Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Voadam]

So what does Sir Pelinor do, people on the 'Kill all fiends!' side? I'll present some options--or you can pick your own.

A) Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel. Anyiel tells him the pass phrase. He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan. Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.

B) Sir Pelinor refuses because this requires contact with an evil outsider. Orcus turns everyone in the world into undead and rules the world.

C) Sir Pelinor agrees, but when they meet at the restaurant, he decapitates Anyiel. Take that, bitch! On the downside, Orcus becomes supreme ruler.

D) Sir Pelinor agrees to the terms and has dinner with Anyiel. The moment she whispers him the pass phrase he sneers 'Foul creature. I can't believe I had to pretend to have a civil dinner with you,' and decapitates Anyiel. Then they stop Orcus.

D) Sir Pelinor says nothing as his party agrees for him and makes the arrangements. He goes to the appointed restaurant in Sigil because he overheard the party's agreement. Then he sits at the same table with Anyiel--not because he's having dinner with her or anything, oh no. In fact, he's not really associating with her, but that seat happened to be open. Once she gives him the pass phrase (assuming she does so despite his rudeness), he grins and pulls out his sword.
"But you promised..." she protests in horror, a helpless and betrayed look in her eyes.
"Stupid hellspawned bitch, I never agreed to your terms. Only the rest of my group did. Now rot in the Hells where you belong!" and he decapitates her. Then he and his comrades stop Orcus.

What do you mean what does he do? Whatever his player says he does, obviously. There are simply mechanical consequences to his actions as interpreted by the DM.

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.

So to analyze option A):

Associating with evil is prohibited, but there are no listed consequences for violation of that class prohibition.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

So you could legitimately take the pirate captain view that this is more of a guideline really and having the dinner will not lose him his paladin status for associating with evil.

Or if the DM rules that it is a falling violation the paladin can choose to fall for the greater good and have the dinner, realizing that falling from his paladin status is the price for gaining a fiend's cooperation.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It depends on the personality of my the paladin I'm playing, but my character choses either
(A) in which case he falls from grace for breaking his oaths and either seeks atonement, or realizes that sometimes those damn paladin oaths just get in the way. He would probably no seek atonement because he knowingly and willingly violated his oaths so what's the point of pretending to say them again when he will just violate them again when it is expedient.
OR

I knew this would make some people expect a fall

knowing that Anyiel is likely lying to set up some other scheme and tries to figure out some other way of saving the day. He does this comfortably knowing that there are always more than one way to solve a problem, especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world, so some way, some how his effort will be all that is necessary.

Well, even the Miracle indicated that there was no other way to stop Orcus's plan. Now, it is possible for Sir Pelinor to let all mortals in his world die while he waits on another plane and then swoop in to try to kill Orcus after Orcus arises from the Deathwell. Would that be okay for a Paladin to do?

I also find

especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world

a presumption that is quite presumptuous. I made the scenario. Let's say Sir Pelinor worships Mayaheine, goddess of Paladins in Greyhawk and a very minor deity. She is quite clearly less powerful than all the evil in the world. In fact, depending on how you play Orcus's power level in your campaign, she is possibly less powerful than Orcus.

But here's the one I really want to play with

knowing that Anyiel is likely lying to set up some other scheme

Okay, let's say Anyiel agrees to undergo powerful truth-detection magic. The result is that she is not lying or setting up some other scheme. She really does just want to have dinner with the Paladin, mostly because she'd like to see Orcus's plan thwarted and she is attracted to Lawful Good paragon of good sorts and thinks the Paladin is cute. There is nothing else.

 

[IanB]

Let's try another scenario. I'm interested to see what the 'Kill all fiends' people say for this one:

The end times are near. Orcus has nearly completed a ritual that will infuse the soul of the entire world with negative energy, which will turn all the living into undead, allowing him to rise from the formerly pure Lifepool, now the Deathpool, and rule over his new world of the dead. To finish the ritual, Orcus needed to place three magical foci in three different planar locations. The only way to stop him now is to break into one of them and destroy the focus before Orcus notices the intrusion and sends his strongest minions to stop the heroes, or comes himself!

Unfortunately, finding the foci, which are each on a special demiplane with a special key pass phrase, is a difficult task. Even a Miracle spell can reveal only this: Two of the foci's pass phrases are known only to Orcus himself, as he has killed the ones who created these places and eaten their souls. However, he made a crucial flaw with the third--he had thought the creator of the demiplane, the angel Anyiel, was destroyed, but actually, she had Fallen, and that is why his magics had told him 'The Angel Anyiel is no more'.

Anyiel is now an Erinyes. The group contacts her and finds that she has already heard of their exploits. Though she fell from grace, Anyiel is still a creature of order, and indeed, she has a strong attraction to paragons of Law and Good that remind her of what she has lost. Furthermore, she thinks the group's paladin, Sir Pelinor, is quite handsome. So she makes the following request: "I want to have a nice candlelight dinner in Sigil with Sir Pelinor in Sigil. If you all promise me that and also promise not to harm or hinder me in any way, I shall be glad to provide you with the pass phrase you seek. After all, it is not as if I want to see Orcus's chaos envelop your world."

So what does Sir Pelinor do, people on the 'Kill all fiends!' side? I'll present some options--or you can pick your own.

A) Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel. Anyiel tells him the pass phrase. He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan. Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.

B) Sir Pelinor refuses because this requires contact with an evil outsider. Orcus turns everyone in the world into undead and rules the world.

C) Sir Pelinor agrees, but when they meet at the restaurant, he decapitates Anyiel. Take that, bitch! On the downside, Orcus becomes supreme ruler.

D) Sir Pelinor agrees to the terms and has dinner with Anyiel. The moment she whispers him the pass phrase he sneers 'Foul creature. I can't believe I had to pretend to have a civil dinner with you,' and decapitates Anyiel. Then they stop Orcus.

E) Sir Pelinor says nothing as his party agrees for him and makes the arrangements. He goes to the appointed restaurant in Sigil because he overheard the party's agreement. Then he sits at the same table with Anyiel--not because he's having dinner with her or anything, oh no. In fact, he's not really associating with her, but that seat happened to be open. Once she gives him the pass phrase (assuming she does so despite his rudeness), he grins and pulls out his sword.
"But you promised..." she protests in horror, a helpless and betrayed look in her eyes.
"Stupid hellspawned bitch, I never agreed to your terms. Only the rest of my group did. Now rot in the Hells where you belong!" and he decapitates her. Then he and his comrades stop Orcus.

Honestly? Speaking for myself as a DM, If I have a paladin in the party, I *don't use this plot development.* It is a hypothetical that isn't very relevant to my own game, as I don't really have an interest in forcing situations on my paladin players like this.

E isn't really an exact match for the scenario currently under discussion either; he knows Anyiel is a fiend from the start and thus can't really safely make any kind of deal with her in the first place.

 

[Patlin]

A) Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel. Anyiel tells him the pass phrase. He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan. Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.

This is clearly the best option, and I don't think a single dinner in order to solicit information would even rise to the level of 'association.' Pelinor certainly couldn't accurately describe Anyiel as 'my associate' based on such a limited relationship.

Pelinor would do even better if he tried to reform the fallen angel. The fall itself suggests the possibility of change, and a peacefull encounter might allow Sir Pelinor to advance that agenda.

However, 'best' isn't the question here, is it? The question is what is permissible in terms of the Paladin code. In my opinion, the code:

1) Doesn't require the Paladin to succeed. If the Paladin is an idiot and through poor choices allows Orcus to rule the world, that's not a code violation.
2) Doesn't require the Paladin to be personable. The days of a Paladin needing a 17+ Charisma are gone. He might be a really lousy dinner date, darkly muttering about slaying fiends, lost opportunities, and the indignities a paladin must face throughout the meal.
3) Doesn't prohibit looking for a fight. If after gaining the information, the Paladin provokes Anyiel into violating the truce and slays her in a fair fight, that's within the realm of reasonable Paladin activity. Similarly, even a more genteel Paladin might announce at the end of the night that the truce expires at a particular time, and that after that point any contact between the two would be decidedly less cordial.

If Pelinor started a long term relationship with the fallen angel, he'd have some trouble. If he launched a surpriise attack during the truce, he'd have some trouble. The dinner itself might have interesting non-alignment, non class-status plot implications. ("Sir Pelinor, I know you to be a trustworthy man, so when I saw you with that woman Anyiel I assumed she also could be trusted. She took advantage of that trust, and no my youngest son is missing, last seen in her company... you must help me!")

The code should be broad enough so that a Paladin has choices to make, just like any other character. There shouldn't be a solitary correct course of conduct for the character to follow based on class.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Honestly? Speaking for myself as a DM, If I have a paladin in the party, I *don't use this plot development.* It is a hypothetical that isn't very relevant to my own game, as I don't really have an interest in forcing situations on my paladin players like this.

E isn't really an exact match for the scenario currently under discussion either; he knows Anyiel is a fiend from the start and thus can't really safely make any kind of deal with her in the first place.

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I think that, particularly with the addition of my addendum at the very end of the last post, it is not even a moral dilemma or a screwing-the-paladin situation at all any more, it's just a really interesting roleplaying opportunity. Come on, don't you think (assuming you agree with me that it isn't a violation) a dinner-date between a Paladin and an Erinyes would be fun to roleplay? I heard Piratecat's players once made peace with a villain unexpectedly when they set up the crazy demonologist with his infatiated Erinyes lieutenant and the (Lawful Good if I recall) Cleric married the pair. That sounds like a fun and interesting idea to me!

However, you're right about the one inconsistency--what if I changed option E to make a new option F:

F) Sir Pelinor says nothing as his party agrees for him and makes the arrangements. In fact, he's distracted by something shiny, so he doesn't even pay attention to the details. He just knows he's supposed to have dinner with some chick named Anyiel. Technically, he didn't agree to any terms, but she has the pass phrase, so he's going. He goes to the appointed restaurant in Sigil. Then when he sees her, he realises she is a fiend! He is aghast with horror. He sits at the same table with Anyiel--not because he's having dinner with her or anything, oh no. In fact, he's not really associating with her, but that seat happened to be open. Once she gives him the pass phrase (assuming she does so despite his rudeness), he grins and pulls out his sword.
"But you promised..." she protests in horror, a helpless and betrayed look in her eyes.
"Stupid hellspawned bitch, I never agreed to your terms. Only the rest of my group did. Now rot in the Hells where you belong!" and he decapitates her. Then he and his comrades stop Orcus.

 

[Rystil Arden]

This is clearly the best option, and I don't think a single dinner in order to solicit information would even rise to the level of 'association.' Pelinor certainly couldn't accurately describe Anyiel as 'my associate' based on such a limited relationship.

Pelinor would do even better if he tried to reform the fallen angel. The fall itself suggests the possibility of change, and a peacefull encounter might allow Sir Pelinor to advance that agenda.

However, 'best' isn't the question here, is it? The question is what is permissible in terms of the Paladin code. In my opinion, the code:

1) Doesn't require the Paladin to succeed. If the Paladin is an idiot and through poor choices allows Orcus to rule the world, that's not a code violation.
2) Doesn't require the Paladin to be personable. The days of a Paladin needing a 17+ Charisma are gone. He might be a really lousy dinner date, darkly muttering about slaying fiends, lost opportunities, and the indignities a paladin must face throughout the meal.
3) Doesn't prohibit looking for a fight. If after gaining the information, the Paladin provokes Anyiel into violating the truce and slays her in a fair fight, that's within the realm of reasonable Paladin activity. Similarly, even a more genteel Paladin might announce at the end of the night that the truce expires at a particular time, and that after that point any contact between the two would be decidedly less cordial.

If Pelinor started a long term relationship with the fallen angel, he'd have some trouble. If he launched a surpriise attack during the truce, he'd have some trouble. The dinner itself might have interesting non-alignment, non class-status plot implications. ("Sir Pelinor, I know you to be a trustworthy man, so when I saw you with that woman Anyiel I assumed she also could be trusted. She took advantage of that trust, and no my youngest son is missing, last seen in her company... you must help me!")

The code should be broad enough so that a Paladin has choices to make, just like any other character. There shouldn't be a solitary correct course of conduct for the character to follow based on class.

This is why I like you, Patlin--this post parallels my thoughts on the matter, and you even threw in some extra RBDM complications. Devious!

 

[SlagMortar]

I knew this would make some people expect a fall

I knew that you'd know that someone would expect it. Did you know that?

I guess I read "associate" as can't voluntarily be around. I might re-write the paladin's code for my game if I wanted to run such a scenario, but I do think a "dinner date" with a fiend is a violation of the code.

I also find
Quote:
especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world

a presumption that is quite presumptuous. I made the scenario. Let's say Sir Pelinor worships Mayaheine, goddess of Paladins in Greyhawk and a very minor deity. She is quite clearly less powerful than all the evil in the world. In fact, depending on how you play Orcus's power level in your campaign, she is possibly less powerful than Orcus.

If I were playing a paladin in a world where one must cavort with evil in order to overcome greater evil, I would (as I said) either cease to be a paladin, or try my best to continue being a paladin, not covort with evil, and die if it came to that. I think either makes a great story. While my paladin favors a particular diety as my patron, there are other gods of good that my paladin puts his faith in. If these good gods together are not enough to overcome any evil, then the evil has already won.

Okay, let's say Anyiel agrees to undergo powerful truth-detection magic. The result is that she is not lying or setting up some other scheme. She really does just want to have dinner with the Paladin, mostly because she'd like to see Orcus's plan thwarted and she is attracted to Lawful Good paragon of good sorts and thinks the Paladin is cute. There is nothing else.

If she is willing to go so far, then why is she not willing to just tell me outright? It must still be a trick. My Int 8 paladin doesn't know much, but he knows there is an awful lot about magic that he doesn't know.

 

[IanB]

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I think that, particularly with the addition of my addendum at the very end of the last post, it is not even a moral dilemma or a screwing-the-paladin situation at all any more, it's just a really interesting roleplaying opportunity. Come on, don't you think (assuming you agree with me that it isn't a violation) a dinner-date between a Paladin and an Erinyes would be fun to roleplay? I heard Piratecat's players once made peace with a villain unexpectedly when they set up the crazy demonologist with his infatiated Erinyes lieutenant and the (Lawful Good if I recall) Cleric married the pair. That sounds like a fun and interesting idea to me!

However, you're right about the one inconsistency--what if I changed option E to make a new option F:

F) Sir Pelinor says nothing as his party agrees for him and makes the arrangements. In fact, he's distracted by something shiny, so he doesn't even pay attention to the details. He just knows he's supposed to have dinner with some chick named Anyiel. Technically, he didn't agree to any terms, but she has the pass phrase, so he's going. He goes to the appointed restaurant in Sigil. Then when he sees her, he realises she is a fiend! He is aghast with horror. He sits at the same table with Anyiel--not because he's having dinner with her or anything, oh no. In fact, he's not really associating with her, but that seat happened to be open. Once she gives him the pass phrase (assuming she does so despite his rudeness), he grins and pulls out his sword.
"But you promised..." she protests in horror, a helpless and betrayed look in her eyes.
"Stupid hellspawned bitch, I never agreed to your terms. Only the rest of my group did. Now rot in the Hells where you belong!" and he decapitates her. Then he and his comrades stop Orcus.

Now to make it match even better, she doesn't reveal she's a fiend until *after dinner is over.*

I agree that in the right kind of game, the encounter could be fun to roleplay - a Planescape or Eberron game, for example, something with more shades of gray when it comes to outsiders. It is all about how a paladin is expected to behave in a given game. In a game like mine, where the expectation is fairly clear that paladins do not go on dinner dates with devils, then the scenario would be pointless. Even in a game where that sort of behavior would not *necessarily* result in "Go to jail immediately, do not pass go" for a paladin, there are ways to set that sort of encounter up that don't require a paladin to explicitly make a deal with a fiend in order to get something he wants.

And really, would the encounter be all that different with, say, a chaotic aligned outsider like a lillend, or even a CN fey? The roleplaying dynamics are essentially the same, and you're not putting your player into what may be a really uncomfortable position for them - having dinner with a lillend isn't going to cost a paladin their class abilities, but will be just as entertaining to roleplay. Anything, especially a forced situation, that puts the game stats of a beloved character at risk has a chance of being viewed very antagonistally by a player, and I think there's good reason for that.

 

[SlagMortar]

Btw, I agree that the paladin in the OP's scenario has acted dishonorably. However, the "wrong" thing the paladin did was enter an agreement with an unknown stranger without questioning the stranger's motives. Once presented with the situation of "Let imp leave with important item I know nothing about" or "Slay imp before he can turn invisible again and escape," I think he chose the right course.

Any admonition of the paladin should be for being stupid and entering agreements with unknown people, not for slaying the imp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I guess I read "associate" as can't voluntarily be around. I might re-write the paladin's code for my game if I wanted to run such a scenario, but I do think a "dinner date" with a fiend is a violation of the code.

The writers could have stood to be more clear, I admit. But check out the first five definitions of associate (v) in my dictionary:
1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
2. To connect or join together; combine.
3. To connect in the mind or imagination: "I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn" John Keats.
4. To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join.
5. To spend time socially; keep company: associates with her coworkers on weekends.

Only #5 is the sort that would prevent Anyiel's date. I propose that the one screwing over the Paladin is not the GM who sets up Anyiel's dinner date, but the GM who purposefully chooses the stricter 5th definition of the verb, rather than definition #1, which makes more sense in the context given that the next parts of that paragraph also talk about alliances.

If I were playing a paladin in a world where one must cavort with evil in order to overcome greater evil, I would (as I said) either cease to be a paladin, or try my best to continue being a paladin, not covort with evil, and die if it came to that. I think either makes a great story. While my paladin favors a particular diety as my patron, there are other gods of good that my paladin puts his faith in. If these good gods together are not enough to overcome any evil, then the evil has already won.

I, on the other hand, wouldn't want to play in a game where the Justice League of Good Gods deus-ex-machinas around overcoming every evil. If they have the ability and the desire to overcome any evil, then all evil would be expunged.

If she is willing to go so far, then why is she not willing to just tell me outright? It must still be a trick. My Int 8 paladin doesn't know much, but he knows there is an awful lot about magic that he doesn't know.

But as I said, it's not a trick, so the Paladin would be deluding himself. She doesn't want to tell the Paladin outright because she wants to have a date with the Paladin.

What if the spell was cast by a cleric of the Paladin's deity. What if the spell was cast by the Paladin. What if a proxy who speaks with the voice of the Paladin's goddess says "She is telling the truth, and this isn't a trick."