Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Storyteller01]

I don't think so. I would suggest that a 'Paladin' who basically did nothing all day, every day, and who consequently never committed an evil act, nor grossly violated his code, would still eventually cease to be Good and become Neutral (since inaction is always Neutral). I'm sure there are other cases, but they're probably pretty minor.

In any event, the three conditions I gave (any evil act, grossly violate the code, cease to be LG) are the same three conditions given in the PHB.

There's a story in a rather popular religious book that runs along these lines. Three men are given money by a lord. Two invest it, the third buries it. The first two are welcomed back by their master, and the third is kicked out for being a 'worthless, lazy lout'. I'm not sure there would be an alignment change, but (IMHO) you wouldn't stay a paladin if you didn't do anything with the rank.

 

[Rel]

I've had precious few Paladins played in my games over the years because the class mostly falls outside the preferences of my players. But when it has cropped up, I try to make the whole business easy on by the player and myself. I have the player write down very specifically the things that his code calls for. My only requirements are that this suit the deity the character worships and be at least VAGUELY within the bounds of Lawful (which has nothing to do with the law of the land) and Good.

After that I just enforce THAT code and don't worry much about other issues.

The one thing that I ALWAYS stipulate is that the Paladin is not a policeman. He's not around to enforce the legal process of whatever land he's in. He is an instrument of his god's will and fully authorized by the his deity and church to carry out justice according to his teachings. In most civilized lands that lean towards worship of the "Good" deities, this is fine from a legal standpoint too.

There may be other lands where the Paladin's authority is not recognized and he may suffer secular prosecution if he dispenses justice there in the manner dictated by his god. But flouting the laws of such places is generally not only ok with his deity but heartily approved of. After all, those heathens should be worshiping a proper deity and not curtailing the powers of the chosen instruments of the will of a righteous god!

 

[Numion]

You can't kill someone just because they're evil. If you do, and you have no other justification (you didn't witness them commit any crime) you go to jail for murder.

Say, the paladin has heard rumors of banditry in one area of the kingdom. He goes to the area and encounters a group of bandit-looking dudes. Is he free to ambush and dispatch them (or die trying), or is he required to perform CSI to determine what evidence he can gather, and which individuals have committed what crimes? For sake of argument, suppose that the penalty for banditry is death.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

A paladin loses his powers, not for simply lacking a good answer to all of life's evils, but for committing an act which he should not commit. A paladin could even challenge another Good character and combat and kill them, if need be; an honorable challenge is not disrespectful of life, nor is an armed opponent an "innocent." However, a paladin could not be a professional gladiator, killing slaves or financially desperate opponents, or battling for petty honor. But a paladin could sponsor a war of conquest, if he felt the greater good truly justified it.

This paragraph summed up the argument nicely for me, especially the first sentence. I think people invent or play out these wild situations and expect that the Paladin (i.e., the paladin player) have all the right answers. That just isn't the case. Having an open and interpretable code of conduct doesn't make you infallible. It just means you're expected to uphold that code to the best of your ability, as each individual sees fit.

I think you can look at this mechanically and come up with some basic answers too. If a paladin wasn't mean to fight, why does he have a full base attack bonus and proficiency with most weapons? If he wasn't meant to be prepared for war, why proficiency with the heaviest of armor and shields? If he wasn't meant to destroy evil, why Smite? It's viable to play a paladin that metes out mercy to all his foes, but it's ridiculous to expect it.

 

[Storyteller01]

Say, the paladin has heard rumors of banditry in one area of the kingdom. He goes to the area and encounters a group of bandit-looking dudes. Is he free to ambush and dispatch them (or die trying), or is he required to perform CSI to determine what evidence he can gather, and which individuals have committed what crimes? For sake of argument, suppose that the penalty for banditry is death.

CSI, as stated. Define bandit looking? How do you know these are the bandits and not some other group. How do you know they're bandits at all, or not some group, however evil, that's passing through and hasn't committed any crime (at least in that area)?

Remember the Salem Witch trials, rumors of witchcraft, and sentences of death that conveniently freed up land to be bought by their neighbors?

Nice that you mention that though. There's an episode where a soccer coach has to deal with the death of his daughter (your at least a young girl he knows well). The guy they arrest acts tough, up to and including confronting the father with an 'I got away with it' attitude. Rumors and preliminary evidence point to this guy. Father shoots said man after he gets out of jail, just find out that he killed the wrong man. Later evidence showed it was a young kid the father knew.

 

[Rel]

How do you know they're bandits at all, or not some group, however evil, that's passing through and hasn't committed any crime (at least in that area)?

Oh this reminds me of something else about my games: Evil is EVIL. You don't become Evil by stealing an apple off the vendor's cart, kicking your dog or cheating on your taxes. If you're really Evil then it's because you've done some seriously BAD stuff.

That doesn't mean that the standard MO becomes "Detect Evil -> Kill". But if you detect as Evil then the Paladin is perfectly justified in asking you some very hard questions and dispensing some justice if the answers make him believe it is more likely than not that you're genuinely a bad guy.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm not so sure that this board is the place to discuss good or evil, or the standards there of. In a previous thread, a vast majority of the responses said that any alignment could slit their friends throat at night if he was a danger to the group, and be justified in doing so. Even a paladin (some believed ESPECIALLY the paladin).

you sure on that? My poll showed lawful Good to be the 2nd least likely to kill the 'danger to the group'.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=168414

Anyways, I've always preferred Dragon Star's law of active morality. You can't kill someone just because they're evil. If you do, and you have no other justification (you didn't witness them commit any crime) you go to jail for murder.

Why is it that people think that the paladin needs to see more crimes commited when he can see the evidence of evil deeds on the souls of the wicked?

 

[delericho]

A couple of things that have disturbed me in this thread:

But a paladin could sponsor a war of conquest, if he felt the greater good truly justified it.

The idea that the paladin should simply follow what he feels is the 'greater good' is extremely scary. This leads to a putting aside of all manner of lesser goods, on the grounds that evil must be stopped, and if innocents have to be sacrifices, oh well.

The damage that can and has resulted in people following what they consider to be the 'greater good' is really quite staggering.

Oh this reminds me of something else about my games: Evil is EVIL. You don't become Evil by stealing an apple off the vendor's cart, kicking your dog or cheating on your taxes. If you're really Evil then it's because you've done some seriously BAD stuff.

Okay, firstly, my definition of evil is rather different: I define it as deliberately causing others to suffer for your own benefit. However, let's not argue definitions of evil.

Cheating on one's taxes regularly means, of course, that less money goes into the public coffers. Which means there is less available to fund the welfare state (if such a thing exists), directly harming those in society who are most vulnerable. Even in the absence of a welfare state, it means that the state has less money available for defence against the forces of evil who threaten. And, again, it's probably those who are weakest in society who will face the worst consequences of any attack. So, I could readily argue that regularly cheating on your taxes is, indeed, evil.

Similarly, where the apple vendor has worked hard to bring his crop to market, and where he and his family are suffering financial hardship, and so are dependent on making a good sale at the market, by stealing apples for your own benefit (rather than need... or perhaps even then), you are directly causing them harm that they should not have to face. So, I could readily argue that regularly stealing apples is evil (although I agree that it would have to be on a truly prodigious scale to classify as truly wicked).

But the example I really want to take issue with is the kicking of the dog. Honestly, are you serious? We're talking about deliberately inflicting pain on a creature that is not only innocent, but trusts you wholly, and (in most cases) is a loyal and honourable companion. How can that sort of betrayal not be considered evil?

 

[Numion]

CSI, as stated. Define bandit looking? How do you know these are the bandits and not some other group. How do you know they're bandits at all, or not some group, however evil, that's passing through and hasn't committed any crime (at least in that area)?

Paladin who must wait for a crime to be committed before acting is doing a piss poor job of protecting the innocent.

Nice that you mention that though. There's an episode where a soccer coach has to deal with the death of his daughter (your at least a young girl he knows well). The guy they arrest acts tough, up to and including confronting the father with an 'I got away with it' attitude. Rumors and preliminary evidence point to this guy. Father shoots said man after he gets out of jail, just find out that he killed the wrong man. Later evidence showed it was a young kid the father knew.

Well, if the evidence points to the man and he admits to it by his attitude, by all means the Paladin should dispatch the man. Better to act somewhat efficiently at stopping evil than letting doubt completely bound your hands.

p.s. CSI didn't exist in ye darken times. Up until 1800s about the only way to catch a criminal was for the criminal to be caught red-handed. Short of spells, that is. Those can go a long way. But still a Paladin that needs to book evidence before acting is severely handicapped in a medieval setting.

 

[delericho]

Why is it that people think that the paladin needs to see more crimes commited when he can see the evidence of evil deeds on the souls of the wicked?

Well, firstly, secular authorities are not necessarily bound to accept the word of the Paladin. Indeed, in any nation with ideals of due process in place, the Paladin will (and, indeed, should) be considered the same as any other vigilante, and be prosecuted and jailed as such. If nothing else, the Paladin might have fallen, and be lying about having seen signs of evil in the victim.

However, once we set aside secular authority, and instead move to consider the moral authority of the Paladin to mete out justice, I would generally agree with you: if the Paladin knows that the evildoers has committed deeds that warrant death, he is entitled to execute that sentence. (But, the key word there is knows - mere suspicion is not enough.)

However, the problem that you then hit is this: does being Evil in itself warrant the death sentence? If the answer is yes, in every case a being who is Evil deserves death, then so be it. But if there is even one instance where a creature is Evil but does not deserve death, then the Paladin cannot simply mete out judgement and death in any case... in case this is that one.

And none of the above deals with the problem that Detect Evil is not infallible. A creature could be cursed to detect as evil when he is not. It doesn't happen often, but again it doesn't have to. If it can happen at all, the Paladin has to stay his sword until he can ascertain the truth.