Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)

[Henry]

Just because someone is evil does not mean they are unlikeable.

More to the point, all of the wrangling we do doesn't mean a hill of beans, because no matter what the PHB says, no matter what alignment Meepo, Tony Soprano, or Barney the Purple Dinosaur is, what matters is that they WAY you play the paladin matches up with the pre-established definition of "how evil is evil" with you and the DM.

In my situation, I would not be upset if the paladin killed the kobolds and baby dragon, NOR would I be upset if they let them live out of mercy. Protecting the innocent demands that possible threats are dealt with; yet mercy and justice demands you not kill a being out of potential evil. Ultimately, the kobolds are responsible for their own actions, which includes whatever they have done to be evil up till that point. If they get killed for those transgressions, that's what the paladin is there for. If the paladin shows them mercy, that's his choice, just as it is the kobolds' and dragon's choice for any later evil that they do. It's the whole "murderer tells you to kill someone, or he'll kill your family" conundrum - the false notion that your refusal to commit evil makes you responsible for someone else's evil.

In other words, the coin turns both ways freely, but the only way correct for the game is what you and the DM agree on.

 

[S'mon]

Perhaps you could give an example of a character that would be Evil by your definition, and not mine. We seem to have reached an impasse on Scrooge.

The grasping merchant who enjoys cheating his customers? The jar-head mercenary who loves to fight and kill, but doesn't kill women and children? The leader of the pirates or brigands who steals from innocent travellers, but only kills those who resist? Any noble-but-evil antagonist with redeeming qualities probably fits. I saw a Western, Firecreek, a few days ago, with a band of desperadoes led by Henry Fonda as the baddies, opposing James Stewart as a milksop Sheriff. The Henry Fonda character was somewhat evil but clearly had sympathetic qualities - it made for a very strong finale, after Fonda's men had murdered someone, with Fonda having shot and wounded Stewart, standing over him and begging him to give in so Fonda didn't have to kill him, and Stewart struggling to reach his gun. Even Darth Vader might count - he was clearly evil, he just as clearly wasn't _all_ evil.

The best examples are from non-fantasy genre fiction though, the nasty people who clearly _aren't_ depraved fiends. The cruel headmaster at the Victorian boarding school - he beats the boys black & blue but he doesn't b*gg*r them. The grasping banker who forecloses on the poor farmer's mortgage. A million romantic portrayals of mafiosi, from The Godfather onwards. Gordon Gekko in Wall Street.

 

[S'mon]

The grasping merchant who enjoys cheating his customers? The jar-head mercenary who loves to fight and kill, but doesn't kill women and children? The leader of the pirates or brigands who steals from innocent travellers, but only kills those who resist? Any noble-but-evil antagonist with redeeming qualities probably fits. I saw a Western, Firecreek, a few days ago, with a band of desperadoes led by Henry Fonda as the baddies, opposing James Stewart as a milksop Sheriff. The Henry Fonda character was somewhat evil but clearly had sympathetic qualities - it made for a very strong finale, after Fonda's men had murdered someone, with Fonda having shot and wounded Stewart, standing over him and begging him to give in so Fonda didn't have to kill him, and Stewart struggling to reach his gun. Even Darth Vader might count - he was clearly evil, he just as clearly wasn't _all_ evil.

The best examples are from non-fantasy genre fiction though, the nasty people who clearly _aren't_ depraved fiends. The cruel headmaster at the Victorian boarding school - he beats the boys black & blue but he doesn't b*gg*r them. The grasping banker who forecloses on the poor farmer's mortgage. A million romantic portrayals of mafiosi, from The Godfather onwards. Gordon Gekko in Wall Street.

The second school principal in Buffy (Principal Skinner?) He was evil, but not EEVIL. Most of the protagonists in Reservoir Dogs - ok, some were EEVIL.

 

[Arravis]

I think we simply have to agree to disagree with LuYangShih. I think all the points have been elequently made and a conclusion can easily be reached. Fine debate all around .

 

[LuYangShih]

The grasping merchant who enjoys cheating his customers?

N with NE tendencies. The Paladin should show him the error of his ways by exposing his illegal activities.

The jar-head mercenary who loves to fight and kill, but doesn't kill women and children?

If he is killing others purely for enjoyment, I would qualify him as LE. He imagines his reticience to kill women and children somehow makes him better than other evil characters. The world would be better off without him, and the Paladin would be justified in slaying him.

The leader of the pirates or brigands who steals from innocent travellers, but only kills those who resist?

Same as the above. Selective Evil is not a redeeming quality.

Any noble-but-evil antagonist with redeeming qualities probably fits. I saw a Western, Firecreek, a few days ago, with a band of desperadoes led by Henry Fonda as the baddies, opposing James Stewart as a milksop Sheriff. The Henry Fonda character was somewhat evil but clearly had sympathetic qualities - it made for a very strong finale, after Fonda's men had murdered someone, with Fonda having shot and wounded Stewart, standing over him and begging him to give in so Fonda didn't have to kill him, and Stewart struggling to reach his gun. Even Darth Vader might count - he was clearly evil, he just as clearly wasn't _all_ evil.

Again, those are not redeeming qualities. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. He may be picky about who he brutally kills, but so what? Other than the Merchant, all of the characters you mentioned are LE, by the way.

The best examples are from non-fantasy genre fiction though, the nasty people who clearly _aren't_ depraved fiends. The cruel headmaster at the Victorian boarding school - he beats the boys black & blue but he doesn't b*gg*r them. The grasping banker who forecloses on the poor farmer's mortgage. A million romantic portrayals of mafiosi, from The Godfather onwards. Gordon Gekko in Wall Street.

D&D is a fantasy game, not reality based. I rarely see the point of bringing non fantasy archetypes into the game, as it is hard to apply them in most campaign worlds in which D&D is palyed. Still, a Paladin would deal with all the characters you described above appropiately. He would have the headmaster arrested, he would help the poor farmer who lost his home (and perhaps teach the Banker the error of his ways, if practicallly possible), and he would work to eliminate organized crime.

As I have said, the Paladin does not forgive evil, he destroys it. Whether that be through the sword or through the law is dependent on the circumstances. In the scenario described by Trainz, the sword is the appropiate, practical response.

 

[S'mon]

I think we simply have to agree to disagree with LuYangShih. I think all the points have been elequently made and a conclusion can easily be reached. Fine debate all around .

Hear hear!

 

[LuYangShih]

And so, the enemy abandons the field, leaving my forces to claim victory at last.

 

[Aristotle]

Am I missing something with all of this talk of "tendencies", as I don't see them mentioned in the alignment section of the PHB. Perhaps I'm just blind. I remember the tendency thing from previous editions, but ignored it for the most part.

 

[Arravis]

LuYangShih, it's not an issue of "winning" or "loosing". I think an overall concensus was reached (which seems to be one you don't agree with) and all the parties involved communicated their ideas well.

Leaving the battlefield... depends on your point of view.
Not wanting to beat a dead horse even more... definately.

My points were made and I'm more then happy with the results and the conclusions that were reached by most .

 

[AnthonyJ]

N with NE tendencies. The Paladin should show him the error of his ways by exposing his illegal activities.

Actually, no, that's just flat-out NE. The alignment definitions in the PHB are pretty broad; it's actually quite easy to fit an 'evil' alignment. Traditional dungeon-crawling, by the PHB definitions, is an evil activity.

Same as the above. Selective Evil is not a redeeming quality.

Actually, being selective is probably enough to make him 'less evil', but again, it's pretty easy to be evil in DnD.

Again, those are not redeeming qualities. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. He may be picky about who he brutally kills, but so what?

So if you limit yourself to killing, say, kobolds, you're still evil?

Truth is, the 'proper' behavior for the paladin depends on the way the DM chooses to define the world, and the meaning of alignment within the world. There are gameworlds in which the proper response is to kill the kobolds; there are other gameworlds in which it isn't.