Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Nonlethal Force]

You can't apply your own morals and ethics to even other cultures without causing problems. Muchless an entirely different species. Muchless irredeemably corrupt fiends that spend eternity tormenting souls.

But see, that's just the point. According to WotC materials they're not irredeemable! They are corrupt. They are almost always by default evil. But not irredeemable.

If in your campaign they are irredeemable, then there is little wrong with smiting a demon/devil on sight because what else is it good for? But in general D&D as written by WotC, there is a chance for redemption. If a demon/devil has done nothing wrong that you are aware of by eyewitness or even story account, there is always a chance.

If some people think its wrong to whack an imp just because it hasn't done anything wrong that they witnessed, more luck to 'em!

And in some respects, I think this goes even deeper than just whacking them. It goes to motivation behind the game in general. If playing the game is just about creating cool combat characters that can whack stuff, then who really cares? Go whack 'em and have fun.

But if the players around the table want to have a deeper and more rounded experience full of the possibility of moral angst regarding their decisions and their impact upon the world around them, then they should be allowed to have that as well. From the OP, the fact that a discussion about this broke out signifies that the players are doing more than just hack and slash. Since fiends can be redeemed (no matter how remote the chance) in a general 3.5 WotC campaign, it sounds like a beautiful set-up for moral angst to me!

And for the record, even in my D&D I still support the "unjustified killing for the sake of killing is questionable." There are many paths to righteousness (since we are talking about good/paladins here). Not many of them involve ending life without justification. This is true even in the case of a fiend. You can banish it back to its own plane of existance. You can capture it and take it to authorities that can handle it and potentially redeem it. This type of thinking won't fly in a hack and slash game, but in a game that the players want to do more than just kill, this is the stuff that good stories and campaigns are made of.

If no one is going to accept the default D&D version of fiends as valid or relevant to the discussion, then screw it. I'm not going to waste more time arguing that it is. Heaven forbid I try to get a logical response rather than straw men and red herrings. I can't help it if I'm not perfect at explaining things in words.

I don't think that people are having trouble accepting the default version of fiends (except for the fact that you keep seeming to think that they are irredeemable and you dismiss the chance for redemption so easily). I also don't think that people have been putting up red herrings and straw men. It isn't the defaults that people are having trouble with. The trouble is coming at a moral level, not a game mechanics level. I do think it is legitimate to put into question if slaying anything without provokation is honorable. I think it is legitimate to put into question whether good can enter into a truce with evil in order to defeat another evil. And of course its corollary ... can both parties in the truce still maintain their original alignment stances.

I don't know my geography, is that anywhere near Philly per chance?

I'm about 5 hours from Philly (In a generally northwest direction). I'm about 3 hours to Pittsburgh (In a generally northeast direction).

 

[RigaMortus2]

In this case, we had a hungry paladin sit down in a tavern for lunch. The (short) menu had two choices - beef, 2 silver; or chicken, 2 silver (4 copper from every chicken sold goes to the Widows and Orphans Fund!).

Does the paladin have the right to choose beef? Or is he required to order the chicken, since it supports the helpless?

-Hyp.

He is not required to eat chicken. He can choose the beef so long as he donates at least 4 copper of his own money to Widows and Orphans. This way, the Paladin gets to have the meal he wants, and fulfill "supporting the helpless".

 

[Nonlethal Force]

He is not required to eat chicken. He can choose the beef so long as he donates at least 4 copper of his own money to Widows and Orphans. This way, the Paladin gets to have the meal he wants, and fulfill "supporting the helpless".

Ohhhh! Way to think outside the box.

So let's change the question a bit. He only has 2 silvers on him, and nobody around him has enough money to buy any of his equipment so the most he'll have at the moment is 2 silvers. [I admit, this extra addition is a bit contrived] Now is he required to eat the chicken?

 

[irdeggman]

Let's see:

Is an imp required to have an evil alignment?


It is of the evil subtype and that is so specified:

Evil Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

Is a monster always of the alignment type listed?

Alignment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.

Can a character change his alignment?

DMG pg 134 describes how a character can in fact change his alignment.

Can a character be redeemed?

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 may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Is it possible then for an utterly evil character to atone himself and then become a LG paladin?

Is it possible to have a good aligned vampire?

Etc.

My point was that just because a creature/character is a fiend (or of fiendish descent - half fiend anyone or warlock?) does not mean they are automatically evil in alignment and should automatically be under a death sentence from a standard paladin.

If someone want to ignore all of the rules as written and examples of creatures/characters that are contrary to the standard then they can freely do so but they should recognize that the rules as written are not that strict.


Heck as the rules are written it is even possible to have an imp become a paladin - that would make for a real interesting set of stories.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is a monster always of the alignment type listed?

To be fair, you should also quote what 'Always Alignment X' means:

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary disposition to the alignment or comes from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, bu such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Which is why I don't have an issue with a paladin who doesn't ask questions before attacking a fiend - while it's theoretically possible for it to be non-evil, the likelihood is negligible. It's the sort of question the DA would restrict to Yes or No - "Is it possible, Doctor Mordenkainen - possible, sir - that a fiend might be non-evil?" "Yes, I suppose it's theoretically possible, but the likel-" "Thank you, Doctor, that will be all."

Which is why I'm not taking the paladin to task for attacking the imp. I'm objecting to his attacking an imp in contravention of an agreement not to.

-Hyp.

 

[Hawken]

I'm objecting to his attacking an imp in contravention of an agreement not to.

#1: There was no agreement not to attack the imp at the end of their agreement. The agreement was to work together;, nothing more or less was stated. Which they did. Even the OP stated that. They both met their goals (got their respective items). Any implied truce that came with that agreement ended when both sides met their goals (getting their items). Before then, the paladin didn't attack the imp. After the agreement ended (and the imp for whatever reason didn't get the heck out of there) was when the paladin took out the imp.

#2: As I stated in a previously ignored response, silence does not equal or imply compliance. Whether the paladin was involved in the agreement or not, his silence on the matter does not indicate his agreement to it. And no one apparently bothered to ask him if he agreed to it; they just assumed he did because he was silent on the matter. That's called reserving judgment. He appeared to be going along with the agreement (by not attacking the imp immediately); however, as I stated before, only indicates he prioritized his goals and dealt with the immediate concerns of the group over a different, less immediate threat. Once the group met their goals, their main threat taken care of (and incidentally, the terms of the agreement with the imp met), then he took it out.

#3: Argue all you want. It was a given (by nature of the paladin's class) that unless the imp fled, its very nature as a devil (that had to commit unspeakable crimes to become a devil) meant that the paladin was going to deal with it or attempt to at one point or another. You can try to rationalize your morality into it, but the paladin killed an evil fiend. Period. And the terms of the group's agreement with the creature had been met when it died, so there was no killing it while protected by a truce.

And for those of you that argue the chance for the redemption of fiends or that not all of them are evil; take a trip down to the Abyss or Hell and see how many of them you can get to stop dismembering you and flaying your skin long enough for them to listen to your words and consider the "error of their ways"!

 

[SlagMortar]

Encounter in a dungeon with a wandering imp? Attacking: not an evil act, and justifiable. Not attacking: not an evil act, and not an immediate violation of the code unless there are innocents in danger.

So would not attacking the imp be a violation of the paladin code if there are innocents in danger? If so, please define "innocents in danger."

 

[Hypersmurf]

#1: There was no agreement not to attack the imp at the end of their agreement.

#2: As I stated in a previously ignored response, silence does not equal or imply compliance. Whether the paladin was involved in the agreement or not, his silence on the matter does not indicate his agreement to it.

And I consider both of those weaseling, loopholing, and lawyerin' unworthy of a paladin.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So would not attacking the imp be a violation of the paladin code if there are innocents in danger? If so, please define "innocents in danger."

The code requires him to help those in need, and punish those who threaten innocents.

If the fiend happened across is fighting someone who can obviously take care of himself, the paladin could leave them to it - the opponent is not 'in need'.

If the fiend is about to devour an obviously defenceless commoner, the paladin could be forgiven for making the assumption that we've got at least one definite bad guy, and leap to the aid of the commoner. Now, it may turn out that the commoner is evil; it may turn out that the fiend is Planar Bound to some sorcerer nominally on the side of good; various scenarios may turn out to have been true, but the likely one is that we have an evil monster about to eat an innocent person. Taking three rounds to ascertain who's got evil auras is three rounds too long.

Now, again, if we have the imp with whom the paladin has made some sort of truce, and then the imp finds a commoner and starts stinging him, we've got a conflict - the non-aggression pact on one hand, and help those in need on the other. The paladin needs to decide what the code demands, and either act or refrain from acting, and be judged accordingly. As a DM, I wouldn't call this a 'no-win' situation, even if a case might be made for a letter-of-the-code violation whatever he does. I'd hope for some serious roleplaying mileage out of it, of course.

But in the OP's situation, there were no circumstances which elevated 'help those in need' to any immediate priority status, and so acting with honour was still something that needed to be observed.

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So would not attacking the imp be a violation of the paladin code if there are innocents in danger? If so, please define "innocents in danger."

Here's an interesting side-question based on that. What if there actually were not innocents in danger.

I present to you the following scenario. It may be unlikely, but it is possible given the above scenario:

Til'dik the imp lived to serve in the eternal Blood War between the demons and the devils. Thus, it was with great disgust that he was forced to journey to the mortal realms, but he knew the need was great. A being of pure evil and law, Til'dik could not abide by the fact that a cultist of Baphomet was about to collect the seventh piece of an artifact that would bathe that realm in chaos and death, as demons walked the world and rent it asunder. Hey, he had nothing against killing mortals, but that sort of chaotic destruction was ghastly compared to the careful nurturing of lawful evil souls to serve as his masters' energy, and besides, that would give the demons a huge advantage. The only possibility to stop it was to grab the final piece of the artifact himself and return it to Avernus. Lord Bel had determined that only in the fiery rivers of Avernus could it be destroyed, thus ending the threat. Although he'd dearly like to torture or corrupt some pathetic mortals for his trouble in leaving Hell, he knows that he doesn't have the luxury--he must return to Baator as soon as possible on recovering the item or risk the demon cultists recovering it. He hopes he will never have to go to this disgusting mortal plane ever again. In his dreams, he will serve in the Blood Wars until he dies and is absorbed by the perfect order of Baator or succeeds enough to be promoted to a mort suitable combat form and continue to even greater victory.

~~~

Fast forward--Til'dik is killed by the Paladin. The party either leaves the thing the imp wanted behind (in which case the cultists recover it) or take it with them (after the cultists figure it out, they steal it from the party). The land is bathed in death and slaughter. And Baphomet himself comes forth, sending an Aspect and rejoicing in the mayhem. The only one from the kingdom who is spared is the Paladin, for letting his hatred overwhelm him and single-handedly allowing this to happen!