Paladin Behavior?

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

I absolutely agree. One of the strict limits in the paladin code as offered in the core rulebooks is that paladins will not associate with evil companions. If using an intelligent, evil sword doesn't qualify, what in the world does?

For a paladin -- and, IMO, for any Good PC, but especially for a paladin -- the ends never justify the means. Not if he expects to remain a paladin. The proper course of action here would be to hold the sword just as one would hold any other irredeemably evil prisoner one had no other means of dealing with.

As an aside, if I were the DM, I'd love this situation. Talk about adventure hooks falling into your lap ... that paladin should be willing to undertake just about any quest to find some way of dealing with the sword.

 

[Torm]

You could have stopped the robber, so you're responsible for the man he killed.

Hmmm. Spiderman, the fallen Paladin.

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.

Obviously, there ARE concessions that must be made to the flesh - an unrested Paladin is not going to serve his cause well, for example. As few of these should be made as possible, because they can become a slippery slope of justifications, but some are necessary without constituting a choice to allow evil.

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.

Word.

Of course, it became easier to rationalize the use of the sword thereafter, but he didn't use it to commit an evil act, imho, and going by the wording of the 3.0 paladin class, I decided that what he was doing up to that point was okay, but was obviously destined to backfire.

The ends justify the means. This has always seemed to me to be the best (worst? ) roleplay path for a Paladin to become an Anti-Paladin.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

I absolutely agree. One of the strict limits in the paladin code as offered in the core rulebooks is that paladins will not associate with evil companions. If using an intelligent, evil sword doesn't qualify, what in the world does?

For a paladin -- and, IMO, for any Good PC, but especially for a paladin -- the ends never justify the means. Not if he expects to remain a paladin. The proper course of action here would be to hold the sword just as one would hold any other irredeemably evil prisoner one had no other means of dealing with.

As an aside, if I were the DM, I'd love this situation. Talk about adventure hooks falling into your lap ... that paladin should be willing to undertake just about any quest to find some way of dealing with the sword.

As to the last statement, Do I ever know

I'd say it comes down to a potential problem in the paladins code. He's not allowed to associate with evil, even if the end is a morally good one? It means paladins are completely ineffective against anything other than mooks. It is impossible to associate with some mooks enough to find out the bad guy.

Code of conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever WILLINGLY commits an ACT of evil. Also, respect legitamite authority, act with honor, help those who need help, punish those who threaten or harm Innocents.

Association - Paladin will not associate with someone who offends their moral code. What if he has a reason to?

Now, theres this evil sword. Take the evil personality from the sword and it's just a sword. There are effectively two parts to the sword, as the sword does not control itself; there's the personality and the sword. The personality is just a voice, and a will. The personality does not control the sword, either. It is inanimate.

Our paladin is using the sword, because I assume it's powerful, to rid the world of the evil personality. The fact they are tied together - if the personality was magically removed, everyone wouldn't care less if he used the sword.

LP: You said in D+D Evil is a force. Untrue. There's Negative Energy, and various evil gods, and even some Evil descriptor spells, but there's no unified Evil plane, dedicated to evil for its own reason. Even demons are individually minded - evil for their own purpose, not Evils own purpose. So, evil must be described as unscrupulous dedication to an individuals own power.

Back to topic.

Our paladin is associating with evil to do his duty. He is not doing evil acts, hence he is not evil. If you look at the paladin code, they specifically state willing acts are what stops paladin abilities.

They way others want it to be is a no risk-no reward technique. Make him lose his paladinship for using an 'evil' sword on an orc? What rubbish.

I must admit, though - if Evil is described as unscrupulous lust for power, and the Paladin simply picked it up because it was a powerful item, and the fact it was evil was a secondary factor - I'd be frowning and muttering.

If we take him to be altruistic - he picked up the sword to destroy it, and uses the sword on anything evil that seeks to distort that destruction - I wouldn't think twice. The sword is the most important thing in his world at the moment - and the faster he destroys it, the better for everyone. If he does no evil acts on the way, and prevents the sword from tempting others, how could he be chastened? I'd chasten him the moment he strayed from the path. Sidequest? lose that cure disease. Whorehouse? Lose that immunity to disease. The fact he used the sword could only get him there faster, if it is powerful. If there was a more powerful sword, use that instead.

LP and Wilder: by preventing him from using the sword, your preventing quite an interesting roleplaying experience - he walks a much finer line with it trying to control him at the worst of moments than when he keeps it in a font of holy water all day long.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Li Shenron]

Bah. I agree with Lord Pendragon that the Paladin shouldn't have been using the sword the first time. Having a code to follow and being quite "holy" and spotless is all about the difference between being a Paladin and any other LG fighting man. "Well, I am in fact using this evil object to promote the cause of good, and I promise I won't overuse it, so technically I am still acting by the words of my code" doesn't sound like a pally speaking to me IMO, after using the sword ONCE, he should have started facing some troubles, not necessarily dire (I wouldn't strip him of his paladinhood directly...). However...

He should have done everything to destroy the sword, and if he didn't find a way for that, he should have done everything to keep the sword in the safest place so that it will never be used again. Perhaps the best place is exactly in the hands of the paladin himself! He must never use the sword, but he can carry the sword on his back and resist using that or releasing that at all costs, despite the attempts of it to lure him into using it. Letting the sword go so easily (for money! it doesn't matter if the paladin intends to use those money to fight evil, a paladin should not accept compromises) means he blatantly fail his duty, and a paladin who fails his duty is often an ex-paladin.

By the way, about "evil as a force". You put an object in the campaign which you decide being "evil". If it is intelligent, it's like an evil character. Even if it's not intelligent, how can you say it's just an object? If it's just an object that you can disregard it being "evil", why did you make it "evil" in the first place?
Aargh! says "Evil is in deeds", and I absolutely agree, but on the other hands what is the point of making a sword evil?

 

[Torm]

Our paladin is associating with evil to do his duty. He is not doing evil acts, hence he is not evil. If you look at the paladin code, they specifically state willing acts are what stops paladin abilities.

Why is it all about what stops Paladin abilities? I mean, I understand that the powers act as a sort of barometer of deity approval, but there has to be a measure of the character of the Paladin in his or her OWN eyes, as well.

Superman (whom I tend to consider a Paladin of sorts) would and has fought on, even reduced to just plain old Clark Kent. It's the MAN, not the "super".

 

[Li Shenron]

Just as an aside, the personality does control the sword, to a degree. It can use or withhold special powers (hence that slippery slope). It can also attempt to control the weilder (Ego check).

Ok. So the sword attempts to lure the wielder into doing evil deeds, and that's why it's an "evil" sword. Then the paladin has basically set free something which will cause evil, which instead should have been destroyed or otherwise kept under control. If he didn't realise it, he should definitely hear some words about how bad he did his job

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

Evil can be done just as easily through action or inaction. Failing to prevent an evil deed (while maybe not as evil as actually doing it) is certainly still evil - particularly when viewed through the eyes of a paladin. They have to fight evil at every step, otherwise they are not Good they are just good. In selling the sword the paladin allowed it to return into the hands of evil. OK maybe he didn't know that it would but the simple fact that he was so interested in the monetary return points to the fact that he is either not Good or that the player is not playing him to the requirements.

Mitigation - he didn't know that the buyers were evil, but he also didn't know what they were going to do with the sword. He should have been making every effort to ensure it's destruction or prevent it from ever falling into the wrong hands - including the hands of anyone that might not yet be evil but who the sword may corrupt.

His deity should be pissed off!

 

[Li Shenron]

Why is it all about what stops Paladin abilities? I mean, I understand that the powers act as a sort of barometer of deity approval, but there has to be a measure of the character of the Paladin in his or her OWN eyes, as well.

Superman (whom I tend to consider a Paladin of sorts) would and has fought on, even reduced to just plain old Clark Kent. It's the MAN, not the "super".

...mmm still I have a mental image of a paladin or cleric being deeply devoted to their deity, even at the expense of their own free will when necessary. Otherwise if you want a free will you can of course, but don't expect to be kept as paladin by your deity.

BTW, I don't think Superman had some greater being above granting him powers and giving him a code, wasn't he alone with his own choice?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

LP and Wilder: by preventing him from using the sword, your preventing quite an interesting roleplaying experience - he walks a much finer line with it trying to control him at the worst of moments than when he keeps it in a font of holy water all day long.

As DM, I would never "prevent" him from using the sword. I think the descent from paladin to broken and despairing warrior to blackguard sounds like "quite and interesting roleplaying experience," myself, so I might even encourage it. I'd just let him know -- or at least hint at -- the consequences.


Jeff