Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)
- Thread starter Trainz
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I agree with Arravis in part--people should be killed for their actions not for their alignment. Many evil people do not deserve death from human (or demihuman) institutions--indeed, human and demihuman institutions are set up and continue to function to a large part because they manage to control the evil people who are a part of them and keep their evil from manifesting in ways that create more harm than killing the evil people would create.
However, I agree with LuYang and Wizardru in part. The man who intends to do evil and would really follow through with it if given the opportunity is evil whether or not the opportunity presents itself. Now, it's clear that, if the opportunity never presents itself, we will never know, absent omniscience, whether the individual would or would not have followed through with it. We don't know whether the man is losing the battle with his demons but hasn't lost yet or whether he's entirely surrendered. However, I don't think it's much of a stretch to suppose that there is a difference between the conflicted individual who will do evil and the conflicted individual who plans to do evil but won't follow through--before the opportunity to do evil is past. Nor do I think it's much of a stretch to believe that Detect Evil can tell the difference between the two.
(Of course, that's not the same thing as saying that the evil detected would be worthy of death. The man who struggles with his conscience and can't bring himself to kill his landlady may very well detect evil because he has no problem embezzling the money he collects for orphans (which is generally not thought to be worthy of death these days (although it would have been in some days past)).
However, there seems to be a rather pernicious notion going through this thread that a paladin would never kill a neutral or good NPC. I don't think that's so. There are plenty of justifiable reasons for killing that could apply to a neutral or good NPC just like the justifiable reasons for killing don't necessarily apply to an evil NPC. For instance, a paladin who is on the righteous crusade to destroy the wicked hobgoblin empire of Naziesqueness may well find that he is facing neutral or even good soldiers on the other side. Perhaps they were conscripted or perhaps they see it as their duty to defend their homeland. Perhaps they are honoring an oath or perhaps they just don't want to see their farms destroyed and their families without food (common consequences of losing a war). Whatever their reasons, I don't think that their lack of corruption or even goodness means that even a paladin would be obliged to put up his sword. (He might well want to and try to negotiate but they have good reasons for not listening to him. If they are both wise and good, they probably both appreciate the tragedy of the battle but participate in it anyway).
If a neutral Meepo were to side with his people against the Paladin, it would not be necessary (and perhaps would not even be advisable) for the paladin to deal subdual to Meepo. The question would not be whether or not the paladin killed a neutral kobold but whether or not the paladins attack on the kobold tribe was justified.
Incidentally, since a lot of this is being blamed on the D&D alignment system and Detect Evil in general (one poster even favorably referring to the 2e "only real EEEVEEIL" (or immediate eeeveeeil intent) version of detect evil), I think I ought to say a few words in its defense (or at least in contradiction to the ridiculous idea that the 2e version was more conducive to a game that explores moral dilemmas). The idea of detecting evil is only foreign to those to whom the very idea of evil is foreign and passe. IRL, those of us who believe in evil may have less sophisticated methods of detecting evil (relying upon witnesses and making decisions) but we none-the-less come to a lot of definite conclusions about what (and who) is evil and what isn't. (Even those who claim that they don't believe in such simple-minded concepts as evil come to such conclusions if the vituperation about Ashcroft and Bush is to be taken as evidence of what its speakers actually believe). For most people, the challenge is distinguishing between degrees of evil and discerning the correct reactions to it. The challenge for the D&D paladin doesn't become any different from that just because he can eyeball the broad categories of evil/not quite evil or actually good.
In contrast, the 2e "EEEVEEEIL only" interpretation of Detect Evil is actually much more suited to a black and white game where the proper response to Evil is always to kill it. When Detect Evil doesn't detect Scrooge, or a serial womanizer, but only fiends in human form and their high priests, it really IS a license to kill. (Certainly there are still people who don't detect as evil who the paladin is justified in killing also but at least one class of people (those who detect as evil) are unambiguously marked for death). That is not the case in a system where pickpockets, sharpers, and fiends (well, at least weak ones) could all respond to detect evil in the same way.
However, I agree with LuYang and Wizardru in part. The man who intends to do evil and would really follow through with it if given the opportunity is evil whether or not the opportunity presents itself. Now, it's clear that, if the opportunity never presents itself, we will never know, absent omniscience, whether the individual would or would not have followed through with it. We don't know whether the man is losing the battle with his demons but hasn't lost yet or whether he's entirely surrendered. However, I don't think it's much of a stretch to suppose that there is a difference between the conflicted individual who will do evil and the conflicted individual who plans to do evil but won't follow through--before the opportunity to do evil is past. Nor do I think it's much of a stretch to believe that Detect Evil can tell the difference between the two.
(Of course, that's not the same thing as saying that the evil detected would be worthy of death. The man who struggles with his conscience and can't bring himself to kill his landlady may very well detect evil because he has no problem embezzling the money he collects for orphans (which is generally not thought to be worthy of death these days (although it would have been in some days past)).
However, there seems to be a rather pernicious notion going through this thread that a paladin would never kill a neutral or good NPC. I don't think that's so. There are plenty of justifiable reasons for killing that could apply to a neutral or good NPC just like the justifiable reasons for killing don't necessarily apply to an evil NPC. For instance, a paladin who is on the righteous crusade to destroy the wicked hobgoblin empire of Naziesqueness may well find that he is facing neutral or even good soldiers on the other side. Perhaps they were conscripted or perhaps they see it as their duty to defend their homeland. Perhaps they are honoring an oath or perhaps they just don't want to see their farms destroyed and their families without food (common consequences of losing a war). Whatever their reasons, I don't think that their lack of corruption or even goodness means that even a paladin would be obliged to put up his sword. (He might well want to and try to negotiate but they have good reasons for not listening to him. If they are both wise and good, they probably both appreciate the tragedy of the battle but participate in it anyway).
If a neutral Meepo were to side with his people against the Paladin, it would not be necessary (and perhaps would not even be advisable) for the paladin to deal subdual to Meepo. The question would not be whether or not the paladin killed a neutral kobold but whether or not the paladins attack on the kobold tribe was justified.
Incidentally, since a lot of this is being blamed on the D&D alignment system and Detect Evil in general (one poster even favorably referring to the 2e "only real EEEVEEIL" (or immediate eeeveeeil intent) version of detect evil), I think I ought to say a few words in its defense (or at least in contradiction to the ridiculous idea that the 2e version was more conducive to a game that explores moral dilemmas). The idea of detecting evil is only foreign to those to whom the very idea of evil is foreign and passe. IRL, those of us who believe in evil may have less sophisticated methods of detecting evil (relying upon witnesses and making decisions) but we none-the-less come to a lot of definite conclusions about what (and who) is evil and what isn't. (Even those who claim that they don't believe in such simple-minded concepts as evil come to such conclusions if the vituperation about Ashcroft and Bush is to be taken as evidence of what its speakers actually believe). For most people, the challenge is distinguishing between degrees of evil and discerning the correct reactions to it. The challenge for the D&D paladin doesn't become any different from that just because he can eyeball the broad categories of evil/not quite evil or actually good.
In contrast, the 2e "EEEVEEEIL only" interpretation of Detect Evil is actually much more suited to a black and white game where the proper response to Evil is always to kill it. When Detect Evil doesn't detect Scrooge, or a serial womanizer, but only fiends in human form and their high priests, it really IS a license to kill. (Certainly there are still people who don't detect as evil who the paladin is justified in killing also but at least one class of people (those who detect as evil) are unambiguously marked for death). That is not the case in a system where pickpockets, sharpers, and fiends (well, at least weak ones) could all respond to detect evil in the same way.
LuYangShih
First Post
Wizardru is correct about my point of view. Alignment is what you are. Judging people based on their alignment is judging them based on their actions, since their alignment is determined by their actions.
By the way, I do not think characters like Scrooge would be classified as Evil. Such characters would be a type of Neutral with Evil tendencies, but they have not yet fallen into the Evil alignment. I do not think you can have "weak" Evil or Good characters. Such characters are still mostly Neutral, with a tendency towards one axis or the other.
By the way, I do not think characters like Scrooge would be classified as Evil. Such characters would be a type of Neutral with Evil tendencies, but they have not yet fallen into the Evil alignment. I do not think you can have "weak" Evil or Good characters. Such characters are still mostly Neutral, with a tendency towards one axis or the other.
Olive
Explorer
Green Knight said:
You mean Book of Exalted Deeds right? The monte cook book is long out. Anyway, I would have been rule zeroing more than likely) the explained paladin's code myself. The core books shouldn't be impinging on DMs that way. Player and DM should sort out codes for different orders and play it that way. What a bunch of chumps on message boards think has pretty much no baring on your game for exactly the reason that it's NOT spelled out. If it was a rule, then sure, no problem, you can get a straight answer.
Every paladin thread that even begins to deal with alignment issues drops into arguments between LAWFUL good types and lawful GOOD types. Threads about paladins should been prefaced with a tag indicating 'detect, smite and kill' style paladins, or some other kind. That might help keep the senseless arguements to a minimum.
But I doubt it.
This I understand... the RPGA should sortout what the paladin's code is in LG games for sure.
Elder-Basilisk said:
Yes, exactly. Since I do believe in Evil, I don't find it a pernicious notion that the Paladin detects the serial killer as Evil and _knows_ that he would be justified in eliminating the monster by any means necessary. I prefer the spell as a detector for True Evil, rather than as a "there's a shadow on his soul" detector of mildly evil alignment - and the worst case scenario IMO is where the Paladin is unable to distinguish between Scrooge and Son of Sam and thus, LuYangShih-like, puts them both to death. This LYS Nazi-esque Paladin seems to have more in common with the PHB description of Lawful-Evil than with PHB Lawful-Good.
Although I do like the idea of the Paladin detecting Evil and finding he registers himself...
LuYangShih said:
If that's your house rule (evil alignment = EEEVIL alignment), fine, but the PHB descriptions don't support this, and nor do the DMG NPC generators. D&D alignment system always seems to have assumed that evil and good are about as common as each other, so in a mostly neutral society there are as many evil people as good ones. If you want to restrict the evil alignment to Truly Evil persons, that's one way to resolve the problem. Are your good NPCs radiant visions of Goodness also?
LuYangShih
First Post
I just do not think a character like Scrooge was truly evil. In the story, when he saw the suffering he was causing, as well as the end his actions would lead him to, he felt remorse and regret about it, which of course led him to change his ways. I think Evil characters do not have regret or remorse about the actions they commit, and will cheerfully destroy other peoples lives if it furthers their own goals. By the book, alignment tendencies are present, so I think it is completely fair to say a character like Scrooge would be LN with LE tendencies.
LuYangShih
First Post
By the way, I never said Detect Evil by itself was a license to kill. A Paladin following that edict would be breaking the Lawful part of his alignment, and furthermore, regardless of the morality of the action, such actions would be complete foolishness. Wisdom is one of the valued attributes of Paladins, and they should be able to discern when what is right is not what is possible.
However, I do think that Detect Evil does allow a Paladin to judge creatures whom he already suspects, particularly in a dungeon enviroment. In the scenario presented in this thread, the fact that the Kobolds radiate an Evil aura should be enough to motivate the Paladin to action against them. He knows they are wicked creatures, and he knows the likely harm they can do in the future. It is thus his duty to remove the malignant reptilians before they are allowed to commit that harm.
However, I do think that Detect Evil does allow a Paladin to judge creatures whom he already suspects, particularly in a dungeon enviroment. In the scenario presented in this thread, the fact that the Kobolds radiate an Evil aura should be enough to motivate the Paladin to action against them. He knows they are wicked creatures, and he knows the likely harm they can do in the future. It is thus his duty to remove the malignant reptilians before they are allowed to commit that harm.
Similar Threads
