When Paladins Go Terribly Wrong

[tburdett]

The problem with this discussion is that it is always the same. Some people want to use or introduce varying levels of good and evil, and other people don't.

Good and evil in D&D has always been black and white. The rules do not support varying levels of evil. Someone a little bit evil is just as susceptible to smite or other evil affecting abilities as someone who is completely evil. The rules make no allowance for lesser or greater evil.

Paladins exist to enforce the will of their Lawful Good deity. The will of these deities is often the destruction of all that is evil. Not just the big evil, all evil. Players and DM's need to work out, in advance, just how this good vs. evil interaction is going to work in the campaign world.

I think that it is horribly wrong to strip a Paladin of his abilities because he commits an act which the player feels is justified, but the DM feels was evil. It is senseless and irresponsible to let something like this happen.

There needs to be a level of communication between the DM and player which would prevent these types of problems from happening. Let the player know that he has a bad feeling about what he is doing, or give him a sign that his deity is displeased with the action he is about to commit. Give him some warning before you nuke his character.

 

[I'm A Banana]

True, the rules don't make allowances for lesser or greater degrees of evil, but they do make many allowances for many many different flavors of evil.

Paladins exist to enforce the will of their Lawful Good deity. The will of these deities is often the destruction of all that is evil. Not just the big evil, all evil.

I would actually say this isn't always true, or even mostly true. Paladins exist to uphold the virtues of Lawful Goodness (you can have an atheist paladin...). The virtues of Lawful Goodness, while they can include the destruction of all that is evil, normally simply include the destruction of evil *istelf*. This means that the Paladin's qualm with the kid is whatever is making him evil (the harsh family life, the spoiled brat syndrom, etc.), and he must smite what has caused the evil -- fight the disease, not the symptom, sort of thing. With fiends, they are evil *istelf*, not merely something that is evil. They are the cause of and incarnation of wickedness and cruelty. They aren't just creatures who happen to commit evil -- their existence is evil. Thus, smiting them is smiting the disease, not the cause.

It's a minor point, but an important one -- Paladins shouldn't destroy all that is evil. They should destroy all evil. They shouldn't destroy an evil child -- they should destroy the evil within that child (unless the child is, itself, some form of evil, such as a half-fiend). Since in something like a fiend, there is no cause for the evil (the fiend isn't evil due to extenuating factors, he's evil because of what he is). the paladin is perfectly justified in reducing it to unpleasant goo.

Again -- don't destroy evil things, destroy evil itself. Hell, that might be an important enough point in every Paladin's Code. You don't just hack to bits an evil statue....you get rid of the evil that's causing the statue's wickedness.