebis-Ra the LE Fighter, Rogier detected his Evilness and explained everyone the way someone would radiate such an aura. Now, unless Thebis-Ra was able to deflect this whole story by saying how Good he was, with only one flaw to his Goodness; his hatred versus those Red Wizards. This would NOT make one Evil, but rather Neutral in my eyes. Thus radiating an Evil aura would show the Paladin that this person is hiding something, something big, something which would probably be a big risk to the party. However, Janos told me OoC that he didn't lie about his background, his intentions, etc. The Paladin seems false IC, because the allignment of Thebis-Ra wasnt applied right. If it had been the right allignment (non-evil), none of this would have been a problem.

Just my 2cp. =].

 

[Janos Audron]

blah and:

I would keep the way Evil is detected by Detect Evil, but making sure that the allignments are fitting. When Evil is detected it should be a warning, not something to confuse the Paladin (or Cleric, for the matter of detecting) with. People who choose to play Evil should be REALLY Evil in playstyle, not just by putting it on paper. Maybe a DM should see to it that their players play their allignment the right way, or risk an allignment change? This way the Paladin people will learn to trust the Paladin, as he can make sure the people they travel and work with do not have any intentions of backstabbing, stealing, etc.
In the case of Rogier the Paladin and Thebis-Ra the LE Fighter, Rogier detected his Evilness and explained everyone the way someone would radiate such an aura. Now, unless Thebis-Ra was able to deflect this whole story by saying how Good he was, with only one flaw to his Goodness; his hatred versus those Red Wizards. This would NOT make one Evil, but rather Neutral in my eyes. Thus radiating an Evil aura would show the Paladin that this person is hiding something, something big, something which would probably be a big risk to the party. However, Janos told me OoC that he didn't lie about his background, his intentions, etc. The Paladin seems false IC, because the allignment of Thebis-Ra wasnt applied right. If it had been the right allignment (non-evil), none of this would have been a problem.

Just my 2cp. =].

See, there are large parts untold here. For example, how would Thebis-Ra deal with sleeping opponents? If he has to retrieve an item and the opposition gets hit by a Sleep spell, he'd CDG them, even if they weren't Evil. Thebis-Ra doesn't care about the body count, about collateral damage, he cares about the coin. Just because I tell you a story, and that story is true, doesn't necessarily mean you know the *entire* story...

 

[Living Enworld Judge]

I see no reason that a Paladin could not travel with someone that was 'Evil' with the intentions of changing that person's outlook towards a more benevolent one. Paladins do not have such high Charisma merely for the purpose of the Power-Game aspect of Divine Grace, if folks understand what I am saying. This is a role playing game, and in the interest of seeing good roleplaying (and not just another 'you are Evil, I am Good, we must fight/oppose one another/whatever) let us move forward and try and get a proper Role-Playing environment off the ground. ENWorld is full of folks that have oppossing Alignments eho have to interact everyday, as does our own World.

Consider this 'Official ENWorld Doctrine'.

Paladins will not lose their abilities/need to Attone.whatever merely for traveling with someone of Evil alignment, providing that they are either
a>Actively trying to sway that person's point of View and Alignment to a more Good, or at least Neutral outlook, or
B>'Watching and/or Guarding' against that person's Evil actions and/or motives.

There may be an issue with just how long the Paladin could travel with the person, though until he was sure that the person wasn't going to 'change their ways' is a good point.

 

[Macbeth]

That sounds like a very reasonable solution. Glad this discussion finally yielded a decision. Just out of curiosity, which judge posted this? (Not that it matters, just curious. Sounds like it was CS)

There may be an issue with just how long the Paladin could travel with the person, though until he was sure that the person wasn't going to 'change their ways' is a good point.

Are we going to leave the definition of how long a paladin can travel with an evil character up to the individual DM and the judge watching the adventure? That sounds reasonable, and with the judges involved there won't be cases of one DM letting it go indefinately while one will only let them travel (without a conversion of the evil character) for a certain time.


Doubt thou the stars are fire;
Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
William Shakespeare, Hamlet. Act ii. Sc. 2.

 

[Thels]

I'd say, allow the paladin to travel with the evil character as long as:

A) The evil character shows progress of shifting his alignment towards Neutral on the Good-Evil axis.
B) There's quite a chance the Paladin can prevent the evil character from bringing harm in the near future.

 

[Uriel]

The judge was me, Macbeth.

-Uriel