Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)

[Marimmar@Home]

1) When someone detects as evil, he has done evil things. The alignment system pretty much says so since when you do nothing evil at all, your alignment changes to a more neutral stance.

2) A paladin is lawful good, not neutral good. Someone of a neutral good alignment would maybe let the kobolds live and try to improve the relations between humans and kobolds. Since a paladin is of a lawful alignment he has to think about the people he protects as well as his 'goodness'. So he might look for evidence that kobolds in general and Meepo's tribe in particular are a threat to his flock.

3) Think about the people in the community when the paladin comes back from the citadel and tells them that he helped a tribe of evil humanoids to get their hands on a white dragon. The people would lynch him on the spot. Providing terrorists with nukes is a really good thing, isn't it?

4) If you allied with evil humanoids, you've been a paladin for the longest time.

Solution:
Get yourself some evidence that (those) kobolds are evil and a threat to the good people of the nearby community. Then invade the kobold's homes with overwhelming force. Make shure noone escapes. Scan their alignment, send all that detect as evil to their false gods ask the rest (who still live) to convert or be put to the blade for being allied with evil. Be shure to be thorough and secure the citadel so that no further threats can be spawned from it.

~Marimmar

 

[Arravis]

Some very interesting points have been made... and I do agree that much of the fault lies in the D&D alignment system. It seems to be almost everyone's assumption that creatures such as kobolds are born evil. How can is this possible if evil is based on actions not thought? Are baby kobolds evil? The same stands with the tribe of kobolds in the Sunless Citadel. If the paladin were to investigate them and try to find evil actions... he would in the end find none I suspect. What then?

Does the fault lie with the creators of the adventure who clearly made neutral kobolds and still wrote in their alignment as evil? It is, according to the MM, fully possible to have neutral kobolds since the term "ussually evil" implies by it's nature that there are some that aren't evil.

Anyway, I know that I like to make a more realistic, morally ambigious game world and such philosophical issues are often dealt with in my campaigns. This is something all the players are aware of and enjoy, it's not simply "sprung" on them, worry not .

p.s.: I've never seen Minority Report, looked pretty droll.... it deals with this issue I take it?

 

[LuYangShih]

By the book, the Paladin should kill the Kobolds. I can understand the other points of view on the subject, but they are not by the book. Based on the facts that the Kobolds are evil, are raising an evil White Dragon, and could pose a significant threat to the residents of Oakhurst in the future, it is the Paladins duty to slay them.

 

[Arravis]

There isn't any evidence that the kobolds have committed any evil actions at all. And wouldn't killing someone without them commiting an evil action, be in itself evil? "Could pose a threat" isn't justification. Anyone could pose a threat, that old lady looking at you funny, perhaps she could pose a threat... I don't see how it is a paladin's duty to kill those things that "might" pose a threat.

Sonds to me like you're looking for an unadultorated license to kill. That's not what paladin's are about, by the book.

 

[LuYangShih]

The evidence has already been presented. The divine gift to Detect Evil given to Paladins is there for a reason, you know. The Paladin should already be suspicious of the Kobolds, and of the Dragon. His ability simply confirms what is already apparent. The Paladin should not wait for evil people to commit atrocities before punishing them, the Paladin should eliminate them before they get the chance.

 

[Arravis]

A divination spell isn't evidence, at all. It's not 100% full-proof (it's actually quite easy to fool with a number of spells) and it's only a guide, not a justification for murder. That's all you seem to see it as.

"The Paladin should not wait for evil people to commit atrocities before punishing them" Do you realize what kind of world this leads you to? I don't think you've thought out that statement at all.

 

[LuYangShih]

I realize fully what kind of Paladin that leads to. It leads to an adventuring Paladin who is effecient and a valued member of a party. Yes, you can slay people based on Detect Evil. It is a guide, yes, but it provides irrevocable proof (in most cases) of the state of a beings soul. Good and Evil are not just philosophies in D&D, they are real forces that affect the world around them. If you are Evil you have taken a side on the Cosmic order directly opposed to that which the Paladin strives to uphold. Taking the fact that the Kobolds are evil into account, the Paladin must take action to remove them, lest in the future they harm the innocents of the nearby village.

 

[S'mon]

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...

I find these jackbooted Paladins scarier than the 'monsters' they're supposed to be fighting!

Hm, I wonder if there's a lesson there somewhere...

 

[Green Knight]

"The Paladin should not wait for evil people to commit atrocities before punishing them"

Do you realize what kind of world this leads you to? I don't think you've thought out that statement at all.

A world in which Winston Churchill is the norm, rather than Neville Chamberlain?

 

[WizarDru]

Damn. I'm sure I'm not the first one that decided to take Meepo with him. This adventure has a way to fashion things outside it's basic scope.

A Paladin with a kobold follower ?

*sigh*

Heh. Read my Story Hour, linked below, and you'll see how just that eventuality occured. Meepo remains squire to Aethramyr, 20 levels later.

To answer your basic questions: some of your answers will depend on your interpetations of good, evil and how they factor into the game....and your DM's interpetations of same.

The question to be asked, then, is this: why will the Paladin begin slaying creatures, and what is the driving ethos of his diety? For a paladin of Heironeous, it doesn't seem unreasonable that he wouldn't be willing to negotiate with evil, or seek to redeem the kobolds. For a paladin of Pelor, such violence is much less likely, and for a paladin of Rao, almost unthinkable that this would be his first action.

First, consider the motivation. Is your paladin going to start killing based on his own moral compass? That is to say, is he deciding on violence because evil just needs killin? If so, slay away. It's not a great answer, but being one of those sort of paladins is as valid a choice as any. But if he's part of a church heirarchy, they may have words for him and his politically inconvienent choices in the future.

The kobolds ARE evil, and so are the goblins....but they've also benefited the town through the trade of the fruit. They've shown the ability to establish trade, even if they don't treat travellers very well on the road (which doesn't make them much different than human brigands, in that respect). The goblins, in particular, are subjugated by a greater force of evil...clearly, they could also be subjugated by a greater force of good. But every choice COULD lead to complexity and good roleplaying possibilities, no matter what you choose.

In my game, the paladin of the group decided to take a somewhat pragmatic stance. He chose to cooperate with the kobolds, as long as the greater good was served (which was, in this case, locating the siblings and locating the healing fruit). His group had a specific goal (retrieve the fruit to heal their patron's sickened daughter), so that may played a part. A man of his word, he kept the pact with the kobolds, as long as they didn't violate the agreement.