Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Rystil Arden]

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents." - this is the relevant clause in my own game. Evil outsiders, like an imp, threaten innocents by their very existence. Their entire purpose, their entire existence, is predicated on tempting, corrupting, or just killing innocents.

Not all of them do, though. There's a fair subset of them that will never do any of those things and will instead spend their existence doing one of the following:

(a) serving in the Blood War against the demons or (b) torturing the damned souls in Baator

Others may also be (c) killing Lawful Evil people so they can then be tortured in Baator

If one believes the primary 3.5 source on Devils, which most certainly is FC2, a book all about devils, the (a) and (b) I listed above are in fact the primary goals of devils, and (c), along with tempting innocents followed by (c) when they aren't innocents, are just things that they do a lot in pursuit of those goals. Killing innocents though? FC2 Devils would find that to be a foolish waste, the kind of thing an unrefined and brutish demon would do.

 

[IanB]

Not all of them do, though. There's a fair subset of them that will never do any of those things and will instead spend their existence doing one of the following:

(a) serving in the Blood War against the demons or (b) torturing the damned souls in Baator

Others may also be (c) killing Lawful Evil people so they can then be tortured in Baator

If one believes the primary 3.5 source on Devils, which most certainly is FC2, a book all about devils, the (a) and (b) I listed above are in fact the primary goals of devils, and (c), along with tempting innocents followed by (c) when they aren't innocents, are just things that they do a lot in pursuit of those goals. Killing innocents though? FC2 Devils would find that to be a foolish waste, the kind of thing an unrefined and brutish demon would do.

Indeed I included "killing" in there specifically because I was talking about evil outsiders as a whole and thinking specifically of demons with that word. (You'll note I said "evil outsiders", not just devils.) If we include the Blood War as part of the package (not mentioned in the MM as far as I recall, so technically not "core") my recollection is that the tempting of people and the gathering up of souls is connected to that anyway (don't have the details at arm's reach atm), so it is all largely the same thing in the end.

 

[Rystil Arden]

If we include the Blood War as part of the package (not mentioned in the MM as far as I recall, so technically not "core") my recollection is that the tempting of people and the gathering up of souls is connected to that anyway (don't have the details at arm's reach atm), so it is all largely the same thing in the end.

I actually already said that, but it might have been confusing because of the (a) and (b) To wit, they tempt innocents only so they can become non-innocents, go to Baator, and be tortured. This helps in the Blood War.

But since any given devil may never be a threat to innocents, and certainly not a threat right now, whereas Orcus is indeed a threat, I maintain that the dinner could not be a violation by the 'threat to innocents' clause, and if a particularly nasty GM somehow made it a violation, then not having dinner with Anyiel must also be a violation. Besides, if the 'threat to innocents' clause includes preventing hypothetical and unspecified threats, then the Paladin would be in serious trouble whenever she did anything that wasn't the equivalent to Plane Shifting onto a Lower Plane with a Contingency of some sort to return her body when she was knocked out and then killing as many fiends as possible before the Contingency hits. After all, if he doesn't do that, he's leaving those fiends alive, right?

 

[IanB]

I actually already said that, but it might have been confusing because of the (a) and (b) To wit, they tempt innocents only so they can become non-innocents, go to Baator, and be tortured. This helps in the Blood War.

But since any given devil may never be a threat to innocents, and certainly not a threat right now, whereas Orcus is indeed a threat, I maintain that the dinner could not be a violation by the 'threat to innocents' clause, and if a particularly nasty GM somehow made it a violation, then not having dinner with Anyiel must also be a violation. Besides, if the 'threat to innocents' clause includes preventing hypothetical and unspecified threats, then the Paladin would be in serious trouble whenever she did anything that wasn't the equivalent to Plane Shifting onto a Lower Plane with a Contingency of some sort to return her body when she was knocked out and then killing as many fiends as possible before the Contingency hits. After all, if he doesn't do that, he's leaving those fiends alive, right?

I don't know that an imp at arm's reach from you who has just recovered a mysterious item on some sort of mission is necessarily hypothetical or unspecified!

A long-standing rule in I *think* all the games I've played in (if not all, then most, anyway) is that paladins are never expected to throw their lives away uselessly, which would seem to preclude extended crusades to the lower planes, illustrations in the 1e PHB notwithstanding. That is, a paladin who cannot reasonably expect to succeed in a task dictated by the code of conduct is not obligated to take it; thus if the paladin was obviously going to get his ass kicked (say, the imp was not actually an invisible imp, but was revealed to be a pit fiend!) he would not get in trouble if he didn't immediately charge. If we want to be literal, the code of conduct does not enshrine this clause, but as the paladin becomes almost literally unplayable without it, I can't think of a game I've played in that hasn't used a variant on it.

 

[SlagMortar]

Perhaps I am reading too strongly into associate. That's a good thing if paladins are allowed a little more leeway than I thought in RAW. Honestly, I hate classes with built in flavor. Also, I hadn't looked at the "grossly violate" language. Apparently in RAW, a paladin can regularly violate his code in small ways as long as he stays Lawful Good and never commits an evil act.

Still, dinner with evil outsiders is, in my opinion, something for paladins to avoid. Since it is something to avoid, that is still true even if it makes saving the world more difficult. When playing a paladin, I would be much more likely to go to crazy extremes than compromise my beliefs.

I also don't really see paladins as the ones tasked with converting evil doers. Their abilities say to me that they are more SWAT team than councilor, though I have no problem with DMs or players who would rather play them that way. This is especially true when dealing with evil outsiders.

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.

I still think that a paladin would be perfectly justified in not trusting a Devil. If the characters have access to Miracle then they are probably fighting things with nearly equal power. It could all be an elaborate hoax, and that seems just about as likely as there truly being only one way to stop the end of the world.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't know that an imp at arm's reach from you who has just recovered a mysterious item on some sort of mission is necessarily hypothetical or unspecified!

A long-standing rule in I *think* all the games I've played in (if not all, then most, anyway) is that paladins are never expected to throw their lives away uselessly, which would seem to preclude extended crusades to the lower planes, illustrations in the 1e PHB notwithstanding. That is, a paladin who cannot reasonably expect to succeed in a task dictated by the code of conduct is not obligated to take it; thus if the paladin was obviously going to get his ass kicked (say, the imp was not actually an invisible imp, but was revealed to be a pit fiend!) he would not get in trouble if he didn't immediately charge. If we want to be literal, the code of conduct does not enshrine this clause, but as the paladin becomes almost literally unplayable without it, I can't think of a game I've played in that hasn't used a variant on it.

The Paladin will probably kill some of them and then return on the Contingency. Every day, each of those crusades will be killing fiends that, by your definition of fiends, are guaranteed to have been killing innocents, so even killing some of them each time is protecting more innocents than if the Paladin spends a day on some of the missions I've seen Paladins take.

The imp's item might have been--

A) An item to be used against Demons in the Blood War
B) A valuable item the imp promised to an Evil being who summoned it and made a Faustian pact. Perhaps it was a Lawful Evil fellow who sold his soul for medicine for his dying wife, who knows. Either way, it wouldn't have to threaten innocents.
C) A valuable trinket the imp wanted to have to help garner status on the lower planes, perhaps a gift to a greater devil or just a status item in and of itself
D) A valuable trinket the imp wanted to sell for money.

None of those necessarily puts innocents at risk. Now, it could have been something that put innocents at risk, but that's possible even for non-evil beings. It doesn't hurt to find out before decapitating people.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Still, dinner with evil outsiders is, in my opinion, something for paladins to avoid. Since it is something to avoid, that is still true even if it makes saving the world more difficult. When playing a paladin, I would be much more likely to go to crazy extremes than compromise my beliefs.

Here's an interesting character interaction question then. What if the other PCs, perhaps including a Lawful Good Cleric of the Paladin's deity, were added to the picture and they said to your Paladin "Dude, what the heck is wrong with you? Just have dinner with the Erinyes so we can get to that focus and stop Orcus." Does the opinion of the other PCs make a difference, particularly when it isn't a code violation?

 

[IanB]

fiends that, by your definition of fiends, are guaranteed to have been killing innocents

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said their continued existence constitutes a threat to innocents, which is a subtle difference, I think. The circumstances of a paladin who somehow has access to a personal-only arcane spell of 6th level that isn't even capable of triggering a plane shift coming up with a method to reliably do this are so likely to be rare that I may just *add* a semi-crazy paladin NPC in my game that behaves this way, I find the idea sort of amusing.

But anyway, aren't we just back to 'it depends on your game'? Without a RAW definition of things like exactly what "legitimate authority" expects from a paladin, can we really use RAW to come to any kind of conclusion? I don't think we can.

 

[SlagMortar]

Here's an interesting character interaction question then. What if the other PCs, perhaps including a Lawful Good Cleric of the Paladin's deity, were added to the picture and they said to your Paladin "Dude, what the heck is wrong with you? Just have dinner with the Erinyes so we can get to that focus and stop Orcus." Does the opinion of the other PCs make a difference, particularly when it isn't a code violation?

Depends on the character and his relationships with the other characters.

 

[Rystil Arden]

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said their continued existence constitutes a threat to innocents, which is a subtle difference, I think. The circumstances of a paladin who somehow has access to a personal-only arcane spell of 6th level that isn't even capable of triggering a plane shift coming up with a method to reliably do this are so likely to be rare that I may just *add* a semi-crazy paladin NPC in my game that behaves this way, I find the idea sort of amusing.

But anyway, aren't we just back to 'it depends on your game'? Without a RAW definition of things like exactly what "legitimate authority" expects from a paladin, can we really use RAW to come to any kind of conclusion? I don't think we can.

Plane Shift is a lower level spell for a Cleric, and scrolls are good for that kind of thing. You just need cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device and the good old-fashioned Paladin Charisma There's also a Contigency Belt in MIC.

As for the 'it depends on your game', I agree that these details may depend on your campaign, but I think we can agree that in any game, the Paladin's breach of the agreement and weaseling excuses violated 'acting with honour'. Enough to fall? That depends on the game. But I don't think the GM in question would have even posted this dilemma on ENWorld if he was of the mind that you can ignore the rest of the code when you're dealing with Evil Outsiders, since then it would have not been an issue.