When Paladins Go Terribly Wrong

[Bastoche]

Personnally, I think that neutral characters even with evil tendencies should'nt register as evil from the detect evil spell... And the behavior quoted really showed as neutral to me. Not at all evil (I mean the gypsies).

 

[Sanackranib]

paladin

It all depends on your campaign. I ran a paladin back in 2e that had the oble Warrior kit (he was the eldest son of a duke) there were times when the paladin acted as judge/jury and excutioner -but, as a noble I had the right to administer "low justice" in this world this encompassed all crimes short of treason, attacks on royal personages and things allong that line. Meny paladins feel that it is their duty to "root out evil" where ever they may find it. as a DM I probably would have given the player the benifit of telling him that the action he was undertaking was aginst his code, and tried to cut him a break until he "got the feel of how to play a paladin" also I would have let him atone for his actions (and have his church explain exactly what was expected of him - then undertake a quest to ristore his status.) remember alignment changes happen gradually not all of a sudden. Paladins are tough for expireced players to run, so don't automatically strip their status for their first infraction. especially if the player thinks his actions were just. send him visions to show his god is not pleased and let him work it out. you can always strip him later but don't do it as a first result unless it was a truely henious crime like slaughtering LG pesants instead of "evil" gypsy's.

 

[carpedavid]

Re: Re: Absolute vs relative alignment...

While you're correct about the evil of the child and the evil of the demon being of the same kind, I think that your conclusion that smiting them both is the same act is a caricature of the core D&D understanding of Good and Evil.

Let's start with the detect evil spell. The demon will register more strongly than the child on the spell. This indicates that D&D recognized differences of degrees of evil. In fact, demons in general register more strongly than humans in general. This indicates an inherent difference of degree in evilness.

Moving on to the Monster Manual, this is reinforced. The human child would come under "Often Neutral." (if humans were in the monster manual). This recognizes that the human is able to change his/her alignment and that neutral is the most common alignment. Demons, on the other hand are listed as Always chaotic evil. This means that, while there may be some demons who are of different alignment for some campaign specific reason, on the whole, they admit no variation in alignment. In general, they are probably not capable of changing alignments.

So, D&D recognizes that there's a difference between a bullying child and the Prince of Lies. If there's a difference between them, there's also a difference between smiting one and smiting the other.

Except that there is absolutely no mechanical difference between using smite evil on the bullying child and the Prince of Lies. Nor, for that matter, would Protection from Evil have any different effect (assuming that neither the child nor the demon prince was a summoned or conjured creature). It is not a caricature of D&D that evil = Evil, it's the basic mechanic of the D&D multiverse. That's the way that magic works.

Your example only serves to illustrate my point that the basic alignment mechanic serves to create confusion. The conflict between absolute and relative alignment is what creates problems.

Even if you were right about that though, the Inquisition would have nothing to do with it. The Inquisition was not about destroying evil but rather, at least according to the Inquisitors, about rooting out those who would undermine the Catholic society. A butcher who sold rotten meat or who beat his wife would have been considered evil but would not have been handed over to the Inquisition. Thus, it is actually a rather poor example of a historical situation where evil=Evil.

I'm well aware of the reality of the Inquisition. I was referring to the mindset of moral absolutism - the, "We're Good. Those who are against us are Evil," was of looking at the world. The impunity with which they conducted themselves is very reminicent of the mechanics of the universe of D&D, and therefore a very good example of a historical situation where evil = Evil.

 

[Vocenoctum]

"The Church didn't make it- the founder of the Damidrian Empire and the greatest Paladin in history, Mazrimian I, made the law according to the dictates of his God, Bahamut. According to Bahamut (Lawful Good), those of divine blood (the nobility) have more rights than those who do not posess it- and he gives the power. Slaying a sorcerer of divine blood in good standing with the Imperial Guild of Mages for killing two bargemen was out of line for the Paladin, and more in line with the behavior of a Chaotic Good champion... such as a divine liberator."

This is not a law created by a Lawful Good diety, this law is cleary Lawful Evil. A law created by those in power to protect those in power. This law reeks of injustice, and no Paladin would heed or obey it.

I'd say it's LN. Its more about the status quo. The Powers aren't trying to empower people (the nobles) they're saying that the nobles get more rights with their more responsibility in governing. This governmental system would quickly degenerate into LE though, unless as was noted the nobility is DIRECTLY answerable to Bahumat. There needs to be a clear "you screw up, you die in a pillar of fire" effect for the nobility. IMO ofc.

Do your players a favor and disallow the paladin class. Only a fool or a masochist would attempt to play a paladin in your game.

Or, change it to the part where it's specific enough that there is no room for questions of ethics and such. But, disallowing it would be better.

I also dislike that the player is Judged Munchkin in absentia. I don't know what powers this "underdark human" has, but I certainly don't know that the player only picked it and paladin because of twinkish tendencies. If this race was such a problem in the campaign, why did the DM allow it in the first place?

Moreso, his race has no impact on the ethical questions presented here, so it's unimportant in my mind.

 

[Sanackranib]

paladin

I would tend to agree with Vocenoctum
here, if the paladin saw the sorc commit an evil act then whats the problem. yes evil is evil but there are degrees of evil as well and it seems to me that the society in which you have placed the paladin has already made the slip to LE. this isn't the players problem and you shouldn't punish his character for it. at the very least you should provide him with a strict ethical code that he understands so that he can follow it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: Re: Absolute vs relative alignment...

Except that there is absolutely no mechanical difference between using smite evil on the bullying child and the Prince of Lies. Nor, for that matter, would Protection from Evil have any different effect (assuming that neither the child nor the demon prince was a summoned or conjured creature). It is not a caricature of D&D that evil = Evil, it's the basic mechanic of the D&D multiverse. That's the way that magic works.

Smite or protection from evil would work the same way on the bully and the demon but that doesn't mean that smiting a bully is the same as smiting a demon. Firing a pistol also has the same physical effect whether you're a policeman or a bank robber but that doesn't mean that there's no difference between a the policeman and a bank robber in a shootout.

Your example only serves to illustrate my point that the basic alignment mechanic serves to create confusion. The conflict between absolute and relative alignment is what creates problems.

I think you're the only one who's confused here. A person can be evil. A demon is always evil. They're both evil but they're also different. What's so confusing about that? Where's the relative alignment that you're supposed to be confused about?

Unless you decide to reduce all information about character, behavior, attitude, and belief to a pair of words--Lawful Good or Neutral Evil for instance--I don't see any inconsistency between saying that the miser and the mass murderer are both evil--although to different degrees and for different reasons--and that evil means the same thing in both cases (whether evil is defined as a failure of virtue or a transgression against moral law is irrelevant to the discussion).

I'm well aware of the reality of the Inquisition. I was referring to the mindset of moral absolutism - the, "We're Good. Those who are against us are Evil," was of looking at the world. The impunity with which they conducted themselves is very reminicent of the mechanics of the universe of D&D, and therefore a very good example of a historical situation where evil = Evil.

Well, it looks like you've you're own axe to grind here. Going back to D&D, it's far from clear that the logic is "we're good; those who are against us are evil." Sometimes that is the case. Sometimes it isn't. Good D&D characters find themselves opposing neutral creatures all the time--especially animals. In many campaigns, they find themselves opposing neutral and even good characters. In short although the mechanics of D&D do presuppose absolute moral reality, that neither necessitates nor leads to the "we're good; all who oppose us are evil" way of thinking. Nor do good characters usually have carte blanche to do whatever they want because they're good and their opponents are evil. The mechanics of D&D do not inevitably lead to some kind of fantasy world where good characters are dressed in jackboots and forced to act like some (even more) twisted version of the Inquisition that, unlike the real inquisition, can't even tell the difference between a child bully and the Prince of Lies. This thread itself is evidence of that--the DM decided that the (good) paladin's method of dealing with evil was unnacceptable and posted here to ask how he should deal with the situation.

 

[Sanackranib]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolute vs relative alignment...

Smite or protection from evil would work the same way on the bully and the demon but that doesn't mean that smiting a bully is the same as smiting a demon. Firing a pistol also has the same physical effect whether you're a policeman or a bank robber but that doesn't mean that there's no difference between a the policeman and a bank robber in a shootout.



I think you're the only one who's confused here. A person can be evil. A demon is always evil. They're both evil but they're also different. What's so confusing about that? Where's the relative alignment that you're supposed to be confused about?

Unless you decide to reduce all information about character, behavior, attitude, and belief to a pair of words--Lawful Good or Neutral Evil for instance--I don't see any inconsistency between saying that the miser and the mass murderer are both evil--although to different degrees and for different reasons--and that evil means the same thing in both cases (whether evil is defined as a failure of virtue or a transgression against moral law is irrelevant to the discussion).



Well, it looks like you've you're own axe to grind here. Going back to D&D, it's far from clear that the logic is "we're good; those who are against us are evil." Sometimes that is the case. Sometimes it isn't. Good D&D characters find themselves opposing neutral creatures all the time--especially animals. In many campaigns, they find themselves opposing neutral and even good characters. In short although the mechanics of D&D do presuppose absolute moral reality, that neither necessitates nor leads to the "we're good; all who oppose us are evil" way of thinking. Nor do good characters usually have carte blanche to do whatever they want because they're good and their opponents are evil. The mechanics of D&D do not inevitably lead to some kind of fantasy world where good characters are dressed in jackboots and forced to act like some (even more) twisted version of the Inquisition that, unlike the real inquisition, can't even tell the difference between a child bully and the Prince of Lies. This thread itself is evidence of that--the DM decided that the (good) paladin's method of dealing with evil was unnacceptable and posted here to ask how he should deal with the situation.

The degrees of evil and neutral opponents are only a few of the tools that good DM's can use to make life "interesting" for paladins

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolute vs relative alignment...

Smite or protection from evil would work the same way on the bully and the demon but that doesn't mean that smiting a bully is the same as smiting a demon. Firing a pistol also has the same physical effect whether you're a policeman or a bank robber but that doesn't mean that there's no difference between a the policeman and a bank robber in a shootout.

but to make your analogy better you'd have to have bullets that only hurt bank robbers.

smiting evil only hurts evil (regardless of amount) and has no effect on good (regardless of amount)... bullets can hurt good and evil equally.

joe b.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolute vs relative alignment...

Good point. (Of course, a smite can only be delivered with a physical attack so a paladin's smite would still hurt an innocent, even though the smite itself would be ineffective.) To make the analogy relevant, it probably has to be:

A bullet has the same physical effect whether it hits a bank robber or an innocent bystander (who also happens to be a wife beater) but that doesn't mean that there's no difference between the two. A police officer who shoots the bank robber in a shootout will probably be exonerated after the hearing. A police officer who shoots the "innocent" bystander will have much more trouble.

but to make your analogy better you'd have to have bullets that only hurt bank robbers.

smiting evil only hurts evil (regardless of amount) and has no effect on good (regardless of amount)... bullets can hurt good and evil equally.

joe b.

 

[Sanackranib]

paladin

and in the case of the smite the robbers head would explode