Paladin breaks word - appropriate atonement

[Nightfall]

I gotta agree with Sejs here, associating with a known evil cult is much more heinous a breach of conduct than simple oathbreaking.

 

[Brimshack]

I think the nature of the oath was far more disturbing than the breaking of it. Had yuo followed through, it would have been hell atoning for that one. A temporary alliance with evil would not have bothered me so much, but I suspect the only honorable solution to the first conflict over sacrifice would have been a quick end to the alliance and some violence then an there.

Were there to be an atonement at this point it would probably be something along the lines of demonstrating a will to confront evil and/or prevent sacrifice.

 

[Zapak Vim]

The heroes form a temporary alliance with an evil cult to destroy another stronger evil cult. The head of evil cult1 was about to sacrifice an innocent on an altar to bring favour for the expedition. The heroes weren't in a good position to resort to force to stop this and also they didn't want to derail a golden opportunity to destroy the more powerful cult.

see right there I woulda been thinking the paladin is choosing to aid evil. if the heroes are thinking of an alliance with an evil cult as "A golden opportunity" then they are walking towards the dark side right there. There should be other ways to help two evil cults destroy each other without actually aiding one of them to obtain sacrifices. Promising to obtain an evil creature to sacrifice is very close to "willingly committing an evil act".
As for an atonement, If I was DMing you, I think your god would expect a major quest or sacrifice to atone for the whole mess, maybe withholding spells etc until its done, and making you devote your life to taking down both evil cults.
On top of that, the paladins superiors might put your PC on the "dont ever let this guy outside without close supervision" list for the next 25 years.

 

[Ferghis]

see right there I woulda been thinking the paladin is choosing to aid evil. if the heroes are thinking of an alliance with an evil cult as "A golden opportunity" then they are walking towards the dark side right there.

I'm pretty strict with paladins, but as long as the deal was clean ("After we get rid of the big cult together, you should know that I will come after you, devil-priest."), and the palading didn't actually do any "hanging out" with the lesser cult, I see no problem in a paladin manipulating evil against evil. I don't get the impression that this is the case here, but I'd rather not flatly condemn a temporary alliance with a minor evil. Sometimes even a paladin can use his noggin to win. Being smart isn't against the code.

Now if he pretended that they were buddies, on the other hand, that's a serious atonement. Maybe even a paddlin'.

 

[Nightfall]

*isn't always down with the idea of lesser and greater evils* After all, the lesser of two evils is STILL evil.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm pretty strict with paladins, but as long as the deal was clean ("After we get rid of the big cult together, you should know that I will come after you, devil-priest."), and the palading didn't actually do any "hanging out" with the lesser cult, I see no problem in a paladin manipulating evil against evil. I don't get the impression that this is the case here, but I'd rather not flatly condemn a temporary alliance with a minor evil. Sometimes even a paladin can use his noggin to win. Being smart isn't against the code.

Now if he pretended that they were buddies, on the other hand, that's a serious atonement. Maybe even a paddlin'.

The paladin in my game is duplicitous as hell. He's a paladin of Freedom, and his method of operation is to talk his way into places, infiltrate, and destroy from the inside. When the party met him he was posing as a follower of Hextor in order to learn everything he could about a cult cell, ingratiate himself to the leaders, and then slay them mercilessly when the opportunity presented itself. The opportunity presented itself when a band of adventurers wandered in looking for a fight. Suddenly the Hextorites were surprised when their ally turned on them, revealing his true nature and decrying their god as he cut them down.

So long as he doesn't actually contribute to the success of a group he infiltrates, but instead monkeywrenches them, he's adhering to his code. Of course, he's not lawful.

 

[Nightfall]

Doc,

See a paladin of freedom is way different from a paladin that's just a regular D&D paladin. So I think your standards shouldn't apply in this context.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Doc,

See a paladin of freedom is way different from a paladin that's just a regular D&D paladin.

That's a bit patronizing, don't you think?

So I think your standards shouldn't apply in this context.

The issue in question is whether making deals with evil people is a violation of the "working with evil" part of the code. I provided an example in which a paladin gets up to his neck in evil people as part of a plan to combat them. So I don't think it's such an odd comparison. That he's a CG paladin rather than a LG paladin has nothing to do with the evil/good axis on the paladin's code. The original question was "what should my punishment be for breaking my word with the evil people," but it's turned into "you made a deal with the evil people? What's wrong with you?" I just wanted to point out that the "pretending that they were buddies" quote that Ferghis made below isn't quite on the mark. Can you pretend that you're buddies while still maintaining the code? The CG paladin in my game lies. LG paladins shouldn't break their word, but they can lie by omission. A paladin buddying up to a bad guy in order to pump him for information is completely legitimate, especially if you finish up with "thanks for the info. I'll tell the magistrate to go easy on you for being so helpful. Okay guys, get him!"

 

[Nightfall]

Doc,

Patronizing?

Me?! Never.

Anyway my point stands, a paladin that is LG is supposed to stay true to his word, regardless of whether that person is deserving of that trust or not. Now in regards to a paladin of freedom, their cause is about freedom, which doesn't require giving into the idea of having a word or code of ethics. They just follow their heart and hope for the best.

The issue in question is whether making deeds with evil is acceptable with a guy that is good and lawful. The idea of a lawful being doing good with evil and hoping to keep that pact is unacceptable since he's clearly not going to work with evil, regardless of the context. He will always try "a different path' and to me working with the cultist is a prorogation of evil. Which is not something a paladin should be doing. If a paladin of freedom does it, it's not his problem so long as his cause is served. Paladins of order and law prefer to work to a higher standard and thus find other solutions.

That's my point.

 

[monboesen]

The paladin in my game is duplicitous as hell. He's a paladin of Freedom, and his method of operation is to talk his way into places, infiltrate, and destroy from the inside.

What does he do when the evil and cruel people he infiltrates commits deeds like murders, enslavement, torture, sacrifices etc. in his presence.


Take the path of the greater good or act immedietly to prevent the deed?