Paladin Behavior?

[Romnipotent]

Fanta Nazis, killing soda and pop at every chance!

He knew the sword was evil no? as long as he know the sword was evil he should be getting some aleax visit. One can surmise that if someone REALLY wants a sword and the sword is evil, chances are they are too... the sword, by paladin reasoning, had to be destroyed no matter what, if not immediately, at the first possible chance. Questing even to do so.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Note that the men doing nothing are still described as "good men." They aren't evil for doing nothing, they're complacent and ultimately failing, but not evil. Not stopping an evil act isn't any more evil than not doing an evil act is good.

"Hey, I've never helped anyone or lifted a finger to benefit another living soul, but I don't go around killing innocents, do I? That sounds pretty good to me!"

No. You have to act on your convictions to do good or evil. Merely standing aside is worthy of neither credit nor blame. Your quote points out that evil wins if good isn't willing to act on its beliefs, not that failing to act on one's beliefs is itself evil.

 

[Torm]

Your quote points out that evil wins if good isn't willing to act on its beliefs, not that failing to act on one's beliefs is itself evil.

I can see what you're saying, and perhaps I think too mathmatically, but: All else being equal, if a choice of inaction vs. evil results in an increase in evil, that, to me, equals the choice OF EVIL resulting in an increase of evil. The only way to get around it is to be unwillingly ignorant of the situation.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I can see what you're saying, and perhaps I think too mathmatically, but: All else being equal, if a choice of inaction vs. evil results in an increase in evil, that, to me, equals the choice OF EVIL resulting in an increase of evil. The only way to get around it is to be unwillingly ignorant of the situation.

I'm not sure your view is mathematical, but it's certainly strict. Absolute accountability is a harsh taskmaster. Basically, you are requiring PCs to be responsible for anything they might have changed in the world. You could have stopped the robber, so you're responsible for the man he killed. You could have consoled the innkeeper's daughter, so you are responsible for her suicide. You could have given all of your gold to the orphanage, so you are responsible for the child that died from the cold last winter.

You are demanding continuous action, and that is a crushing weight to bear, IMO. Yes, a paladin is going to be a (wo)man of action most of the time. But I don't think any soul--even a paladin's--can be held accountable for everything wrong in the world that they fail to stop.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

I must disagree with the people arguing against his use of the sword.

Now, yonder sword is intelligent, and tempting. But he resists the temptation to do evil - and only does 'good' with it. He attempts to destroy it at first, but realises he cannot. He also realises that the sword may tempt someone else into evil - he bears it, knowing it will be hard, but knowing that he may bear it through and another character may fall into evil.

He hasn't done an evil (Bad) thing at all.

In the end, a sword is a sword - a piece of metal to kill someone. The powers inherent (+1, or whatever) aren't evil. If he does not use it for evil, as he could any sword at all, he cannot be punished. In fact, he is deliberately taking a burden to save someone else. Not evil. The intelligence is evil, but not he. The swords powers aren't evil, neccesarily, but the intelligence behind them is.

Evil, as good, is in deeds. saying there's some socratic Form of Evil is all well and good, but if it doesn't do evil (it merely laughs in the background, hiding in it's black cloak) it's not evil. If no evil deed is done, no evil has been done, hence he is still a good man. (Assuming he was good to begin with).

Certainly, I daresay he wants to destroy it. But until he can, there should be no punishment at all for taking the burden.

Bloody hell, I'd reward any paladin brave enough to risk his soul.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

BUT, perhaps I'll have a celestial show up and demand that the sword be destroyed. Since the group no longer has it, that could mean fun times for all.

Now that is a great idea. You manage to indirectly point out that the sword should not have been sold off, but rather destroyed from the beginning, and now the PCs have to get it back to take care of it the right way. Nice.

In the end, a sword is a sword - a piece of metal to kill someone.

An ordinary sword, perhaps. But we're talking about an evil sword. In D&D, Good and Evil are Forces, and an object can be very much more than just a piece of metal. The sword described in this thread is evil. And therefore to use it is to use evil. And using evil is, well, evil.

Note that I don't think simply having the sword is evil. Had the paladin claimed it to prevent anyone from using it until such a time as he could destroy it, that's all good. But once he starts using it himself, he's crossed the line.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If the sword is intelligent, the paladin should give it at least something similar to the same thought he'd give any other sentient evil "prisoner." Is a paladin really going to return an evil prisoner to someone who'll make good use of that prisoner to commit more evil? All for money?

I don't think so.

I'm in the minority, it seems, but IMO selling the sword at all is an evil act, and not one the paladin would do or allow. We're not talking about a simple tool or mundane -- or even just magical -- weapon. We're talking about an evil, sentient being; one whose entire existence is predicated on committing evil acts. In the absence of destroying it, which is apparently currently beyond the group's abilities, the paladin must maintain custody of it.