Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Rystil Arden]

Thats a great scenario, Rystil, definitely something I'd enjoy rping out in a game. Personally, I couldnt leave the wife I love, or stop raising our child, depending on my paladin, and would likely end up as a Lawful Evil Blackguard.

That's a really cool story, Rystil Arden. Thanks. It made reading this thread (Arrgg! Yet Another Paladin Thread!) worth while.

Rystil's posts here, "analogies" I guess, I think were meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but didnt really work as such, and instead, just sounded like really interesting scenarios to rp.

So, great job, Rystil, and I hope some Paladin gets to enjoy them, as a DM perusing just steals the ideas for a campaign. They are great.

Aww, thanks guys! I admit they weren't exactly supposed to be reductio ad absurdum, particularly the latter one with Percival. That one was just a cool idea I came up with that would put a more human touch on a similar situation (fiend tricks paladin then later is found out). The Pelinor was a bit of reductio on the 'associate' clause. Both were mostly interesting ideas I had while reading this thread. Also, I just like the line 'Holy Erroneous Heironeous'.

I'd be thrilled if some GM uses them and then posts back to tell about it!

I think the litmus test to find people with similar gaming styles to me whom I'd enjoy gaming is whether they respond to by scenarios by saying 'Oh great, another guy who just likes to screw over Paladins' or 'That's cool! I'd love to play that scenario out'. Because I know I would have fun with those on either side of the screen

 

[IanB]

I'd analyze the scenario you provided, but the motivations you list for the erinyes in your post are simply not possible in the game I run now, so it wouldn't really be a relevant scenario.

EDIT: That was sort of a terse response, sorry. To expand a little bit, the things that don't really work in my game: the idea that a devil would care more about the law/chaos difference than the good/evil difference (in reality she has as much in common with a demon as she does with a paladin), the idea that a devil could stomach social contact in any kind of extended sense with a paladin (let alone love one), the idea that love in any kind of virtuous sense is a valid motivation for evil-subtype outsiders, etc. A devil might attempt to enter into a scenario like this in order to specifically tempt and cause a paladin to fall (or otherwise destroy one) but there would be no danger of any sentimentality affecting the proceedings.

 

[Rystil Arden]

That's interesting. Your game is quite different than mine and some of it seems a bit non-standard for a D&D world, but I can definitely see how the dynamics of your game could lead to many interesting conclusions. Certainly it would lead to differences in views on Paladins! Let's explore a bit--

To expand a little bit, the things that don't really work in my game: the idea that a devil would care more about the law/chaos difference than the good/evil difference (in reality she has as much in common with a demon as she does with a paladin)

This much is actually from the core D&D cosmos, though. Left over from a primordial conflict of Order vs Chaos, with Wind Dukes and Obyriths and other stuff, there's a Blood War between Demons and Devils that will kill each other in a frenzy of hatred. There isn't a Blood War between Baator and Celestia. Also, I think a Fallen Angel who used to be Lawful Good and in any case has the exact same goal as the Paladin (to protect the Lawful nexuses from the Demons) and who fell from grace for it shares more in common with the Paladin than the Demons here.

the idea that a devil could stomach social contact with a paladin

It seems in most games I've seen (and some modules), Evil Outsiders delight in social contact with Paladins. Even if they don't have Anyiel's particular neuroses and are doing it out of completely ill intent, they like to do it because continued Association can make the Paladin fall, peaceful contact is enough to qualify for Blackguard, and they're in a good spot to tempt towards a fall regardless.

the idea that love in any kind of virtuous sense is a valid motivation for evil-subtype outsiders, etc

Love is not always totally and completely virtuous--in fact, it is rarely so. Sometimes, the love exists with a lot of emotional and psychological baggage. This is true for humans too: that's why there's the stereotypical clingy girlfriend with abandonment issues whose self-worth is tied up in feeling that she is being loved--she'll follow her boyfriend anywhere and demand increasingly more time together, though all the while she may still be displaying strong love and affection, emotions you would definitely call love rather than lust. Heck, even a Succubus might be able to be that kind of girlfriend, where for whatever reason initial lust turns into an extremely clingy love. Of course, you're much better off getting rid of her before that, since she's going to take proactive and incredibly evil steps in her clinginess (you're spending time gaming with friends every week? Why not seduce the friends and drain their souls!). Even yochlols, the demonic servants of Lolth, are specifically mentioned as randomly falling in love with mortals and living with them faithfully without ever betraying or hurting them, though the mortal inevitably falls to ruin due to the fact that everyone else knows he's dating a demon.

Surely for Anyiel, it makes even more sense than for the aforementioned demons. She has psychological abandonment issues and she has a void in her soul where once there was the love of others and now only evil remains. But she remembers what it felt like to be loved--it felt incredibly good. Really truly loved by someone of pure heart and spirit, not just someone saying 'I love you' to get in her pants or a Charmed or Dominated enthralled victim commanded to love her. It is not a little bit manipulative, as devils are wont, that she won his love through false pretenses by appearing as a mortal, though in this case it wasn't her initial intention, since she meant to just manipulate him into helping her fight demons and only later fell for him when he starting showing her love.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Hmm, so as for your edit, what you're saying is that if you were playing as the Paladin (remember, you're not running this game, you're playing the Paladin), you would kill Anyiel and Erin because you'd assume it could only possibly be a trick to make you fall.

Aha, now I've seen it directly--assumptions from how Person A would run the game when she's GMing cause her, when playing a Paladin in Person B's campaign, to make a choice that befuddles Player B. The next step is that Player B posts on ENWorld. I wonder what would happen if I posted the Anyiel story in the General Forum as if it actually happened in my game and claimed the player decapitated Anyiel and Erin. I'm honestly curious as to the general sentiments--it could be a poll even.

 

[IanB]

Hmm, so as for your edit, what you're saying is that if you were playing as the Paladin (remember, you're not running this game, you're playing the Paladin), you would kill Anyiel and Erin because you'd assume it could only possibly be a trick to make you fall.

Aha, now I've seen it directly--assumptions from how Person A would run the game when she's GMing cause her, when playing a Paladin in Person B's campaign, to make a choice that befuddles Player B. The next step is that Player B posts on ENWorld. I wonder what would happen if I posted the Anyiel story in the General Forum as if it actually happened in my game and claimed the player decapitated Anyiel and Erin. I'm honestly curious as to the general sentiments--it could be a poll even.

Ah, if I'm *playing* the paladin, I need to know what the DM's interpretation of the paladin's code is first. I have been speaking mostly as a DM for this whole thread. If I was playing in my own game (setting aside the autoerotic connotations) I would be pretty pissed at myself for setting myself up for a fall I guess, and if I as a DM had failed to give myself as a player any hooks at all on which to hang suspicions before it got to the point of an actual childbirth, etc., then I would probably deserve it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ah, if I'm *playing* the paladin, I need to know what the DM's interpretation of the paladin's code is first. I have been speaking mostly as a DM for this whole thread.

Ah, from the perspective of post 264, I was more thinking 'If you were playing the Paladin and assuming the game had your typical assumptions'.

 

[Voadam]

***P: Holy Erroneous Heironeous!

Heh.

 

[IanB]

Surely for Anyiel, it makes even more sense than for the aforementioned demons. She has psychological abandonment issues and she has a void in her soul where once there was the love of others and now only evil remains. But she remembers what it felt like to be loved--it felt incredibly good. Really truly loved by someone of pure heart and spirit, not just someone saying 'I love you' to get in her pants or a Charmed or Dominated enthralled victim commanded to love her. It is not a little bit manipulative, as devils are wont, that she won his love through false pretenses by appearing as a mortal, though in this case it wasn't her initial intention, since she meant to just manipulate him into helping her fight demons and only later fell for him when he starting showing her love.

I guess it comes down to whether you essentially treat outsiders as humans writ large, or as something different. I do the latter, so human psychology doesn't necessarily apply except insofar as a given type of outsider might be a kind of exemplar of a particular psychological trait (like the succubus you mention.) Also, I don't remember, is erinyes-as-fallen-angel specifically canon in 3.5? IMC I think I would likely just apply the corrupted template to a deva or one of the other 'any good' outsiders if I wanted to use a 'fallen' angel (per my earlier thoughts about aligned outsiders) in which case the scenario changes in a few ways (significantly I don't think the child would end up a half-fiend? I can't remember if the corrupted template changes subtype or not, but I sort of remember it not doing so.)

 

[SlagMortar]

Love is not always totally and completely virtuous--in fact, it is rarely so. Sometimes, the love exists with a lot of emotional and psychological baggage. This is true for humans too: that's why there's the stereotypical clingy girlfriend with abandonment issues whose self-worth is tied up in feeling that she is being loved--she'll follow her boyfriend anywhere and demand increasingly more time together, though all the while she may still be displaying strong love and affection, emotions you would definitely call love rather than lust.

I bolded the part that is a fundamental difference in this conversation. I think IanB, Arkhandus, myself, and some others would say "This is true for humans (or sentients without an alignment subtype if you prefer) only." It is not true for fiends.

Aha, now I've seen it directly--assumptions from how Person A would run the game when she's GMing cause her, when playing a Paladin in Person B's campaign, to make a choice that befuddles Player B.

I think this is spot on. I think it can be resolved in two ways. Having a long talk with a bunch of scenarios before ever starting the campaign so the DM and player reach an understanding. Or forging ahead with the campaign with the DM realizing that putting the paladin in an ambiguous situation may result in the DM wanting to revoke the paladin's status - which may make the player decide screw it, I'm going blackguard - or the player deciding the paladin has become disillusioned with his diety's low standards as he repeatedly makes what he feels are infractions that are not punished by so much as a bad dream. A paladin's behavior may seem more predictable than another class, but in fact it probably isn't.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I guess it comes down to whether you essentially treat outsiders as humans writ large, or as something different. I do the latter, so human psychology doesn't necessarily apply except insofar as a given type of outsider might be a kind of exemplar of a particular psychological trait (like the succubus you mention.) Also, I don't remember, is erinyes-as-fallen-angel specifically canon in 3.5? IMC I think I would likely just apply the corrupted template to a deva or one of the other 'any good' outsiders if I wanted to use a 'fallen' angel (per my earlier thoughts about aligned outsiders) in which case the scenario changes in a few ways (significantly I don't think the child would end up a half-fiend? I can't remember if the corrupted template changes subtype or not, but I sort of remember it not doing so.)

Yes, Erinyes as Fallen Angels is canon in 3.5. It's even in MM (it says 'rumour in the underworld', but then every other book that mentions them, like FC2, treats it as fact). In 3.5 Erinyes are the only regular sort of female Devil whose womb is not sterile (due to their nature as fallen angels apparently), so they can give birth to Erinyes babies with other Baatezu (this is even in MM again--it says the skies are littered with their descendants, though the flavour of 'littered' for Erinyes is a big departure from 2e with its rare Erinyes, so I might keep them rarer personally). That's already a difference--by virtue of being a fallen angel, they have something different in them that no other female baatezu has.