Paladins in 3.5, why?

[Hypersmurf]

No, because he's Always Chaotic Evil.

Wouldn't that make killing devils - a Good act - out of character for a demon, then?

Shouldn't they be out eating babies instead?

Either the demons all have the wrong alignment... or destroying evil isn't a good act...

-Hyp.

 

[LoneWolf23]

No, because he's Always Chaotic Evil.

I think you have to stop looking at the action and look at the motivation, if you want to put a moralistic spin on the action. If the Demon slays a Devil because, as a Tanar'ri, he's devoted to winning the Blood War over the Devils to bring about Demonic dominance of the Multiverse, he's doing an Evil Act.

Meanwhile, if the Paladin slays a Devil because he needs to both avenge the countless innocents that have suffered at the monster's hand and protect countless more innocents from suffering at it's hands, he's actually doing a Good Act.

Both the Demon and the Paladin can slay Devils, but the reasons that drive them to do so are what makes them Evil and Good, respectively...

 

[coyote6]

A few random thoughts:

Kevmann, your commandments say the only punishment worthy of death is murder. So if a psychotic halfling bard tortures, spindles, mutilates, rapes, terrorizes, corrupts, and generally wreaks havoc on people -- but never kills anyone, the paladin can't kill him or allow him to be taken to a trial he knows will result in execution? If the paladin confronts him, and Hannibal Underlector does nothing but use his non-lethal spells to defend himself, the paladin cannot use lethal force -- he has to take that -4 to strike to subdue, or use his bare hands or a sap? That's how the commandments read, taken literally (and they appear to mean to be taken liberally, with the bits about "absolute proof" and having to seek atonement for fibbing to save hundreds of lives).

Wow.

As for the harsh paladins -- if I ever run a variant enough D&D campaign, paladins will have two allowed alignments, lawful good and lawful neutral. The LN types will have to be LG, but without a whole lot of mercy -- the St Cuthbert-ian smite 'em types.

(But whacking kids for minor infractions would still be out of bounds.)

Another thing to consider -- if you want to have paladins as dispensers of divine justice, it behooves you to make evil alignments apply to EVIL people. Those minor things (guys that like the violence in their job a bit too much, guys that think evil thoughts but never act on 'em, etc.) would make someone neutral, in such an interpretation, but not evil.

(Actually, I think D&D's alignment system would work better if the vast, vast majority of things were neutral, with good and evil as extremes that most people don't reach. It would make a lot of things simpler to handle.)

Finally . . .

Player: "I'm a fifth level Paladin now, so for my sixth level, I'm taking a prestige class."

Inexperienced GM: "What class?"

Player: "The Paladin Prestige Class. That way, I get all my abilities again!"

Mmm, double divine grace . . .

 

[Daedrova]

Hypersmurf … It seems as though you do this very same thing with the rules when you try to find loopholes. Take statements out of context, ignoring the meaning given to them by the conditions surrounding them. When I “missed” your meaning, it was simply because its true form simply wasn’t there.
We see that you think “evil” aligned creatures may not be “EVIL” enough to warrant swift death at the hands of the Paladin… OF COURSE that is a possibility (please read again above, about greater good, and the more positive result of redemption over eradication)
I apologize for any abrasiveness in these words. I know that our general thoughts about the Paladins are quite similar, and that your main disagreement is with Corinth. I just can’t stand being argued with on the ambiguity or fallible meaning of a point of mine when it can only be taken or comprehended that way when ignoring the meaning given by the explanation (and context) it is contained within.
I really do agree that a Paladin shouldn’t (and who really would?) turn on his “radar” when walking into town and just start killing people who are detected as “evil.”
When would a Paladin honestly consider that a valid option or a good decision? That is simply absurd, and will likely never happen in a campaign. He is not an island, he is not oblivious to/of the nature of his surroundings and the potential of persons and possibilities of any number of given situations to arise.
The triumph over evil, at its most basic level, will occur by killing those obviously evil creatures (demons, undead, etc.), and some evil humanoid races (goblins, ogres, etc., though even here individual exceptions may be possible, and these should and will be subject to the judgment of that Paladin).
I think this is why you, Hypersmurf, and Corinth are arguing from incompatible “levels” or “angles.” Corinth is arguing that evil should be destroyed (fine in and of itself), but you are giving some unlikely (maybe absurd) situation, that will probably not occur or even be an issue, to argue against his ideology of the Paladin. Of course that is going to put your view at odds with his. He is simply not considering some things that should be, and neither are you.
Foremost, little Billy isn’t going to be detected as evil simply because he “threw a stone at a squirrel” or anyone because he/she didn’t “declare the cask of Elvish Wine to the tax inspector.” (side note: I am sick of hearing this obviously logically fallible argument bout little “innocent” Billy… UGH. The argument presumes to present “Bill” as an innocent by titling him “little Billy” [“who has probably never done another thing wrong in his life.” …yeah, BS] and then proceeds to tell precisely how Bill is NOT innocent by telling of how he gave himself to selfish acts and desires, such as theft, or hurting little animals…)
These examples can all be neutral peoples:
“Fred the merchant who cheats his customers? Evil. Frank the bouncer at the Boar's Nest who really, really enjoys beating up patrons? Evil. Angus the gardener, who dreams up a new plot every day for how to kill his master - even though he'll never actually do it? Evil.”
Again, there are ways to eliminate evil Without murdering its mislead and unassuming tools or unwitting agents. These example problems can simply be addressed upfront using diplomacy, if the Paladin where to learn of them. (and again, a neutral character is capable of any of these, to an extent)
Fred can be confronted, and his cheating ways be made public.
Maybe Frank even needs a sound thrashing (not killing) to help him understand how this evil desire is hurting people.
As far as Angus is concerned, Neutral, and even Good characters will have desires and thoughts about how to make their own life better, even sometimes by hurting another. The act itself would be committed by an evil person, the thoughts would play over in a Neutral character’s mind, and a good person would recognize the evil in the desire, and attempt to change his way of thinking.
A creature of Evil alignment is not going to be killed for “the slightest provocation.” Their actions will show them worthy of purification (be that death or repentance).
I disagree with the general assumption that “a Paladin destroying evil is good and can’t go wrong” when assuming that the only way to destroy evil is to kill a creature, but I am in complete agreement with the same statement accepting that the creature itself can be redeemed to destroy that evil.
I also believe that the Paladin is a “divinely invested crusading warrior of righteousness charged by to smite evil“, but that “crusading” is simply NOT done inside the town in the context of D&D. It is silly to think that you would “adventure” and “crusade” INTO a town instead of from one.
Further, I must observe that anyone without the wisdom to decide against this (radar on, target locked, destroy…) would never be chosen as a Paladin. These actions would likely result in what Hypersmurf and Psion imagined (“run, a Paladin is coming” ) regardless of situation. Yes, a Paladin is someone of sound mind and attractive personality, who others would be attracted to, not a mindless robot.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I really do agree that a Paladin shouldn’t (and who really would?) turn on his “radar” when walking into town and just start killing people who are detected as “evil.”

"And who really would"? The whole point of Corinth's Paladins are that if it detects as evil, it Must Be Destroyed, and by destroying it you earn Paladin Points.

Further, I must observe that anyone without the wisdom to decide against this (radar on, target locked, destroy…) would never be chosen as a Paladin.

Except that from what Corinth has said, that is exactly the quality that makes a perfect Paladin - destroying as much evil as possible, wherever it is found.

I'll reply to the rest of what you've said in an hour or two - I'm about to leave, but I'm not ignoring it...

-Hyp.

 

[Daedrova]

AARRRG!! Hypersmurf, I love you man, but your are doing IT again. Please, before you reply, read the entire post. You are fogiven since you seem to be in a hurry to leave , but when you get back to reply, remember this.
You have valid arguments for the statements you are choosing to focus on, but the meaning of those statements is given in fullness within the context of the enitre post.
See toward the end of the post where I am explaining why I do not believe you and Corinth are arguing from the same angle.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I agree with your first statement.
It has been, and will continue to be a problem, that many people simply can not play a paladin properly.

This is NOT a fault, or problem with the class.
That is a problem with the player, and by extension the DM.

If the DM and player cannot set out a defined code of behavior that is acceptable for the paladin player to operate under, than my suggestion would be to not use paladins with those players.

I repeat:
if you have players that you feel are incapable of doing justice to the spirit of a paladin (which is many people), than DON'T bash the class or feel it needs changed : it's your campaign's problem, not other people's.

Wait till you see a paladin played by someone who knows how, and many of your statements would probably change.
It's somewhat common to see posts from DM's who don't have skilled paladin players, and point to the class as the problem.

Actually, read what I said once more please. I said most players. I have had three players play paladins and who were extremely good at them and I myself have played a paladin. My point was ecatly what you said and not what you contrued. I agree that the problem is with players.. now that being said the problem with the ranger class to me was also players, as is the problem with almost every rule out there. A skilled player can make a good character under any system with any rules and make it both enjoyable and worthy. The problem comes in when you have to tell a young player who wants to play a paladin but whom you can tell from prior experience is not mature enough to handle the work envolved... do you just arbitrarily say...sorry you can't play one or do you give him a chance to learn and prove himself? That is why I said what I did about liking the idea of the *option* to require a paladin to take a level or so of another class which is also more believable where history is concerned. I never said it was nec. a problem witht he class itself. You misconstrue my words to be of the party that says the paladin class is bad... which I never claimed.

Thanks again for hearing me out
Kal.

 

[Hypersmurf]

We see that you think “evil” aligned creatures may not be “EVIL” enough to warrant swift death at the hands of the Paladin… OF COURSE that is a possibility (please read again above, about greater good, and the more positive result of redemption over eradication)

But my point is that Corinth doesn't appear to acknowledge it as a possibility. He has repeatedly maintained that if it's evil at all, it's the Paladin's mandated duty to destroy it, and that doing so is and can only be considered a Good act by the code.

The triumph over evil, at its most basic level, will occur by killing those obviously evil creatures (demons, undead, etc.), and some evil humanoid races (goblins, ogres, etc., though even here individual exceptions may be possible, and these should and will be subject to the judgment of that Paladin).

I agree with this too.

Corinth's Code doesn't allow the Paladin that judgement. Judgement has already been levelled by the Universe when it assigned the creature an alignment that registers on the radar. The Paladin is simply the instrument of execution.

Foremost, little Billy isn’t going to be detected as evil simply because he “threw a stone at a squirrel” or anyone because he/she didn’t “declare the cask of Elvish Wine to the tax inspector.”

Ah, note that this is from a different situation to the examples of possibly evil people.

Billy and the tax evader are common people, perhaps even of good alignment, who have perhaps one non-good act gnawing at their conscience. Of course they're not going to be detected as evil.

But if the Paladinbots were in town, would you bet your life on it? How do you know for certain that cheating on your taxes isn't enough to push your soul over the magic line that gives the Paladin his divine mandate to Smite you?

That's why people run and hide when the Paladinbots turn up. You don't have your own radar, so you don't know what standard they are holding you to, and if you fail, you die.

These examples can all be neutral peoples:
“Fred the merchant who cheats his customers? Evil. Frank the bouncer at the Boar's Nest who really, really enjoys beating up patrons? Evil. Angus the gardener, who dreams up a new plot every day for how to kill his master - even though he'll never actually do it? Evil.”

They can be, certainly, if they possess Good qualities to balance the Evil. But if they don't, then those Evil qualities can be enough to push them below the Neutral threshold.

They're semi-evil. Quasi-evil. They're the diet Coke of evil... but they still register on the radar.

I also believe that the Paladin is a “divinely invested crusading warrior of righteousness charged by to smite evil“, but that “crusading” is simply NOT done inside the town in the context of D&D. It is silly to think that you would “adventure” and “crusade” INTO a town instead of from one.

Whyfore silly? It's very, very possible to find EVIL in a town. The wererats infesting the sewers. The vampire who runs the brothel staffed by vampire spawn prostitutes. The assassin's guildmaster with no conscience.

There's plenty of work for a Paladin in a city.

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot more work in a city for a Paladinbot...

-Hyp.

 

[Daedrova]

Since we agree on most things, Hypersmurf, I am sure this reply will end up looking like a bunch of somantics, so I'll make it short... and sweet.

But my point is that Corinth doesn't appear to acknowledge it as a possibility...
Corinth's Code doesn't allow the Paladin that judgement...

I was hoping Corinth would reply to tell us this for sure. I was thinking he was allowing for very slim possibility.

Ah, note that this is from a different situation to the examples of possibly evil people.
Billy and the tax evader are common people, perhaps even of good alignment, who have perhaps one non-good act gnawing at their conscience. Of course they're not going to be detected as evil.

I had the impression that you were saying the Paladin would see them on his "radar."

But if the Paladinbots were in town, would you bet your life on it? How do you know for certain that cheating on your taxes isn't enough to push your soul over the magic line that gives the Paladin his divine mandate to Smite you?[/B]

Well, you would probably know from previous visits from Palidnbots what was acceptable if you also had the fear of Paldinbots.

They can be, certainly, if they possess Good qualities to balance the Evil. But if they don't, then those Evil qualities can be enough to push them below the Neutral threshold.
They're semi-evil. Quasi-evil. They're the diet Coke of evil... but they still register on the radar.

thus the local wizard become heavily employed by those who believe they need the non-detectable alignment protection for the possible transgression against the Paladinbot's merciless justice.

Whyfore silly? It's very, very possible to find EVIL in a town. The wererats infesting the sewers. The vampire who runs the brothel staffed by vampire spawn prostitutes. The assassin's guild master with no conscience.
There's plenty of work for a Paladin in a city.

Yes, quite possible to come across evil in a town, but that is not where a typical "adventure" takes place... Sure it could, but then again, it is usually for things just like your example, where that question of "are these redeemable evil creatures" really doesn't come up.

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot more work in a city for a Paladinbot...

 

[Hypersmurf]

I had the impression that you were saying the Paladin would see them on his "radar."

No, just that they were worried he would

Well, you would probably know from previous visits from Palidnbots what was acceptable if you also had the fear of Paldinbots.

Well that's just the thing. They don't have radar... they don't know Fred the Merchant cheated his customers, all they know is that the Paladinbot walked into town, sniffed the air, and chopped Fred's head off.

Even the Paladinbot doesn't know that Fred cheated his customers. He just saw the blip and exercised his Divine Mandate.

Without the radar, the common person sees certain of the Paladinbots' selections as arbitrary and unpredictable.

And that's why they run and hide.

-Hyp.