Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Rystil Arden]

Interesting thoughts!

I bolded the part that is a fundamental difference in this conversation. I think IanB, Arkhandus, myself, and some others would say "This is true for humans (or sentients with an alignment subtype if you prefer) only." It is not true for fiends.

Only humans can have ambiguous love with psychological baggage that makes it somewhat clingy and selfish? Even IanB agrees that the Succubus could have it as an exemplar of that type of flawed love, and the Yochlol is a specific example of a demon that is listed as (admittedly rarely) doing something very similar to this scenario, including never betraying the lover or doing anything particularly evil, though if former friends kill the lover for wedding a demon, the yochlol will revert after his death and slaughter the killers before returning to the Demonweb Pits.

or the player deciding the paladin has become disillusioned with his diety's low standards as he repeatedly makes what he feels are infractions that are not punished by so much as a bad dream.

That's an interesting characterisation of how your Paladin would feel in my games, but I think it isn't the best one. I don't think I have low standards--I have different ones. To wit, if I remember specifically your opinion (forgive me if I don't--they blend together a bit, you know?) your paladin would feel like he should have lost all powers for the dinner date and he would feel like he shouldn't have so much as a bad dream for betraying his honour to slay Evil Outsiders because agreements with evil outsiders don't count. I would probably make Percival fall for decapitating Erin in her sleep (cleave to the Teddy Bear!). You might have him fall for raising her in a loving household (it's technically associating with an Evil Outsider after all, though she may not in fact have Evil alignment--if she's actually Lawful Neutral, there will be literally no game-rule way to tell the difference from Lawful Evil thanks to having the Evil subtype).

 

[Arkhandus]

Whatever. I'm not going to continue trying to make you understand that D&D worlds have different morality because of how each alignment is a force unto itself in D&D. I've wasted more than enough of my time, twice now, trying to make you understand that there is a difference between D&D alignments and real-world morality. I have made it abundantly clear that I am only arguing about fiends in D&D, who are literally composed of Evil itself, not mortals, who are extremely different in nature.

I'm not going to bother trying to clarify my posts in this thread any further. You just keep on debating in circles about one tangent after another and I'll go do something else rather than frustrate myself any more over this stubborn thread. If you only derive pleasure from stories of gray morality, than good for you, but I don't play D&D, of all things, to just emulate the sucky gray reality that we already live in. The D&D alignment system is not made for tales of gray morality, it's made to clarify what's considered good and what's considered evil in the context of the game setting. It is not there to emulate real-world ethics which are far more complex and unclear.

 

[IanB]

The real lesson to take away here? Phylacteries of faithfulness only cost 1,000 gp. Buy one.

I think I'd be inclined to write off that fallen angel Erinyes stuff as more campaign-specific flavor text, personally - which of course may be the central problem with the paladin code in the first place: it takes flavor text and elevates it to the status of rule.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Whatever. I'm not going to continue trying to make you understand that D&D worlds have different morality because of how each alignment is a force unto itself in D&D. I've wasted more than enough of my time, twice now, trying to make you understand that there is a difference between D&D alignments and real-world morality. I have made it abundantly clear that I am only arguing about fiends in D&D, who are literally composed of Evil itself, not mortals, who are extremely different in nature.

I'm not going to bother trying to clarify my posts in this thread any further. You just keep on debating in circles about one tangent after another and I'll go do something else rather than frustrate myself any more over this stubborn thread. If you only derive pleasure from stories of gray morality, than good for you, but I don't play D&D, of all things, to just emulate the sucky gray reality that we already live in. The D&D alignment system is not made for tales of gray morality, it's made to clarify what's considered good and what's considered evil in the context of the game setting. It is not there to emulate real-world ethics which are far more complex and unclear.

I think that assertion here (and really, it is unique among posters who share similar views to you like SlagMortar and IanB who make interesting points about their games that are fun to think about) has too much hubris and derision for other people's views. It seems to be tewlling people in this thread that they are wrong, they aren't 'playing D&D as it's made to be played'. And who is to say that these are tales of 'gray morality'. I think the dinner date tale is pretty harmless fun that would be interesting to roleplay. It's only gray morality if you've already presupposed that your view must be correct, in which case you've established a circular tautological definition.

But honestly, I'm interested in all different viewpoints. I'd really like to see your thoughts about the discussion, but, as you have mentioned here, when it comes to fiends and love, you have only really posted "Fiends can't love." and sometimes "Fiends can't love because they are made of evil" without really explaining why. I agree that fiends are made of Evil. I still think they can love. I have offered numerous examples from both D&D books and my own head, a few of which (like a Succubus as exemplar of the ultimate clingy love) satisfied some of the others with similar thoughts to you. I would like to see justification from you as to your opinion, as each of the others who offered such have been interesting to me, but I guess if you're just going to leave now it means you don't have any?

Sometimes we find things so self-evident that we can't really explain them. It happens to me all the time too, and that's okay. If that's the case here, I guess you truly have said all you can say, and I wish you good gaming!

 

[Rystil Arden]

The real lesson to take away here? Phylacteries of faithfulness only cost 1,000 gp. Buy one.

I think I'd be inclined to write off that fallen angel Erinyes stuff as more campaign-specific flavor text, personally - which of course may be the central problem with the paladin code in the first place: it takes flavor text and elevates it to the status of rule.

Ah yes, it is worth every penny!

As for the flavour text, I'll admit you can definitely change it. I've seen some truly awesome campaigns where the GM toys with flavour on monsters and other things to create their desired flavour. The only reason it matters to me somewhat that the interpretation is the default core is that my interpretations and ideas have had arguments claiming I'm changing D&D / not playing D&D any more, so I like to point out the sources from regular D&D that at least back me up here.

I'm in agreement with you on the Paladin's Code. I haven't actually had a Lawful Good Paladin player yet in 3.5, though I've had Paladins of Freedom, but I always talk to my players about flavour, cosmological, and alignment issues when they want to have a discussion (one player in particular has sometimes discussed with me for hours). This can be helpful. I also don't feel constrained in houseruling my own Paladin's Codes for each deity that are different from normal (for instance, the FR love goddess Sune is inexplicably yet specifically allowed to have LG Paladins despite being CG. If someone wanted to play one, I would change their code to state that they have to protect and cherish love, which could change the Percival situation dramatically if he only worshipped her instead of Heironeous!)

 

[Hypersmurf]

A fiend cannot love.

It's BoED p7 that has the two succubi, and the "A Paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love" caption, isn't it?

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It's BoED p7 that has the two succubi, and the "A Paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love" caption, isn't it?

-Hyp.

I have that one on hand, let me check--yep, that's the one. I can't believe I didn't remember to mention that caption!

 

[IanB]

It's BoED p7 that has the two succubi, and the "A Paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love" caption, isn't it?

-Hyp.

There's got to be some sort of text over table problem with image captions. Otherwise truespeakers really *could* make themselves immune to mummy paralysis.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There's got to be some sort of text over table problem with image captions. Otherwise truespeakers really *could* make themselves immune to mummy paralysis.

No, that's definitely the correct caption--there's no other picture that fits it, and it is a somewhat reasonable caption (sort of, though still a bit odd if you don't come up with a bigger story in your head to explain it better) if you don't assume that 'Fiends are incapable of love' is a D&D rule.

 

[SlagMortar]

Only humans can have ambiguous love with psychological baggage that makes it somewhat clingy and selfish? Even IanB agrees that the Succubus could have it as an exemplar of that type of flawed love, and the Yochlol is a specific example of a demon that is listed as (admittedly rarely) doing something very similar to this scenario, including never betraying the lover or doing anything particularly evil, though if former friends kill the lover for wedding a demon, the yochlol will revert after his death and slaughter the killers before returning to the Demonweb Pits.

I admit I am not well versed in the interpretations that have been made in various official sources. It sounds like the official answer is that they are both pure Evil and also capable of Good actions with Good motives. I find that contradictory on a philosophical level, though not surprising give the number of authors of official sources and also the entertainment value of a surprise twist ending. It also probably makes for good story telling so I'm fine with that.

That's an interesting characterisation of how your Paladin would feel in my games, but I think it isn't the best one. I don't think I have low standards--I have different ones.

Sorry if I implied you hold your paladins to low standards. I jumped to in-character thinking without clarifying. My paladin might or might not feel that way depending on a host of other character traits. However, if a DM has not talked to a player about it, the DM should be ready for the paladin to become disillusioned by any number of things, including his superior paladins who act differently from himself and possibly even his own diety. Its not that the standards are low, but a paladin character might think the standards are low even if they are actually stricter in some areas he hasn't run into yet.

To wit, if I remember specifically your opinion (forgive me if I don't--they blend together a bit, you know?) your paladin would feel like he should have lost all powers for the dinner date and he would feel like he shouldn't have so much as a bad dream for betraying his honour to slay Evil Outsiders because agreements with evil outsiders don't count.

I didn't specifically say that he shouldn't have a bad dream, though I didn't say that he should, either. Actually, I do think he should have a bad dream and feel bad about breaking his agreement. In my opinion, he should be admonished for making an agreement with an evil outsider, especially since in the original scenario there was no compelling reason to make the agreement in the first place. Paladins should not casually make agreements with parties who refuse to show themselves. He also shouldn't travel with people who casually make such agreements on his behalf.

Surely some of the events I proposed in post 232 would cause you to think it natural for the paladin to break the agreement with the imp. If so, then we only differ on where we draw the line on "is the imp is a threat?" question.

I would probably make Percival fall for decapitating Erin in her sleep (cleave to the Teddy Bear!). You might have him fall for raising her in a loving household (it's technically associating with an Evil Outsider after all, though she may not in fact have Evil alignment--if she's actually Lawful Neutral, there will be literally no game-rule way to tell the difference from Lawful Evil thanks to having the Evil subtype).

First, let's assume Erin was 100% bound to become Evil no matter what, even though that is different from the official (and your) standard assumption. For example, a miracle Percival casts himself with a scroll and Use Magic Device showed that there was no way to prevent Erin from becoming Evil. What if Percival killed her in her sleep, weeping all the way and feeling terrible about this deed he must do in order to spare her from the horror of turning into a creature of Evil? Think of all the "good" vampire stories where the vampire eventually realizes it can not control its cravings and thus ends its own existance after years of misery and guilt caused by hurting/killing others in fits of bloodlust. Wouldn't it possibly be good and merciful to end that before she has to suffer through years of failure and brokenness that leave her only capable of Evil?

It is clearly not "good" from a perspective of "respect for sentients to choose their own fate", but couldn't it be "good" from a "I must protect people even from themselves "kind of way? (caveat: not advocating anything analogous in real life as this is a wholly unrealistic set of assumptions for anything that could possibly happen in the real world. The situation has no real world equivalent. I don't want to get into a real world discussion of where this kind of thinking leads because it is not a good place in really any sense of the word.)