The Paladin's Code...and TIME TRAVEL!

[Voadam]

That's fair, I too perhaps have read too much into the scenario. I would have to say though, that with what minimal information we do have, the paladin destroying an evil-doer is not murder. It's a sanctioned execution direct from his god.

If so and the killing is not murder, then I was right about the question before, it's a trick!

 

[PowerWordDumb]

What would make this very interesting would be if the scenario were fleshed out in such a manner as to clearly make the killing of the evil-doer (maybe not an evil-doer, but some misguided sort whose actions would unleash great evil) an evil act which could not possibly be rationalized - yet at the same time make the (now) evil act of killing him absolutely necessary in order to prevent far worse catastrophes down the line.

Being the rat-bastard that I am, I would formulate it that way - where the paladin has to choose between:

a) an action that would cost him his paladinhood but save the world from some great evil scourge, or

b) choosing to allow the evil to occur, but (selfishly) keeping his paladin status intact by his choice, thus drawing into question the value of his status in the first place

All sorts of good campaign-fodder there, if your paladin's player doesn't mind the prospect of some sort of redemption quest to regain his paladin standing. Otherwise he could easily feel railroaded and bail out on it - a lot of paladin players I've met are power/authority junkies who don't like even the thought of a moral quandary in their games.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, it is wrong, if he's not irrevocably evil (say, the Paladin could kidnap him from his abusive home, raise him lovingly, and thus prevent the evil).

Yes, it is not wrong, if Fate has decreed that he be evil (because fighting against Fate, which is laid down by the powers you worship, is anything but Lawful, and arguably not Good, either.)

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Yes, it is wrong, if he's not irrevocably evil (say, the Paladin could kidnap him from his abusive home, raise him lovingly, and thus prevent the evil).

If this viewpoint becomes prevalent, then evil is fated to ultimately overcome good. Why?

Paladins are a scarce resource. If you begin tying up all the paladins by having them capture and nurture/redeem all the evildoers, then there will soon be no paladins left to actually combat evil.

I'm not saying that there isn't the occasional evildoer who can be redeemed to the betterment of society (versus just terminating him, that is), but the popular idea that all evil types deserve a chance at a loving home is foolhardy. If we're playing "Ghetto 2003", then maybe you have a point, but in D&D evil is not just a buzzword for "poor parenting".

 

[Trickstergod]

If the paladin can travel back in time, presumably, he can go right to the moment whenever that first bad, evil deed is about to begin. Now, as this is a kind of generic situation, this could mean a number of different evil kinds of acts, where certain reactions are just not appropriate. However, let's just boil it down to this: A time traveling paladin can go back to when the evil deed is about to/is being performed. As such, it is fully appropriate for the paladin to stop the evil deed - if it's already happening, killing the source of it seems entirely appropriate. But not before. If the paladin went in and killed the source of this evil as a child, that's not very chivalrous, and not very good. It's pragmatic. Which is the domain of Neutrality.

An alignment arguement just waiting to blow up, but Good, in my opinion, means Idealism, whereas, with Lawful and True Neutrality, at least, it means Pragmatism. It's why Cuthbert and Helm are Lawful Neutral; they're pragmatic about evil. They don't hold to any ideals like redemption or converting evil over; if they did, they'd be Lawful Good. The simplest, most pragmatic solution is to kill the source of the evil. Doing a lesser evil (coldblooded murder) to prevent a greater evil (mass murder) makes for a Neutral act.

Anything that falls under the heading of pragmatic, like this seems to, will generally fall quite handily into the realm of Neutrality. And paladin's aren't pragmatic, they're idealistic.

Edit: spelling, grammar

 

[Lela]

An alignment argue just waiting to blow up, but Good, in my opinion, means Idealism, whereas, at least with Lawful and True Neutrality, means Pragmatism. It's why Cuthbert and Helm are Lawful Neutral; they're pragmatic about evil. They don't hold to any ideals like redemption or converting evil over; if they did, they'd be Lawful Good. The simplest, most pragmatic solution is to kill the source of the evil. Doing a lesser evil (coldblooded murder) to prevent a greater evil (mass murder) makes for a Neutral act.

Anything that falls under the heading of pragmatic, like this seems to, will generally fall quite handily into the realm of Neutrality. And paladin's aren't pragmatic, they're idealistic.

Very true. The Paladin is forced into that rare spot of having to reconcile two pieces of Dogma that often don't coincide. While the rest of the flock (Clerics included) may choose one over the other when it suites them, the Paladin never has that option.

When those two elements of his stuerdship directly contradict, it is up to him to make the hard choices. To me, this is an essential aspect of the Paladin's role in life. Good vs. Law coming into conflict once every five or so levels is something I'd expect from them. It's what they're made for.

Other characters, of course, get other things to think about and the conflict isn't the only thing the Paladin faces in life. But, IMC, it's going to be there. Don't play a Paladin if you don't want that. Play a Holy Fighter instead.


As to the Paladins saving the supposed welp (as many are assuming) from his "whatever made him bad" enviroment, I'd say that isn't that far featched. It's a risk of course. And, as PowerWordDumb said, Paladins are scarce. So, instead of holding an orphanage of potentially evil-doers the Paladin lets the priests (not necisarally even the Clerics) handle it. If they the church is Good aligned, they would more than likely already have an orphanage set up and running. The Paladin could visit from time to time.


Based on that though, Moral Quandry for a RBDM. If the BBEG watched you kill his parents in order to "Rescue" him, that just might set him off. Or, if you pulled him out as a baby, he learns how you did it and the result is the same. You're a hypcryte and so must be your god.

There are ways around that but a clever DM isn't just going to let it lie (unless the PC is very clever, in which case a reward of peace on that front might be allowed).

 

[s/LaSH]

Jimmy was a pickpocket. All his friends knew he was a pickpocket, and that he'd never done an honest day's work in his life. So he didn't hang out in the slums, he went to the upper-class district and picked their pockets because they were easier targets. Then he went and spent it all on rent, ale, and less pleasant things, and his friends stayed just a little more sober than he in case they found their belts lighter at the end of the evening. He also ran a jeweler's shop specialising in engagement rings, which brought joy to many a young couple in love.

What alignment was Jimmy?

Arthur was a tax collector. He was very good at his job, because he had the law on his side and the law allowed him considerable legal clout in the collection of tithes. It didn't matter to him that the people he taxed often couldn't support themselves when he took the legal amount; nor did he particularly care that other tax collectors would show mercy to the poorer members of society. He was just doing his job. So what if he took a little pleasure in it? He never broke the law... and the state orphanage got built because of his efficiancy.

What alignment was Arthur?

More to the point, is a paladin justified in murdering either of them on sight?

Take a guess as to which side of the argument I'm on.

 

[frankthedm]

The many outweigh the few.

Didn't a superhrero Game get in DEEP s over a modual where, IFthe time traveling PC's took out Hitler someone WORSE came along.

 

[Lela]

Jimmy was a pickpocket. All his friends knew he was a pickpocket, and that he'd never done an honest day's work in his life. So he didn't hang out in the slums, he went to the upper-class district and picked their pockets because they were easier targets. Then he went and spent it all on rent, ale, and less pleasant things, and his friends stayed just a little more sober than he in case they found their belts lighter at the end of the evening. He also ran a jeweler's shop specialising in engagement rings, which brought joy to many a young couple in love.

What alignment was Jimmy?

CN

Arthur was a tax collector. He was very good at his job, because he had the law on his side and the law allowed him considerable legal clout in the collection of tithes. It didn't matter to him that the people he taxed often couldn't support themselves when he took the legal amount; nor did he particularly care that other tax collectors would show mercy to the poorer members of society. He was just doing his job. So what if he took a little pleasure in it? He never broke the law... and the state orphanage got built because of his efficiancy.

What alignment was Arthur?

LN

More to the point, is a paladin justified in murdering either of them on sight?

No, they're Neutral. He, in keeping with his Lawful aspect, should arrest the first one (aiming for proof first).

The second one could easily be a worshiper of St Cuthburt or Helm. Kill him if your goal is a Holy War (hay, I don't know your campaign, that might be your goal).

Killing either on sight would loose you your status.

Take a guess as to which side of the argument I'm on.

I really have no idea.


At this piont, I keep feeling that I should mention the Detect Evil spell. If you look at the list, you'll find things like "Cleric of an Evil Deity," "Undead," "Evil Artifact," and "Evil Creature." None of the categories mention someone of an Evil alignment.

The argument can be made that Evil Creature means he of an Evil Alignment. I would point out the many instances (notibly in the Domains section, especally the Fire, Water (or is it cold?), Earth, and Air sections) where they list Fire and Air creatures. This doesn't refer to Fire Elementials only. You can turn/rebuke a Red Dragon if you'd like.

Without the Evil Alignment, the Detect Evil aspect of a Paladin is sorely limited. It also removes many DM headaches.

The many outweigh the few.

Didn't a superhrero Game get in DEEP s over a modual where, IFthe time traveling PC's took out Hitler someone WORSE came along.

Fear the Red Skull!

Fear the Dimond Monkey!

FEAR THE CRYSTAL DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I agree with Lela. CN and LN respectively, and neither one even remotely a threat that a paladin should be killing.