Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Rystil Arden]

Granted, I guess the miracle in your example was more of an absolute present telling magic, though the end result was the same. I don't like the idea that the list is complete. I'm ok with the question, "How can we do this?" and the response "This will work." I'm not ok with the quesiton, "How can we do this?" and the response "This is the only thing you can do."

In your troll analogy, I learned in a recent thread that trolls can be killed by suffocation. They can also be killed by death magic. It could also be charmed, talked into going away, trapped in a prison, dropped in the ocean, etc.

In the dinner date example, Orcus left one vulnerability. Perhaps he left others as well, but when I brought up the possibility, you said, "Nope, the miracle said there's only one way."

I have no problem with absolute present-telling magic, since the present, by default, is static. As for the troll, it was only an analogy--feel free to add all possible other ways to kill the troll to that list and pretend that's what I said

As to the dinner date, Orcus specifically consumed the souls of the only beings who knew the pass phrases for the demiplanes. He did so preemptively and with great evil genius before anyone knew his plan because he considered the scenario where heroes try to smash one of the seven, and he knew that once the souls were consumed, not even a Miracle could produce the lost knowledge. But he himself relied too much on present-telling magic that he used wrong, so he missed Anyiel through arrogance--he asked: "Name all entities that ever knew the pass phrase for this demiplane" The spell gave him two names, one some arbitrary guy from whom he extracted the knowledge then consumed the soul, the other was "The creator of the Demiplane, the angel Anyiel." So Orcus asked "Where can I find the angel Anyiel." The response: "The angel Anyiel is no more, so never shall she be found." (truthful, but fatally flawed). To me, that's a believable slip-up on Orcus's part. Leaving all the entities alive that knew the pass phrases but then guarding the demiplanes with minions that the heroes can beat just seems to me to be playing stupid and falling into the kinds of cliche stereotypical villain mistakes that are mentioned in the Evil Overlord list, which I try to avoid when playing beings of vast Intelligence.

Because Orcus otherwise had his act together, there were no more beings left that knew the pass phrases to one of the seven demiplanes. The option to go down to the Abyss and kill Orcus existed, but it was doomed to certain failure--to fight Orcus in Thanatos is to challenge Thanatos itself. The Paladin could also let his world die and then at least kill Orcus on the material plane after Orcus arose from the Deathwell. So there were some other options, but they were pretty grim.

 

[SlagMortar]

I have no problem with absolute present-telling magic, since the present, by default, is static. As for the troll, it was only an analogy--feel free to add all possible other ways to kill the troll to that list and pretend that's what I said

If you've studied relativity, you'll note that absolute present-telling magic is pretty much the same thing as absolute future telling magic. But to avoid mixing my physics with my D&D, the troll example really illustrats my point. No matter what list you propose, it will likely be incomplete, especially as the question approaches the complexity of "What could be done to stop a plan that results in the end of the world?"

So Orcus asked "Where can I find the angel Anyiel." The response: "The angel Anyiel is no more, so never shall she be found." (truthful, but fatally flawed). To me, that's a believable slip-up on Orcus's part. Leaving all the entities alive that knew the pass phrases but then guarding the demiplanes with minions that the heroes can beat just seems to me to be playing stupid and falling into the kinds of cliche stereotypical villain mistakes that are mentioned in the Evil Overlord list, which I try to avoid when playing beings of vast Intelligence.

I agree it is plausible, and also a cool and creative story line. I also agree that it would be silly if Orcus were easily thwarted. However, in my opinion, the paladin should not know it is the only way and if he does, then it is basically absolute future telling magic. A cool story line would be for the paladin to go off and kick in a few lesser demon strongholds in an effort to find another slip up by Orcus. Meanwhile, the party's rogue creates the greatest disguise the world has ever seen and tricks Anyiel into revealing the pass phrase. Problem solved.

But that wouldn't happen if you told the paladin he had to go on the dinner date or lose because he would never be off trying to be productive and give the rogue a chance.

 

[Rystil Arden]

If you've studied relativity, you'll note that absolute present-telling magic is pretty much the same thing as absolute future telling magic. But to avoid mixing my physics with my D&D, the troll example really illustrats my point. No matter what list you propose, it will likely be incomplete, especially as the question approaches the complexity of "What could be done to stop a plan that results in the end of the world?"

Heisenberg doesn't exist in D&D though--you can use Divination magic to know the position and speed of a particle

Ah, but the specifics of the scenario make it more interesting because the only way to stop the ritual is to kill the one who started it (Orcus) or destroy a focus. You could also try to convince Orcus to not do it.

I agree it is plausible, and also a cool and creative story line. I also agree that it would be silly if Orcus were easily thwarted. However, in my opinion, the paladin should not know it is the only way and if he does, then it is basically absolute future telling magic. A cool story line would be for the paladin to go off and kick in a few lesser demon strongholds in an effort to find another slip up by Orcus. Meanwhile, the party's rogue creates the greatest disguise the world has ever seen and tricks Anyiel into revealing the pass phrase. Problem solved.

Ah, but the magic didn't say they couldn't do it--they're free to try the disguise. The magic said that only Anyiel or Orcus could get them in. It didn't tell them they had to accept the dinner date--that was what Anyiel herself said later. Heck, another option they could use is to agree, then have the Paladin not show up and send someone to capture her and torture her until she gave up the information. The magic only said that Orcus and Anyiel are the only entities with the information. Kicking in the lesser demon strongholds is bound to failure, however, and I contend that having a party member do dishonourable things for him by proxy is pretty much the same as the Paladin doing it.

"As a Paladin, I shall never condone torture of this orc. Now that I've told you that, since torture chambers sicken me, I'm going to leave you in this torture chamber with the orc while I go pray." There have been discussions earlier, and I'm of the mind that standing by and ignoring while your comrades do dishonourable deeds for you by proxy is another one of those Lawful Evil twisting violations of the code. This has been discussed before in other threads, though.

 

[lukelightning]

I'm beginning to get the idea that nothing a paladin does is appropriate and there is nothing they can do to avoid falling.

 

[SlagMortar]

Kicking in the lesser demon strongholds is bound to failure

No, its really not unless you as the DM decide that it is. It won't reveal the pass key, but it might reveal an alternative method of disrupting the plan.

, however, and I contend that having a party member do dishonourable things for him by proxy is pretty much the same as the Paladin doing it.

I certainly agree. However, in my example, the paladin truly did not know the rogue was even thinking about going in his stead. The paladin did not leave so that the rogue could go get the pass phrase, but instead the paladin left so he could try to find some other means of disrupting the pland. Surely the paladin should not disown the rogue or refuse to use the pass phrase because it was gotten through dishonest means? Surely if the rogue does not regularly do this sort of thing, but did only because the world was on the line, then the rogue and paladin can continue to adventure together?

I'm beginning to get the idea that nothing a paladin does is appropriate and there is nothing they can do to avoid falling.

That's not what Rystil or I is saying at all. We are only pointing out many of the various points on which a player and DM might disagree on whether a paladin should fall. Such disagreements are bound to happen from time to time and so are good things to be aware of if anyone in any group is playing a paladin. However, it is certainly true that if a DM is determined to make a paladin fall, the paladin is going to fall in much the same way as "rocks fall, everyone dies" can end any campaign.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, its really not unless you as the DM decide that it is. It won't reveal the pass key, but it might reveal an alternative method of disrupting the plan.

Killing random demons is fun and all, and it is certainly an overall gain for the multiverse, but by the terms I set in the story, to disrupt the casting, you have to mess with the caster (Orcus himself on his home turf, Thanatos) or the foci (in the demi-planes). I think that's fairly reasonable. The trouble comes for them due to the fact that Orcus himself is too strong. Now if he was willing to make a deal with Grazz't or something to stage a coordinated attack on Orcus, Grazz't would be likely to accept something like that, and they stand a decent chance of disrupting him--it's a neat idea too...but that's Associating with Evil much more than Anyiel's dinner date anyway.

I certainly agree. However, in my example, the paladin truly did not know the rogue was even thinking about going in his stead. The paladin did not leave so that the rogue could go get the pass phrase, but instead the paladin left so he could try to find some other means of disrupting the pland. Surely the paladin should not disown the rogue or refuse to use the pass phrase because it was gotten through dishonest means? Surely if the rogue does not regularly do this sort of thing, but did only because the world was on the line, then the rogue and paladin can continue to adventure together?

Ah, I think there's a crucial point you're missing then--my apologies. The Paladin knows that they accepted the dinner date already or refused, since he was there when the party first contacted Anyiel and made the decision, and they certainly took his input on it. So if he says "I'll never go!" and they say "Okay, but we're going to tell her you will. You go kill demons instead. And do you have any armour and capes in Trechor the Rogue's size?" he would know If they somehow managed to keep him legitimately oblivious, of course he wouldn't disown them for it afterwards. He would shake his head at the consorting (because I assume this is your Paladin who thinks that kind of dinner date is an instant Fall from Grace action) but admit that they got the job done.

That's not what Rystil or I is saying at all. We are only pointing out many of the various points on which a player and DM might disagree on whether a paladin should fall. Such disagreements are bound to happen from time to time and so are good things to be aware of if anyone in any group is playing a paladin. However, it is certainly true that if a DM is determined to make a paladin fall, the paladin is going to fall in much the same way as "rocks fall, everyone dies" can end any campaign.

Yup, I completely agree. To phrase it another way: No matter how perfectly you think you play your Paladin, you may fall if your GM has a different view on Paladins or even if they have the same view on Paladins and a different view on something else tangential in the campaign! For instance, I would make the Paladin fall if he went to dinner with Anyiel and then decapitated her after getting his info. I would not make him fall for going to dinner and getting the info and then leaving. Some GMs are just the opposite. And it pays to have a dialogue to figure out if you're on the same page.

 

[Seeten]

I'm just as interested in playing the paladin during the fall, and after the fall, as I am before the fall. Paladins, ex-Paladins, and Blackguards, can all have extraordinary stories revolving around them, including the fall itself, and possibly redemption.

Of course, the same DM's who are out to "screw" Paladins are generally the ones who do not allow PC's to be evil, so for them, once you fall, your Paladin becomes an NPC, etc

I like to ask those questions beforehand, so I can not game with those guys.