Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)

[d4]

Evil does not mind its own business... Because of their evil nature, they will do evil deeds.

how do you feel about the question i posted earlier (about the greedy evil merchant)? is the paladin duty-bound to slay every evil human he meets in town as well? if not, why is that different? given the information in the module, there is no more evidence that the kobolds themselves pose a threat to the town than any random evil person who's already in the town.

Since the kobolds are evil, they are offering an alliance for their own benefit, not the party's. They can also break that alliance and double-cross the party whenever it benefits them.

actually, the alliance benefits both parties. and most people offer alliance when it benefits them -- that isn't an evil act.

secondly, if the paladin has agreed to the pact, and then turns around and slays all the kobolds, isn't he the one who is "breaking the alliance and double-crossing" the kobolds "whenever it benefits" him? why is it OK for the paladin to do it, but it's evil if the kobolds do it?

 

[d4]

The Paladin, as far as we know, formed a momentary pact with the Kobolds as to avoid conflict at that time. Now that he has retrieved the Dragon for them, and cleared out the rest of the compound, he must make a decision as to whether or not he should leave these creatures alive. That does not at all break the Lawful alignment as far as I can see.

well, i guess it really depends on what kind of agreement the paladin and the kobolds came to.

i know when I DMed Sunless Citadel, the agreement was the party and the kobolds would not harm each other, the party would help return the dragon and in return receive some of the tribe's magic items. there was no wording about the agreement ending after the dragon being returned. so to turn around and slay the kobolds afterward would violate the paladin's Lawful alignment.

 

[Kershek]

how do you feel about the question i posted earlier (about the greedy evil merchant)? is the paladin duty-bound to slay every evil human he meets in town as well? if not, why is that different? given the information in the module, there is no more evidence that the kobolds themselves pose a threat to the town than any random evil person who's already in the town.

If he spent the time to detect someone as evil, he should take it upon himself to deal with them one way or another. Whether that means to watch for them to do an evil act and hand them over to the local authority, or to interrogate and/or kill them in the lawless environment like a dungeon,

actually, the alliance benefits both parties. and most people offer alliance when it benefits them -- that isn't an evil act.

I agree with that. It would only be an evil act if the kobolds asked for the agreement believing or hoping the party would die performing the act.

secondly, if the paladin has agreed to the pact, and then turns around and slays all the kobolds, isn't he the one who is "breaking the alliance and double-crossing" the kobolds "whenever it benefits" him? why is it OK for the paladin to do it, but it's evil if the kobolds do it?

It depends on the agreement, of course. No paladin should agree to not harming an evil group for an indefinite time.

 

[Aristotle]

Detect Evil is not a tool to show you who you should slay next, so much as it is to show you who you can and can not trust (IMHO of course). The paladin detects an evil nature. The paladin does not detect what that kobold has done to foster that nature. Perhaps some form of punishment is in order, but death? I guess it depends on the law in your campaign.

I personally don't buy this "someday you might do something evil, so you have to die now" theory. If the paladin has no proof that the kobold has done anything severe enough to warrant death, than aren't they taking the chance of killing an innocent? That's murder, folks.

 

[jgbrowning]

I personally don't buy this "someday you might do something evil, so you have to die now" theory. If the paladin has no proof that the kobold has done anything severe enough to warrant death, than aren't they taking the chance of killing an innocent? That's murder, folks.

But it most definitely makes one ask the following question.


Can someone be evil without ever doing an evil action?


If your answer is no, why does the paladin have to wait until another evil action is performed before he can take action against a human, and would he have to wait if it was against an Ogre? (IE. if he saw an ogre on the street and it detected as evil, would he be required to wait until the ogre did something evil?)


If your answer is yes, how does one become evil without doing evil?



joe b.

 

[Arravis]

To LuYangShih:

Simply detecting as evil in no way implies that they have done any great evil. As was said before, and what has in no way been addressed, what if it was simply miserly, greedy behavior? The point of Detect Evil is to make you aware of those that might be deceiving you, to know quickly whom you can likely trust. It’s not a license to kill, nowhere in the PHB or in any of the material is the Detect Evil ability treated this way (quite the opposite as I recall, there was a letter to The Sage on this issue. Does anyone know where it may be found?). Your concept of “peering” into someone’s soul seems to be quite lacking since you aren’t willing to conceive of different depths of evil. It’s not an “off/on” switch. A good person would see all creatures worthy of redemption. Especially a group of kobolds that hasn’t brought any harm to anyone, this isn’t a “dangerous warren of evil humanoids”, and it’s a bunch of sad and pitiful souls trying to survive in an awful situation. If a paladin doesn’t have pity and mercy, what’s exactly is he fighting for? It’s not an issue of accepting evil or forgiving it, it’s an issue of seeking its redemption. In your world-view it seems that once someone is evil they can never have a chance to change their ways, you’d see them dead before they had an opportunity to change.

You claim that your methods would protect the innocent… but what kind of world would the innocent inherit? Might want to take a look at George Orwell’s 1984 to see what blind oppression of those you don’t deem “worthy” leads to. All tyrants have justifications and rationalizations for their action.



Kershek

Since when is it evil to do things for your own benefit? Pretty much anything we do is for our own benefit. It’s how far you go with that, that determines evil. If you’re willing to sacrifice your free time for some personal goal, is that evil? Of course if you’re willing to sacrifice the town’s people for your own goals, that is evil. I don’t see the kobold’s in this situation making an evil decision… do you? Seems that it is purely based on your assumption of evil, not on any actual facts or actions.

Yes, the kobolds MIGHT one day do evil… yes, so might your paladin, so might the guy up the street, so might anyone. Free will is what makes good. Choosing to do the right thing, not doing it because you “have” to.

You say “If he spent the time to detect someone as evil, he should take it upon himself to deal with them one way or another.” Why does that mean killing someone if they detect evil in an environment that has no jurisdiction? Sounds like road-warrior style tyranny…

 

[Kershek]

One doesn't get pinged as evil for a while after doing an evil act or thinking about it. They get pinged as evil because it's their inherent nature. And those are the ones the Paladin is tuned to finding and dispensing great justice (or doing something else appropriately).

 

[Arravis]

Kershek, I disagree. In D&D one act can easily bring you to an evil alignment (one act can also bring you to a good alignment, but it's harder to do). You seem to think that evil is something that things are to their core with no hope of change. Once evil, always evil? Seems overly pessemistic and assumes the worst in everyone.

Paladin's in my view aren't Judge Dread style characters... I don't think that was ever the intent of the class. (Nor is Judge Dread style character "good" by any means.)

I do think that jgbrowning has a point of interest that's not easily answered... I'll have to think on that one.

 

[Aristotle]

Hypothetical case...

A mighty warrior wishes to become king. In his heart he knows that he would do or say anything it takes to get his kingdom. Even if that meant murdering his brother, the heir to thr throne. He has not done any of these things yet, but he truly believes he is able. And he plots it every day of his life.

The warrior is evil, at least by my definition. He hasn't done anything yet. He may never actually act upon his secret desires. Maybe he will, and he'll become the most feared tyrant to have ever walked the earth. Detect evil can't tell you what the outcome will be; only that the man is evil. Do you kill him for what he might do?

If your answer is yes, than what if you encounter him long before he became that mighty warrior. He has held this evil in his heart since he was a child. If you encounter him at 12 years of age... do you kill him? If not, then where is the line drawn exactly?

This should be an easy answer for you. This is an individual who is actually evil, instead of a race which is generally considered to be evil.

 

[jgbrowning]

Simply detecting as evil in no way implies that they have done any great evil. As was said before, and what has in no way been addressed, what if it was simply miserly, greedy behavior?

Another thing to consider is that the paladin's god (or simply the holy force that fills his actions) is willing to smite both the simply greedy as well as the most evil of fiends.

Since this god or force makes no distiction between "levels" of evil, requiring the paladin to do so would have to be based on an idea other than the amount of evil within the creature.

joe b.