Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Raduin711]

I think that there isn't necessarily 1 plan of action for a paladin, because there is more than 1 way for a LG person to behave.

Letting the Imp go could be considered the right thing to do because he would be keeping a promise; even if it wasn't one he himself made, he could consider himself honor-bound to leave the imp be by virtue of belonging to the group.

Killing the Imp could be considered the right thing to do because the Imp has hidden himself from the paladin's sight until that moment; allowing him the item in question could be considered the same as associating with that Imp, which a paladin cannot do. This revelation could be seen as an indication that the Imp means to do evil with the treasure.

I wouldn't concern myself too much with the paladin's actions.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

Sure, I'll buy that addendum. She probably assumes it's known by everyone, and she's likely appearing in an alternate form anyway and just looks like a beautiful young woman.

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.

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

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.

It would be a very different dynamic but also a fun one to put the Paladin on a date with a Chaotic Neutral fey. The difference is that the Chaotic Neutral fey shares no alignment aspects with the Paladin and would mainly be fun because of the way her capricious nature would likely rub the Paladin the wrong way. But the Paladin could continue associating with her--could in fact marry her if he so chose. The dynamic is very different than it would be with a fallen angel, a constant reminder of what becomes those who fall from the path of good while also dangerous in the way that she agrees with the Paladin on many sorts of issues and seems like a nice person (evil can be nice, after all), so he has to constantly remind himself that she is anathema.

 

[SlagMortar]

Wow are we ever talking about this from totally different perspectives. I'm trying to address what my paladin character would be thinking when presented with your situation.

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.

I'll admit I still think of paladins somewhat in 2nd edition terms.
Ok, how's this for an even better plot. My paladin decides to have dinner with the fiend, fully expecting to lose his status as a paladin, and then he doesn't. Now he's just learned something about his faith. Yay for character growth.

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.

Me neither. I never said it was true of the campaign world. I said that's what my paladin believes.

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."

If the paladin could be convinced it was not a trick, and he had permission (that he believed) from his diety to go, then he would go. It would basically be a pre-atonement without the disillusionment of having actually failed to keep his oaths.

Now, I've been thinking about this from a player's perspective. As a DM who decided to present the paladin with such a situation, I would expect and plan for either outcome, and probably allow neither to cause a fall. I would certainly not spend a bunch of time writing an adventure where I expected the paladin to go on the dinner date.

The paladin class seems to have been almost intentionally constructed to show that finding a global optimum can not be done by making locally optimal decisions. For example for the non-math people out there, you can't reach the highest point on the earth by starting in New York and walking only uphill.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Now, I've been thinking about this from a player's perspective. As a DM who decided to present the paladin with such a situation, I would expect and plan for either outcome, and probably cause neither to fall. I would certainly not spend a bunch of time writing an adventure where I expected the paladin to go on the dinner date.

For what it's worth, I think the Paladin choosing option B has grossly violated 'Protect innocents' and a Paladin who chooses option C has done so as well while also violating 'Act with honour'. They would lose their status in my game, as would option E (or F if you prefer) for being a sneaky letter-of-the-law "But I technically didn't agree" little weasel who was acting more Lawful Evil in the situation than the Lawful Evil Outsider. Option D violates 'Act with honour' but it may not grossly do so, so the Paladin might not lose the abilities right away, as per the section of Ex-Paladins (Paladins can violate the code as long as they don't grossly do so). There might be a vision or sign of displeasure, and a continued record of doing things like this would lead to a fall. Option A is not a violation of any sort, or alternatively it may be a small one if you disagree with me on the best definition of 'associate'. Either way, it is clearly not gross enough to warrant a fall. Grossly violating the 'associate with evil' would be starting a romantic relationship with Anyiel, for instance.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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.

Postcards in the mail?

 

[SlagMortar]

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.

Through his shiny example of piety.

For what it's worth, I think the Paladin choosing option B has grossly violated 'Protect innocents' and a Paladin who chooses option C has done so as well while also violating 'Act with honour'. They would lose their status in my game, as would option E (or F if you prefer) for being a sneaky letter-of-the-law "But I technically didn't agree" little weasel who was acting more Lawful Evil in the situation than the Lawful Evil Outsider. Option D violates 'Act with honour' but it may not grossly do so, so the Paladin might not lose the abilities right away, as per the section of Ex-Paladins (Paladins can violate the code as long as they don't grossly do so). There might be a vision or sign of displeasure, and a continued record of doing things like this would lead to a fall. Option A is not a violation of any sort, or alternatively it may be a small one if you disagree with me on the best definition of 'associate'. Either way, it is clearly not gross enough to warrant a fall. Grossly violating the 'associate with evil' would be starting a romantic relationship with Anyiel, for instance.

I agree the options other than A and B were not valid. I'm not really sure that option F is a real equivalent to what happened with the imp. As I understand it, they were in combat when the paladin realized the imp was an imp and the paladin slew the imp immediately after the combat ended. That's quite different from sitting down with dinner. I agree his excuses that it wasn't his agreement were lame, but I still think he did the right thing.

Back to option B, so a paladin in your game loses his status for being wrong because he didn't believe a fiend?

 

[SlagMortar]

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.

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

 

[Rystil Arden]

Back to option B, so a paladin in your game loses his status for being wrong because he didn't believe a fiend?

It depends. The given situation is that the Miracle spell indicated that Anyiel was the only one with the information, and the party approached Anyiel for help. By refusing to agree to Anyiel's terms of the dinner date, the Paladin was basically sacrificing the innocents' lives for an attempt to strike at Orcus after the ritual is complete and Orcus emerges from the Deathwell. If he had the date with her, he would have been doing his best to protect them, even if he failed to destroy the focus, or even if she gave him the wrong pass phrase or betrayed him, at least he tried to help. But that's the thing about devils--multiple times people say that they are beings of 'pure evil', but they are actually beings of a pure and equal mix of evil and law. She's unlikely to break the letter of her agreement.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

I would say absolutely, if he is trying to reform evil every time. It is a noble cause, and it is absolutely fine. Maybe some of them will actually reform, which is a victory for good. This reminds me of one of my favourite British prime ministers, William Gladstone, who regularly and consistently invited prostitutes to dinner with himself and his wife, wherein he attempted to reform them.