Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[IanB]

Hyp's argument is interesting but IMC at least, it is completely trumped by the fact that we're talking about an imp - which is to say, an evil outsider, a physical embodiment of the philisophical concepts that a paladin exists to oppose.

It is safe for me to say, in fact, that a paladin who didn't take steps to destroy an evil outsider who had deceived him in this way (assuming that the fiend is something the paladin can reasonably take on without throwing his life away) would be in big trouble with his church, deity, and/or conscience, unless by sparing the imp in the short term a greater good was being served.

Paladins vs. fiends = no mercy, no question in my game.

Now, if it had been a shady rogue or something who had tricked him, that is different, but outsiders are a different creature type for a reason.

 

[Shadeydm]

Unless the Paladin had been regularly bending/breaking "the code" I don't think I would take away his powers for this particular infraction as an isolated incident. Instead I think a message from above in the form of a vision or dream which clearly communicated the displeasure of the higher power the Paladin is serving would be fine.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm so proud, since I'm pretty sure by the details listed that I wrote the adventure Sam is running. War of the Burning Sky, right? If that's the case, I have some, ahem, suggestions for later adventures that you might want to bear in mind, since I like me my moral dilemmas, and there are quite a few of them in the campaign saga.


Every group has to come to its own consensus on what is reasonable for paladins, but in my opinion, I have to agree with . . . one of the many posters above. Whenever someone wants to play a paladin, the following should happen.

Guide to Cutting Down on Needless Arguments
1. The GM and player discuss what their respective views of how a paladin should behave are.

2. The GM suggests what he'll be comfortable with, but as long as it sounds like the player is playing the paladin because he's interested in having a noble character, the GM promises to respect the player's interpretation of his character's code. If it sounds instead like the player wants to play a paladin to prove a point or to piss off another player (or the GM), the GM should heavily advise against such a character, the same way he would with any disruptive character.

3. The GM should explain to the rest of the group, "There is not just one 'right' answer to what constitutes a proper code of honor for a paladin, so even if you disagree with his version, it's not worth arguing about outside the game. Of course, if your character would have a disagreement with the paladin in-game, go for it, but let's not have real-life bitterness over what happens in a game where we kill stuff with dice."



Then, in the game, the paladin decides he has been deceived by a monster, and that letting the monster live would be emboldening evil. He attacks the monster, and the GM asks, "Do you think this is within the bounds of your paladin's code? It sounds a little dishonorable because of x, y, and z."

The player says, "But a, b, and c make me think this is the right course of action."

The GM says, "Okay. Go for it. Your god trusted you enough to make you a paladin, so he trusts you enough to not violate your code."


Then, later, the paladin has to make a decision between accepting the bargain of a devil so it doesn't kill him and his party, or trying to fight it and probably dying. The devil's bargain requires the party to look the other way as it commits an evil act, but if they refuse and the devil manages to kill them, many might perish.

The paladin bristles at the choice the devil offers, and is ready to attack, but the GM says, "This isn't the same situation as last time. Is failing your mission worth it just so you can take a swing at a monster? Remember, it's always possible to atone for associating with evil for the sake of the greater good. After atoning, you can accomplish this mission, and many people are counting on you to do so. But you can't finish the mission if you die. What do you decide?"

If the player decides his character's code requires him to fight, but that the greater good requires him to agree to the devil's bargain, then take away his powers, but give him a chance to atone. He has, after all, decided what his code requires. If instead the player decides that his character's code is lenient enough to allow suffering evil to live for the sake of the greater good, then don't take away his powers.

 

[RangerWickett]

By the way, does it strike anyone else as a little odd that devils often commit small acts of good to further the cause of greater evil, such as helping a man's dying lover so he'll be drawn to the dark side, or giving a powerful weapon to a priest so he can kill a monster, in exchange for the priest not smiting him. Even though devils are supposedly "pure evil," they're able to do small bits of good.

Yet many gamers don't let paladins perform even the smallest evil acts. For some reason, they expect paladins to be more 'pure' of good than devils are 'pure' of evil.

Some theologians say that angels have no free will, because they can only perform the will of God. Paladins aren't angels, though. They have free will, and so they can make choices with some wiggle room. If you don't think paladins ever have choices, if you think that when one becomes a paladin one surrenders your free will to your god, then dammit, have the GM play them. When I play a character, I want to be able to decide how I act.

For the record, WotBS was not designed to be a story of black and white, evil and good. It's a war. People in the war are fighting for what they believe in, and few of them are evil. Most are neutral, but a few, even among the PCs' enemies, are actually good. They want to bring the war to an end, and only want to stop those fighting so they can get more power, not those who are fighting for a cause they believe in, or to defend their homelands.

There are, of course, some truly vile villains, some foes who you shouldn't feel any qualms about kicking the ass of. But I hope people playing it don't see all the enemies as pure evil, but instead come to learn that everyone is fighting for a reason, and just because someone's reasons are different doesn't make them evil, or unworthy of life.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Nothing was mentioned like: General, "Ok, paladin, if there's a fiend in there, don't attack it." Paladin, "Yes, sir."

Uh... "Truce" means "There's to be no violence unless the other side initiates it first." It does not include exceptions, unless those are spelled out in advance. The fact that the erinyes is a fiend means the paladin has to be careful, and has to watch out for charms and telepathy, but it is not, in and of itself, justification for breaking the truce. At worst, it means the paladin strongly suggests to the general that they depart and renegotiate the terms of the truce.

So, if the bad general says, here's my advisor, Ms. Erinyes. And then the paladin's sword 'slips' out of its sheath--"Sorry, general, you know how these sentient weapons are when they get worked up!"--and into the chest of the Erinyes. There's nothing deceptive about that. It's rather straightforward.

Is the sword actually intelligent? Did it actually act on its own, forcing the paladin to use it against his will?

If not, then yes, it's deceptive. Being honest doesn't mean making up a story that could be true. It means telling the truth. Obfuscating and lying and using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law is what devils (and lawyers) do. It's beneath a paladin, and it doesn't qualify as "truthful" at all.

If they can cut short a war to spare thousands of lives by taking out the general and advisor, then that is the greater good being served. The evil general, bringing in an Erinyes, would have no intention of complying with a truce, instead using the meeting (and stalling tactics) to draw information from the good general and the paladin to give them an advantage.

That's an assumption. The paladin cannot know it's true. And even if he does, once he agrees, the paladin is bound by the truce until/unless the other side breaks it; suspicion of breaking it is not sufficient.

This is actually spelled out in, among other sources, the Book of Exalted Deeds. Paladins and exalted characters must keep the greater good in mind, but they cannot perform evil acts to serve the greater good; those acts are still evil, and they're still forbidden.

Violating an agreed-upon truce, or violating an agreement purely because the other party is evil, is specifically forbidden by one of the examples in that book.

Matter of opinion. Maybe the general warned him, "use your powers and if there is a threat to negotiations, take it out." Maybe not. That is a hypothetical situation and I proposed only one hypothetical response.

If that was the case, obviously it changes things. But that wasn't mentioned in the example. And even if it were, the mere presence of the fiend isn't enough to qualify as a threat to negotiations; he'd have to know that she was actively attempting to influence the general. Otherwise, there's no functional difference between the advisor being a fiend or being an evil wizard with access to detect thoughts and charm person.

Not true either. In my comment, the paladin said nothing about healing. Nothing deceitful about that, the paladin's intentions at that point would be painfully clear.

Offering to "lay on hands" is a clear implication of healing. You're once again falling back on a "letter vs. spirit" argument that is completely inappropriate for a paladin. That's the sort of logic and argument that devils use, not paragons of honesty. A half-truth, or a lie of omission, is still dishonest.

Again, no deceit involved. The paladin never said "accident", only that his "sword seemed to have a life of its own...." Nothing deceitful there, just a diplomatic way of stating that he struck down a fiend.

Again, lies by omission and implication are still dishonest. The rule is that a paladin must be honest and honorable.

Frankly, playing a paladin like a trial lawyer, looking for loopholes and exceptions, is missing the entire point of the class as written. There are plenty of other classes that don't adhere to the code, that can be good and deceptive. The paladin is not one of them. If a player doesn't want to play a stand-up, chivalrous, honest hero, the solution is for them to pick a different class, not to try to find exceptions to the paladin's code.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yet many gamers don't let paladins perform even the smallest evil acts.

I suspect that's becuase they take the rule that says "loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act" - which doesn't really leave a lot of wiggle room as written - and apply it.

-Hyp.

 

[SlagMortar]

There is due to be a battle. You're a paladin, advisor and confidant of the general of your army. The general has reason to want the battle delayed a couple of days - perhaps reinforcements are en route, or preparations need to be made, or whatever. To this end, he has arranged a parlay with the opposition.

The two generals will meet under a flag of truce to discuss matters. Each general may bring one associate. Your general chooses you.

When you reach the site of the parlay, you discover that the opposing general has chosen, as his associate, an Erinyes.

Do you, as a Paladin, have a right to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil? After all, you weren't informed beforehand that he'd be bringing a fiend to the meeting. If you do so, does this mean the entire truce is void, and you are no longer obliged to honour the opposing general's safe conduct either?

Do you, as a Paladin, have a duty to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil?

Do you, as a Paladin, have a responsibility to withdraw from the negotiations, so as not to 'willingly associate with an evil creature'?

A paladin - as written in the PHB - should never enter any agreement that does not contain a clause like "But you know I'm a paladin and my first duty is to those oaths to fight evil." The general, respecting that, should have communicated to the opposing general that he was bringing along a paladin who is sworn to fight evil wherever it lies and the safe conduct of evil persons can not be guaranteed. If the general thinks the other army doesn't have any non-evil persons to send, then he should not bring the paladin along. If the opposing general brings evil people or fiends anyway, then the paladin is free to attack or not without violating the agreement.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

If the opposing general brings evil people or fiends anyway, then the paladin is free to attack or not without violating the agreement.

The problem I have with this kind of argumentation (and most of Hawken's, too) is that it doesn't represent "good."

The arguement is that "the paladin is good because in actively killing demons and devils he is fulfilling the goodness of his class." As if actively killing demons and devils makes him good. But the truth is that actively killing demons and devils is not what makes him good. If killing demons and devils made a person good, then demons and devils (who kill each other in the great war that they have) would be highly conflicted! By killing each other they would be setting themselves on the path to righteousness! That is ridiculous, and it leads to this conclusion: The act of killing a demon or devil does not inherently make one good!

Now, the act of freeing someone from under the influence of a demon or devil does make one good. The act of restoring hope to a land being dominated by demons and devils does make one good. But simply pulling out one's sword and butchering a demon or devil does not make one good! To adopt a powerful saying into D&D: "What makes killing demons and devils good? Even demons and devils do that much themselves!"

I realize that there are times and places for killing demons and devils. But killing one just because it is present is simply killing. There is nothing inherently "good" about it.

 

[SlagMortar]

I realize that there are times and places for killing demons and devils. But killing one just because it is present is simply killing. There is nothing inherently "good" about it

That is why I said "free to attack or not." The paladin can use his judgment to determine whether killing the fiend now does the most good or not killing the fiend now does the most good. A paladin should never enter into an agreement where one of the stipulations is "no killing devils."

A paladin should:
1. Always be free to decide what is best.
2. Only make agreements under which he can still adhere to and allow for #1.

This may mean some people will not enter into an agreement with the paladin because the paladin can not say, "I will follow 100% of your orders" or "I will guarantee your safety even if you are a fiend." That's part of doing business without compromising beliefs. For example, a paladin might have to say to a king asking his allegience, "I will fight for what is honorable and true and I believe your cause is just. I will pledge my sword to your cause as long as it continues to be so." If that's not good enough for the king, then the paladin has no business giving his fealty. If that prevents some greater good from happening, then that's too bad because the ends do not justify the means. I'm not saying it is the only logical philosophy, but I believe it is the paladin's philosophy.

Now, the act of freeing someone from under the influence of a demon or devil does make one good.

Isn't this what demons and devils do when fighting eachother? I would also argue that the war of demons vs devils is, in fact, very "good", though its motives are not. It prevents either side from focusing its attention on the prime material plane and thus frees many peoples who would otherwise be oppressed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Isn't this what demons and devils do when fighting eachother? I would also argue that the war of demons vs devils is, in fact, very "good", though its motives are not. It prevents either side from focusing its attention on the prime material plane and thus frees many peoples who would otherwise be oppressed.

We have an archmage who says to himself, "Now, shall I annihilate the adult population of the neighbouring kingdom and enslave all their children, or shall I have breakfast?"

Annihilating the adult population of the neighbouring kingdom and enslaving all their children is an evil act.

If he instead chooses to have breakfast, this saves all those neighbours from annihilation and enslavement. Does that make having breakfast an act of good?

To me, having breakfast is neutral - neither evil nor good.

If an army of devils oppresses people, that's evil. If an army of devils doesn't oppress people, that's not evil... but being not-evil doesn't automatically make it good.

Similarly, the archmage might decide to forego breakfast; now his decision is between attacking neighbour kingdom A, or attacking neighbour kingdom B. If he chooses to attack A, this means that B is spared the attentions of a powerful evil villain! His choice has saved the lives of thousands of innocent citizens of B! Does this balance out the evil of his invasion of A? I'd say not.

So whether the devils are waging a genocidal war against the demons, or waging a genocidal war against the humans, isn't the basic point that either way, they're waging a genocidal war? The fact that this means they aren't doing other stuff isn't relevant; what's relevant is what they are doing.

-Hyp.