Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Storyteller01]

Right, but again, paladins arn't cops.

In what respect? They represent the their church, enforce its creeds, and are expected to respect the local laws and their authority.


Also from the SRD:

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

As for harming innocents, it states that they are to be punished. This does not automatically invoke a death sentence. Man gets caught beating his children, and I can see the paladin calling him out 'and allowing him to fight an equal for once' without fear of power loss, especially if he leaves the guy bloody but not dead or maimed (however, the law may allow the last ). But to sit there and go 'but he's evil, he must die' tends to get into some very sticky situations, especially if the locals don't apply the death penalty for their crimes.

Now if said brigands attack, well, self defense is a beautiful thing (as long as you don't deliberately goad them into an attack). But if you attack without proof I'm not inclined to agree that the paladin is any better.

Lurking, armed, off the road and jumping out at travelers demanding their money or their life would be a good start.

The last means you've witnessed the crime and know everyone's place in it. Lurking and armed isn't exceptionally justifiable, as most adventurers (including paladins) do the same thing.

 

[Sejs]

But look at the helm of opposite alignment. You don't need to back up your new alignment, it instantly changes and you act approprately. It doesn't slowly poison you, you just change.

Granted, but to be fair we're talking about a cursed magic item here. You don't need to back up your new alignment, because the helm does that for you ("Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook").

Likewise, the change can be reversed by equally magical means, though admittadly it's in the rather harsh form of a wish or miracle.

A paladin doesn't have to slowly become evil to become a blackguard. All he has to do is say 'Screw this, I'm going to that party!' and he gets bonuses or instant conversion.

Er, not as such, no. The paladin does have to slowly become evil to become a blackguard. He has to have that evil alignment before he can become one. The instant conversion thing doesn't have to do with "Shazam! I'm evil now!" but rather "Shazam! I can trade in those ex-paladin levels I couldn't use the abilities of anyway, on account of being evil and all, for blackguard levels on the spot. Hooray!"

Even a Same with the warlord. He chooses to be good, then backs his choice after the fact. A DM may force you act in a manner that slowly turns evil, but the conversion charts for this PrC don't require it.

The conversion charts for Blackguards have nothing to do with it, honestly. The only two real fast-track ways to change your alignment are both magical in nature: the helm, which does it against your will, and a cleric of your target alignment casting the Atonement spell for you. For the Atonement to work, you'd have to be willing, and afterwards, you'd have to act the part, same as any other member of that alignment would.

So the warlord in our example would choose to be good, but until he's sufficiently backed it up he's still considered evil for all intents and purposes. The burden of his misdeeds means a Holy Smite will still knock him silly until he's actually worked to make amends.

 

[Storyteller01]

Er, not as such, no. The paladin does have to slowly become evil to become a blackguard. He has to have that evil alignment before he can become one. The instant conversion thing doesn't have to do with "Shazam! I'm evil now!" but rather "Shazam! I can trade in those ex-paladin levels I couldn't use the abilities of anyway, on account of being evil and all, for blackguard levels on the spot. Hooray!"

But alignment (at least good and evil) is a conscious decision. What's to keep a paladin from seeing a blackguard in action, say 'I want that!' and convert on the spot? They take a level in rogue, then to blackguard. Regardless, he didn't slowly change, he made a conscious decision and followed through with it.

Let's use a story in in MPG's Quintessential Drow as an example. (Paraphrased) A drow woman is fighting a human paladin. She regals him with the failures of his church and how evil cannot be destroyed. She leaves him in a heap on the floor crying and cursing his church.

What prevents him from converting right then and there? If he already has a darkened soul (as others have put it earlier), why does he suddenly have to prove it? Besides being a DM'ed house rule, why does he have to slowly work it into character?

So the warlord in our example would choose to be good, but until he's sufficiently backed it up he's still considered evil for all intents and purposes. The burden of his misdeeds means a Holy Smite will still knock him silly until he's actually worked to make amends.

And when does that happen? When in the rules does he prove this? Especially if it's already stated that alignment is a state of mind (conscious decision) or an attitude of the player, but doesn't say that it's the culmination of a persons past.

 

[Sejs]

In what respect? They represent their church, enforce its creeds, and are expected to respect the local laws and their authority.

Right. Respect, not enforce. And I figure we can just skip the whole 'legitimate' part of the authority clause, as I imagine we're both on the same page there. Unjust authority doesn't need to be respected just because it's codified (Huh.. gotta eat a baby every tuesday, eh? Well.. I suppose if it's the law... )

That does beg the Boondock Saints question, though. Which is higher? The laws and dictates of your faith, or the laws of man?

As for harming innocents, it states that they are to be punished. This does not automatically invoke a death sentence. Man gets caught beating his children, and I can see the paladin calling him out 'and allowing him to fight an equal for once' without fear of power loss, especially if he leaves the guy bloody but not dead or maimed (however, the law may allow the last ).

I agree, certainly. Ultimately the paladin may've just made the kids' situation worse (who do you think the dad's going to take it out on...), but that's neither here nor there.

On the other hand, the law may not punish the man for beating his children, but even were that the case the paladin would still be justified in taking the man to task, I figure.

But to sit there and go 'but he's evil, he must die' tends to get into some very sticky situations, especially if the locals don't apply the death penalty for their crimes.

It certainly could. As I've said in the past, foolish paladins don't remain paladins for long. As an aside, and I know I've mentioned this before in similar threads, punishment in the sorts of societies that your average D&D game take place in tended to travel in broad strokes: execution, maiming, public humiliation, recompense, etc. A guy beating his kids wouldn't be hanged for it or even lose a hand, but he may spend a few days in the stocks.

But that being said, two paladins don't need to handle the situation in the same way. One paladin could walk the road of appropriate force, while another could have a fearsome reputation as a 'hanging judge' type where justice comes at the business end of a Smite Evil. And both would be equal parts a paladin.

Now if said brigands attack, well, self defense is a beautiful thing (as long as you don't deliberately goad them into an attack). But if you attack without proof I'm not inclined to agree that the paladin is any better.

I guess now we delve into what constitutes proof. The self defense thing we're on the same page with - no disagreement there. But, hypothetical situation: paladin's been warned there are brigands on the road ahead. He travels a good ways on and spots several men, scruffy and hardened, wearing crude leather armor and various weapons (thought not drawn), flanking the road. Several, but not all of them, ping as evil. They're standing there, sizing the paladin up. Would he be justified in thinking that these are the bandits he's been warned about?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

By detaining them and going to the church. It better to say 'sorry dude, evil illusions and all' than to go to some mother and say 'I didn't mean to kill him. He was evil at the time...'. Cops have opened fire on folks who looked like a given role. We know what that got them.

You are imposing modern Western ideals on a rough and tumble fantasy world. In the larger world today it is not rare for criminal gangs to be rooted out by a lethal hail of machine gun fire from a military style assault on an entire building, killing everyone therein. Innocents? A sad thing that, but it is a price the populace accepts for law and order.

What if one of those bandits happens to be an important noble's third son? Even if he is evil, your character's life can get very complicated very quickly.

That is part of the fun of a being a justice-dealing-do-gooder. Sometimes there is negative fallout. Has nothing to do with the Paladin, per se. Heros and villains alike have a knack for making enemies.

Could you define what acting like a bandit looks like? If only some detect as evil, why are they all going to die? Why are the non-evil folk there to begin with?

Given that he's an agent of the church, a paladin has more to lose if they don't make sure they're right. You now have a rampaging paladin screaming 'SLAY THE EVIL!', a large group of people praying they never see him in case he thinks they're evil, and a church that now has to comfort these people and tell them that no, the paladin is not certifiably insane.

"Guilt by association" is one (of many) traditionally accepted means of assessing culpability. It is still accepted in most of the world, and I am afraid it has not exactly fallen completely out of fashion in modern Western societies.

Under such a moral viewpoint, truly innocent people who happen to hang out with evil people is a logical impossiblity. Genuinely good-hearted people know that association with evil sullies them, and that they may end up paying with their lives for their guilt if they fail to find a means of atonement by their own efforts and initiative.

Good people whose lot places them in the company of evil men know their should fear Paladins. That is because the universe is sometimes just.

 

[Storyteller01]

But, hypothetical situation: paladin's been warned there are brigands on the road ahead. He travels a good ways on and spots several men, scruffy and hardened, wearing crude leather armor and various weapons (thought not drawn), flanking the road. Several, but not all of them, ping as evil. They're standing there, sizing the paladin up. Would he be justified in thinking that these are the bandits he's been warned about?

Justified in suspicion, yes. He'd still need proof that they're the brigands.

Look at it from my point of view (working security). I can see kids or suspicious individuals on a property. I can guess that they are up to no good. If I had detect evil, some would probably blind me. But until they do something that proves intent I can't just detain them and tell the cops 'he looked mean'. Even if I KNOW they're going to do something, I can't take action beyond calling for back-up just in case.

I can, however, question folks, ask for ID, and generally make it less tantilizing to do something in the area.

In this regard, there have been instances where something did happen, and everyone just KNEW it was X person. It turned out to be someone else entirely.

Having DE definitely gives a paladin an advantage, but until someone's actually done something you're on bad footing. Go too far, and you'll re-create 1984 in your games.

.

 

[Sejs]

But alignment (at least good and evil) is a conscious decision. What's to keep a paladin from seeing a blackguard in action, say 'I want that!' and convert on the spot? They take a level in rogue, then to blackguard. Regardless, he didn't slowly change, he made a conscious decision and followed through with it.

I think we're speaking to the same point here, Storyteller. You're saying alignment change can be a deliberate choice. I can certainly agree that it can be. What I'm saying is that until the Follow Through On It part happens, no alignment change has occured. So in the example here, the decision was deliberate, they backed it up and had proven their commitment to their new outlook by the time they were ready to take levels in blackguard.

What I'm saying is that it can't be a matter of: evil cleric starts casting Unholy Blight on you, you say 'oh, well I'm evil now", and as a result the blight does you no harm. That until you back up your claim to the title o' Evilness, prove you meant what you said, that blight is still gonna hurt.

What prevents him from converting right then and there? If he already has a darkened soul (as others have put it earlier), why does he suddenly have to prove it? Besides being a DM'ed house rule, why does he have to slowly work it into character?

Not a house rule - p.104 in the PHB.

There's absolutely nothing preventing that from being the galvanizing event that starts the character to convert and they can state their intention to that effect, but until they start to back it up they're just words. If he wants to change here and now then he needs an Atonement.

And when does that happen? When in the rules does he prove this? Especially if it's already stated that alignment is a state of mind (conscious decision) or an attitude of the player, but doesn't say that it's the culmination of a persons past.

When the DM decides they're walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk.

 

[Storyteller01]

You are imposing modern Western ideals on a rough and tumble fantasy world. In the larger world today it is not rare for criminal gangs to be rooted out by a lethal hail of machine gun fire from a military style assault on an entire building, killing everyone therein. Innocents? A sad thing that, but it is a price the populace accepts for law and order.

Nope, at least not in my opinion. I'm applying logic for a setting that has assests and resources even we don't have. A village could conceivable have spellcasters in the double digits, counting followers listed per the DMG. Some of those can be 5th level or higher. A kingdom would obviously have more of these resources, and would be using them. The only thing that keeps magic from outstripping our own technology is that wirters and DM's don't want it to.

Why gun down a gang when multiple clerics can cast Greater Command?

Why assume guilt by association when a king can call his spellcasting advisor for detect lies, charms (why would I lie to my friend), suggestion, geas, etc?

Heck, having one mage create a magical archway into the proceeding chamber geased with 'do not lie' would save a king a whole world of problems. You can creatively get around it, but an intelligent judge will know what questions to ask.

Yes, I have used real world arguements in the past, but as far as D&D is concerned there's very little reason why dark age or current examples of justice or criminal investigation would apply, with the exception of advanced alchemy replacing chemistry. With the exception of the very rich, few NPC's could reliably lie their way out of a crime.

That is part of the fun of a being a justice-dealing-do-gooder. Sometimes there is negative fallout. Has nothing to do with the Paladin, per se. Heros and villains alike have a knack for making enemies.

Agreed, but it's one more reason for a paladin to not slay all evil he finds.

Under such a moral viewpoint, truly innocent people who happen to hang out with evil people is a logical impossiblity. Genuinely good-hearted people know that association with evil sullies them, and that they may end up paying with their lives for their guilt if they fail to find a means of atonement by their own efforts and initiative.

Unfortunately, humans (and most races in D&D) are less than logical. Not only have generally good hearted folks hung out with evil people (family, life long friend, etc) some have even taken the rap for said evil person out of a misguided sense of honor or responsibility.

 

[Sejs]

Justified in suspicion, yes. He'd still need proof that they're the brigands.

Or else...what?

I guess that one really boils down to a matter of is the DM the type who would play it straight, or are they the type who would try to pull the rug out from under the paladin because for some reason they think that sort of thing is fun. Haha! Those armed hooligans wearing the 'I *heart* robbing people' shirts were just farmers, despite all the signs to the contrary I was feeding you! Take that ya darn paladin, no powers for you.

Look at it from my point of view (working security). I can see kids or suspicious individuals on a property. I can guess that they are up to no good. If I had detect evil, some would probably blind me. But until they do something that proves intent I can't just detain them and tell the cops 'he looked mean'. Even if I KNOW they're going to do something, I can't take action beyond calling for back-up just in case.

I can, however, question folks, ask for ID, and generally make it less tantilizing to do something in the area.

In this regard, there have been instances where something did happen, and everyone just KNEW it was X person. It turned out to be someone else entirely.

Right, but you're not a paladin, and a paladin is neither a cop nor a security guard.

Imagine instead in your position, that instead of Detect Evil, you have Detect Criminal. If someone pings would you be justified in calling the law? Now further imagine that the law isn't nearly as pervasive as it is in our society, that there may or may not be anyone to call, and beyond that they may not be as well equipped to deal with the situation as you are.

Having DE definitely gives a paladin an advantage, but until someone's actually done something you're on bad footing. Go too far, and you'll re-create 1984 in your games.

I disagree, you're on good footing, but it definitely shouldn't be the one and only thing you go off of, certainly. As for the 1984 quip? Hardly. Let's not be obtuse, here.

 

[Storyteller01]

I think we're speaking to the same point here, Storyteller. You're saying alignment change can be a deliberate choice. I can certainly agree that it can be. What I'm saying is that until the Follow Through On It part happens, no alignment change has occured. So in the example here, the decision was deliberate, they backed it up and had proven their commitment to their new outlook by the time they were ready to take levels in blackguard.

What I'm saying is that it can't be a matter of: evil cleric starts casting Unholy Blight on you, you say 'oh, well I'm evil now", and as a result the blight does you no harm. That until you back up your claim to the title o' Evilness, prove you meant what you said, that blight is still gonna hurt.

Sort of. I can see a character changing algnments nearly instantly over a given event (hence the willpower to successfully follow through), but at the same time I wouldn't allow the change to occur just because. It's usually pretty evident when a player cheats the system in that regard, so it's easy to curtail.

There's absolutely nothing preventing that from being the galvanizing event that starts the character to convert and they can state their intention to that effect, but until they start to back it up they're just words. If he wants to change here and now then he needs an Atonement.

When the DM decides they're walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk.

So we have a slight differing view as to timing. I think we can live with that.