Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)

[Arravis]

I agree with S'mon, seems some define "evil" differently then what's in the PHB and that is likely the cause of much of this confusion and misunderstanding.

LuYangShih:
To me, and what would likely happen if you went by the PHB definitions of alignment, Scrooge was evil and changed alignment to good as events unfolded.

You mention: "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."

That describes a sociopath, not just a normal person of evil alignment. It would seem by your definiton, only the most extreme cases and the mentally ill would qualify as evil alignmed. Again this does not seem to fit the example of most things presented in standard D&D.

"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."

By having a paladin kill anyone that "detects" as evil you throw wisdom out the window.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

I'm curious, what alignment would you assign to Tony Soprano?

I will say that I think the Alignment with X tendencies qualifier is something of a cop-out. You want to eat your cake and have it, too. "A Christmas Carol" and it's protagonist are poster children for the "alignment follow actions" concept. His actions and desire for change take him to LG. Scrooge was plainly LE, IMHO.

To wit:

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

That sounds like Scrooge to me. He stokes the money-machine, and uses his lending business like a hammer. Notice that no one ever says that Scrooge cheats them...he always obeys the law and is above board. But he is also callous, unfeeling and derisive of his own clients and fellow citizens.

"If I could work my will," said Scrooge indignantly, "every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!"

***************


"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

***************
Even the blind men's dogs appeared to know him; and when they saw him coming on, would tug their owners into doorways and up courts; and then would wag their tails as though they said, "No eye at all is better than an evil eye, dark master!"

But what did Scrooge care? It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance, was what the knowing ones call "nuts" to Scrooge.

 

[AnthonyJ]

I think it's fairly clear that the 'proper' actions for the paladin are somewhat dependent on what it means for the kobolds to be LE.

It's possible that it means they're inherently evil. Under these circumstances, the proper response is to wipe them out.

It's possible that it means they have mental traits that incline them towards evil, but aren't forced to be evil. A likely candidate, in the case of kobolds, would be a lack of empathy towards non-reptilians. In this case, teaching kobolds to treat humans well is sort of like teaching humans not to kill snakes: doable but not something they will tend to learn naturally. Note that realistically, humans would probably have trouble empathizing with kobolds, and would be prone to act in 'evil' ways towards them.

Finally, it's possible that kobolds aren't inherently more evil than any other race, but that their society is malignant.

In either of the last two cases, the responsibility of the paladin is unclear, depending on your concept of ethics. The most 'good' option is probably to work out a way for humans and kobolds to live in peace as neighbors; given time, perhaps you can have a non-evil set of kobolds. If this isn't possible, you have to weigh the relative good of preventing conflict between human and kobold against the relative evil of destroying intelligent life (note: there are situations where it's arguably proper for the paladin to act to defend the kobolds against intruding humans).

In the specific case of the Sunless Citadel, I would tend to rule that simply ignoring the situation is wrong, but annihilating the kobolds without first looking into less-violent options would also be wrong. It may be that destroying the kobolds is necessary, but at this point it's premature to assume that it would be necessary.

 

[Buttercup]

A Paladin with a kobold follower ?

*sigh*

I wish you were my player. I absolutely love stuff like this. I can think of all sorts of fun things to do with a kobald follower. Were I you, I'd ask the DM to give Meepo a level of sorcerer. Imagine the fun you could have with him then!

 

[LuYangShih]

But the Paladin is a Templar of his faith, a mighty warrior pursuing his chosen path of righteousness. His skills and abilities are warlike by nature, and there is a reason for that. As I have said so many times before in this thread, the Paladin is not bound to try and redeem every evil he comes across. If that is feasible, and practical, perhaps he should try, but in most cases it is better to simply destroy it. If you want the Paladin to play otherwise, it ceases to be a viable adventuring class and gets lost in a quagmire of moral quandries with no true resolution.

Arravis and Wizardru. First off, I already mentioned that I do not view Detect Evil as a license to kill in and of itself. Mitigating circumstances do allow the ability to become a deciding factor, though, as it should be. Perhaps Scrooge was LE, but if so he it was a very weak LE. He talked big, but when confronted with what his actions were doing to other people, he felt remorse, guilt, and changed his ways because of it.

I think Evil characters don't have remorse over the actions they take, in most cases. Perhaps you want to have a different view of Evil, but by the standards of the D&D system, I think Evil creatures are rapists, murderers, sadists, or such, vile creatures truly worthy of death. Furthermore, alignment tendencies are fully supported by the system, so I do not see the problem with using them.

This argument is moot at any rate, though. I doubt the Paladin in the scenario described here is going to be able to lead every single Kobold present through a series of visions spanning their entire lives, attempting to redeem them. As I said earlier, a Paladin must weigh the balance between what is right, and what is possible. Or, to further define that, between what is realistically possible.

The Kobolds are evil. This is a fact. They are raising an evil White Dragon whose powers could one day threaten the entire region. This is a fact. A nearby town has a high probability of being harmed one day by either the Kobolds or Calcryx. This is a fact. The Paladin has taken the information presented to him and is now acting according to his divine duty. Which is protecting the innocent, not redeeming the wicked.

 

[Arravis]

LuYangShih, life IS a quagmire of moral quandaries with no true resolution. Personally I like to play characters with a realistic depth of personality. That's one of the things I like about playing a paladin, it's a character that tries to deal with a morally gray world in black and white terms. The two tend not to mesh well together causing dramatic and interesting role-playing situations. I just think there's alot more to a paladin then merely slaughtering things they find morally distasteful (I find no evidence in the class description that backs up the concept of them simply being church ordained killers).

You say: "Perhaps Scrooge was LE, but if so he it was a very weak LE.", yes, but there's no way for the Detect Evil spell to differentiate between an evil murderer and an evil merchant. The only responsible thing to do is to investigate matters closely when evil is detected.

I get the impression that you are oversimplifying evil characters, they aren't cartoons tying young ladies to railroad tracks, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally. I try to make my bad-guys a bit more complex... a bit more human. There is good and evil in everyone, from the vilest to the most angelic. To remove that depth from your character's (PC's and NPC's) is an injustice. Not only is it realistic to have fully-fleshed out villains, it also makes for a more interesting story (if that's what you're looking for, if you simply want hack-and-slash, then perhaps not).

"A nearby town has a high probability of being harmed one day by either the Kobolds or Calcryx. This is a fact." I think that's opinion, not fact at all. Potential harm is no reason to murder someone.

 

[Squire James]

Ah... breathe in the fumes of another paladin thread war!

I follow a "three strikes" policy that has worked rather well. If the paladin does something I consider overly chaotic or evil, I slip in a subtle in-game hint that that he did something wrong (a wandering monk shakes a finger at you as he walks by). If the paladin does a second thing that seems off, I hit the paladin over the head with a warning (your patron deity shakes a finger at you as he walks by). The third time, he's out.

Aside from obvious acts of a paladin falling fast and hard (making deals with Demogorgon that allow demons to scourge the countryside, for example), I don't think paladins should fall from a single action. Certainly not for something as picyune as a white dragon and a group of kobolds!

 

[Arravis]

My last fallen paladin fell fifty feet down into a spike pit... I've had cruel DM's though .

 

[d4]

But the Paladin is a Templar of his faith, a mighty warrior pursuing his chosen path of righteousness. His skills and abilities are warlike by nature, and there is a reason for that.

laying on hands, remove disease, Diplomacy and Heal as class skills -- a paladin is not solely a warrior. he is also a diplomat and a healer.

As I have said so many times before in this thread, the Paladin is not bound to try and redeem every evil he comes across.

neither is he bound to destroy every evil he comes across.

Perhaps Scrooge was LE, but if so he it was a very weak LE.

perhaps these kobolds are also only weakly LE. then they don't deserve to be slain out of hand, do they?

The Kobolds are evil. This is a fact.

but the degree of their "evilness" has not yet been determined. given that the adventure doesn't recount the kobolds committing any horrific crimes other than greed and cowardice, it seems they aren't "rapists, murderers, sadists, or such."

They are raising an evil White Dragon whose powers could one day threaten the entire region. This is a fact.

no, it isn't. firstly, it's not a given that the dragon will grow up to be harmful to the region. secondly, given the lackluster care the kobolds have been giving it, it's not even a given the dragon will survive to adulthood.

A nearby town has a high probability of being harmed one day by either the Kobolds or Calcryx. This is a fact.

again, no it's not. there's no evidence in the module that the kobolds have ever threatened the town or even have the capacity to.

 

[S'mon]

While I strongly disagree with LYS's approach to the evil alignment in D&D - the kind of psychopaths he describes as evil probably make up under 1% of a mostly-Neutral population, rather than the 20%+ who'd fit the PHB 'evil' descriptor - as DM I almost certainly wouldn't fault the paladin for killing the kobolds & white dragon per se. If it's a reasonable assessment that they're a real threat to 'decent right-thinking creatures' (not just because they detect evil, using standard 3e rules of what that means), the paladin may well be justified in killing them. OTOH forming an alliance with them, pretending friendship, then _betraying and killing them_ would be a clear breach of the Paladin Code's duty to act honourably, whatever the kobolds' alignment - _maybe_ some leeway if they were CE demons who he _knows_ would do the same to him as soon as they could, but doing this to lawful humanoids, no way. The most 'Good' option would certainly be to attempt to redeem the kobolds through patient teaching, acts of charity, quiet perseverance - but that's the act of an extreme-NG character, not the LG 'sword of justice'.