Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[IanB]

If a paladin couldn't "associate" with an evil individual for such a dinner as suggested, how could he ever attempt to redeem someone who wasn't already his prisoner? I think some people are taking the "associate" clause a bit too far.

I'm arguing from the point of view that devils, etc., are a special case and effectively irredeemable. An evil human would be a much different scenario.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'm arguing from the point of view that devils, etc., are a special case and effectively irredeemable. An evil human would be a much different scenario.

Wouldn't a dinner date with an evil human trigger the exact same clause of association (if you think that constitutes association) that the evil outsider does? It doesn't say 'Will never knowingly associate with evil characters, except it's okay to associate with non-outsiders for a little bit, maybe, but definitely not outsiders, not even a little'.

 

[IanB]

Emphasis added by me. Planescape, by definition, uses the default D&D cosmology. If you admit that it's okay in a Planescape game, then it's okay in a regular D&D game that goes to the outer planes

Weellll... sort of. Planescape, as a pre-3E setting, is full of all sorts of odd little exceptions to the 3.5 presentation of things and as such I don't really see it as canon to the core setting at this point, personally (not that I am arguing that my own current take on things is any closer - nor am I saying that I wouldn't go more for a Planescape-type approach in another game, etc.) For example, the 3E FR cosmology is no longer that used in old Planescape stuff, despite the fact that Planescape products still think that the FR use their cosmology, FR-related NPCs show up in many products, etc.

 

[Patlin]

So, is it ok for a paladin to have dinner with a different evil person every Tuesday?

I checked a few dictionaries, and they don't have perfect agreement on the definition either. Here's Merriam-Webster's:

intransitive verb
1 : to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions

I think it depends on the purpose. If you have dinner because your buddies, you're associating, and a code violation. If you have dinner in an effort to advance some good cause, to try to redeem the villain, to gather information (maybe your palladin is a cop and the 'dinner date' is his snitch) or otherwise to conduct some sort of business, that's perfectly OK. Your snitch isn't your partner, friend, or companion... there are lots of reasons you might have to deal with someone that wouldn't make the person your associate.

Heck, you might even have the head of a whole order of Paladins dedicated to Heironeous asked to serve on his Lawfull Neutral monarch's council, right alongside the head of an order of Knights dedicated to Hextor. Showing up to the King's council wouldn't IMO violate the association clause.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Weellll... sort of. Planescape, as a pre-3E setting, is full of all sorts of odd little exceptions to the 3.5 presentation of things and as such I don't really see it as canon to the core setting at this point, personally (not that I am arguing that my own current take on things is any closer - nor am I saying that I wouldn't go more for a Planescape-type approach in another game, etc.) For example, the 3E FR cosmology is no longer that used in old Planescape stuff, despite the fact that Planescape products still think that the FR use their cosmology, FR-related NPCs show up in many products, etc.

Ah FR...I've never met an FR fan who both knows of the random and pointless change and doesn't despise and ignore it. And I don't even mean it in the weaker sense where they're allowed to be ambivalent as long as they don't like it. I wouldn't take that as Planescape not describing the default D&D cosmology (indeed, by all other accounts it does, include the recent Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but more of a "designers made an inscrutable and very stupid change to the FR cosmology with no clear or defined possible outcome other than to enrage fans"

 

[IanB]

Wouldn't a dinner date with an evil human trigger the exact same clause of association (if you think that constitutes association) that the evil outsider does? It doesn't say 'Will never knowingly associate with evil characters, except it's okay to associate with non-outsiders for a little bit, maybe, but definitely not outsiders, not even a little'.

Well, first off, I think it is fairly clear from the context of "associate" in the code of conduct that it mostly means "go adventuring with" - the first half of the sentence is "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment..."

But yeah, I do see a clear distinction between devils and people and that extends to what sort of behavior is appropriate for a paladin with regard to making deals with them, plot-required or not - or trying to convert them. One is actually possible, and could thus be allowed.

 

[IanB]

Ah FR...I've never met an FR fan who both knows of the random and pointless change and doesn't despise and ignore it. And I don't even mean it in the weaker sense where they're allowed to be ambivalent as long as they don't like it. I wouldn't take that as Planescape not describing the default D&D cosmology (indeed, by all other accounts it does, include the recent Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but more of a "designers made an inscrutable and very stupid change to the FR cosmology with no clear or defined possible outcome other than to enrage fans"

Well, I certainly can't describe myself as an FR fan, but I do have to say when I saw the change I thought "hey, alright, they've made an attempt to make the cosmology fit the setting rather than having the setting fit a cosmology that was designed for something else." Seemed like a good idea to me, but I don't run a FR game.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, first off, I think it is fairly clear from the context of "associate" in the code of conduct that it mostly means "go adventuring with" - the first half of the sentence is "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment..."

But yeah, I do see a clear distinction between devils and people and that extends to what sort of behavior is appropriate for a paladin with regard to making deals with them, plot-required or not - or trying to convert them. One is actually possible, and could thus be allowed.

I agree with you on the definition of 'associate'. Now that you have admitted as such and we can take that line off the table, please point to the line in the Paladin's Code of Conduct that prevents him from having dinner with Anyiel. I don't see a single one. Now, it's perfectly reasonable and cool for you, as the GM or as the player, to add in extra lines to the Paladin's Code that aren't actually in the RAW--in fact, Nonlethal Force has been consistently encouraging coming up with separate deity-appropriate Paladin's Codes for different deities. But if you agree with me on associate, then by the RAW Paladin's Code, there is no violation in the dinner date.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, I certainly can't describe myself as an FR fan, but I do have to say when I saw the change I thought "hey, alright, they've made an attempt to make the cosmology fit the setting rather than having the setting fit a cosmology that was designed for something else." Seemed like a good idea to me, but I don't run a FR game.

I don't really run FR at all anymore, but I used to extensively. As you may have guessed, I find that change was superfluous and terrible. The new cosmology was actually significantly a worse fit for FR and contradicted many years of fun and useful bits of FR material. Keeping many of the planes similar and renaming them was just superfluous and silly, but the worst thing was when they started adding in these new planes that had once been layers of other planes. But that's a story for a very different thread

 

[IanB]

I agree with you on the definition of 'associate'. Now that you have admitted as such and we can take that line off the table, please point to the line in the Paladin's Code of Conduct that prevents him from having dinner with Anyiel. I don't see a single one. Now, it's perfectly reasonable and cool for you, as the GM or as the player, to add in extra lines to the Paladin's Code that aren't actually in the RAW--in fact, Nonlethal Force has been consistently encouraging coming up with separate deity-appropriate Paladin's Codes for different deities. But if you agree with me on associate, then by the RAW Paladin's Code, there is no violation in the dinner date.

Again, as I have maintained all along, that is *entirely* campaign dependent. RAW is insufficient for determining stuff like this (as I think I said several pages ago.) It could, depending on the campaign, be a violation of any of these parts of the code:

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." - this would require a pretty draconian interpretation of "evil act," and would not be *my* interpretation, but it is a possibility.

"respect legitimate authority" - there are plenty of campaign-specific legitimate authorities who may restrict a paladin's behavior with regard to evil outsiders, including very likely in most games (I would think) the paladin's church.

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents." - this is the relevant clause in my own game. Evil outsiders, like an imp, threaten innocents by their very existence. Their entire purpose, their entire existence, is predicated on tempting, corrupting, or just killing innocents. Making a deal with one, going on a dinner date with one, etc., all of these are deliberately passing on a chance to enforce this clause in my current view (which is really a function of how my current game works - as I said before, if I was running an Eberron game or something I would take a different reading.)