First off: I don't mean no disrespect. There are always several ways of handling things and many conceptions of what is right and how it should be done. The following is written with the sole intention to ignite thoughts and to clarify what has possibly been interpreted as poor RP (on the side of a misunderstood paladin and the player behind the keyboard).

Playing a paladin comes with a more or less clearly defined code of conduct. The rough outline is probably obvious to most: Defend the widows and orphanes! Smite evil wherever it shows its hideous skin! Fight darkness, drive back the shadows and hold high the banner of light and justice so that Tyr/Lathander/Helm may smile proudly upon their chosen warrioress in their sacred Halls in the heavenly heights (and maybe drink an ale or two to congratulate themselves on this glorious offspring of their wisdom and struggle against the Dark Lords).

And to help their chosen ones to fight the armies of undead they have granted them the ability to detect evil in whatever shape and manifestation: Detect Evil! And hence the paladin (having this crafty ability quickslotted) narrows his eyes at the wizard standing in front of her: "You are a creature of vile darkness! I shall smite you on this spot, or die in the attempt! For your true intentions I know, and nothing good will provene from it!" (and she raises her blade to strike him down).

The proud and conservative dwarven warrior, the fun-loving (and deep in his halfling-soul: chaotic good) hin and the (neutral good and faithful) cleric of Lathander who happened to have been recruited by said (evil) wizard form a protective circle around the wizard: "Ho, hold milady! He seeks to find out the source of the animatrons in the ruins, who have attacked the city and cost many a life in this city. My brother, in fact fell pray to those vile aberrations and..."

(The paladin, briefly considering to strike down the hin as well, as he appears to be a servant of darkness at this moment, turns red and announces (shrieking by now) : )

"You are blinded by his kind words. His motives are corrupted!" [and, while having no clue about the background or the true motives of the wizard, proclaims: ] "Step aside, for I shall smite him here so that the Dark Lord may feast upon his soul!"

And after the guards have intervened and the raving knight in the service of her Lord (of Goodness) is being fed dry bread and water in some cell in the local prison, the dwarf, the hin, the cleric and the wizard set out to defeat the animatrons. The paladin, in the meanwhile, (in the cell) is smiled upon by her god, for not siding with evil.

For argumentation's sake, let us assume that the troup apparently warded off the threat to the city, eliminating tons of animated steel and rock (Oh joy!) but in the last room, they found the ultimate Swirvneblin control to call the evillest of all biggest animatrons - the control the Wizard has been seeking over the last two decades, all the time pretending to be a loyal servant to Sanctuary - and the wizard...

What am I getting at?

1. Evil differs in as to how the players creating evil PCs perceive it.

One player might choose evil to serve Bane. Another might choose it, because the PC is selfish (and in the player's moral code of conduct this accounts as evil) - maybe prone to promises and whispers from the Underworld.

2. What is evil? (a highly philosophical question)

Luckily (at least in my perception) evil and good are more or less clearly defined in a fantasy setting. Serve good, light, justice? -> Good. Serve Darkness, kill the innocents, pray nightly to Bane and sacrifice small children to see into the future? -> Evil.

And then there are the cases inbetween. If gods are worshipped and involved, it should be relatively easy for a paladin to detect the evil (and abstain from it: e.g. the Cleric of Bane seeking to invoke his master and grant him a physical presence on this plane). A zombie is obviously a creature of darkness and evil. -> Smitten!

If there is not much metaphysics involved (the typical goblin who just happens to be evil by nature and has no clue about who it is serving and why) still gives our paladin an easy-to-followmoral conduct: Goblin? -> Evil by nature -> To be smitten! [What about the goblins in Sanctuary. Goblins, Orcs, Bugbears, etc. are undoubtedly evil races. Hells, the paladin (player) looks away as to not interrupt the server and to stay alive]

... and then there are those great RPer's - who play evil PCs. Subtely. Not evil on the surface, but deep inside. It is those PCs that make the life of a paladin interesting. The perfect antagonists: They are evil, but clever - so it is fun to RP and interact with them. They do not run around proclaiming they want to invoke the Seven Demons of Azmodeus, but follow their (evil) goals subtely.

And the paladin (while the player knows they are evil with the quick-slotted Detect-Evil-Tool) notices something afoul with them (great evil-guys-RPers) and their motives. Deep inside she knows. Yet the reasons the evil one brings forth to recruit her makes sense. The dwarf, the hin, and the cleric of Lathander are doubtlessly not evil - the cleric has proven her 'goodness' on various occasions. Should she dismiss it all and refuse to have anything to do with that shadowy wizard? Should she let the (naive) cleric, the (not-wanting-to-know) dwarf, and the (careless and worry-free) hin run into their doom with that untrustworthy wizard?

The bottom line is: Some players are great at playing evil subtely. A paladin's life would be boring without evilness about. Accepting and/or refusing a quest/company might be the result of a complex red of motives, and while the example above might well appear a bit 'constructed' there are many more (and more believable ones) where there might be a good reason for a paladin (or a good-aligned cleric) to suddenly find herself in a group with one or more evil PCs. [History is full of such examples]

So, to bring my lengthy post and pladoyer to a conclusion: Please, grant the players of paladins a bit of freedom and consider the possibility they are mature and consciously aware of what they are doing (and that they not do it solely for the phat-loot and XP).

There are certainly a lot of things that merit a paladin to instantly become fallen, but travelling/adventuring with one evil PC in the party should not be one in my book. Maybe they are seeking to create adventures, stories and RP that are the stuff of legends. *smiles*

In general I hate alignments. I think they are stupid. Often the best deeds are done with evil intentions. So how do we judge a man, on his action or on his motive? You can not escape subjectivity. The whole system makes the D&D world a little less real to me. At least EFU does a decent job of shifting alignments.

That said, I suppose it is a neccesary part of the game and paladins get to use it to their advantage or in many cases their disadvantage. Tread soft at these times, because I have seen RP ruined by DE and I've seen it enhanced by it.

Taint :roll:

I think it is made very clear by NWN and the PHB that Alignments are just templates for your character's actions and can be flexible, interpretable, and maliable. I see paladins being lawful good because what they believe in (the dogma of their diety) is what is true and pure, and it should be followed without discresion. From this, the paladin creates moral guidelines that he follows. Then, they use their god-given divine abilities to look into souls of others and see their own guidelines in a way. Whatever this is, it is not what the paladins consider right. And in the world of D&D and EfU, that's called evil. I think DE is only a sense, and a paladin can only truely, diffinatively know that a person of creature is a wrong do-er with logic and evidence to back up that sense. Without the logic part, DE is just a feeling that only irrational paladins would act upon solely. Its hard to say what is or is not actually evil (doesn't express own oppinions) but because of the nature of the Underdark (many of its societies accepting "evil" as a norm) it would be very hard to discriminate a fervent cultist of Orcus who sacrifices sfirv children on an alter every night, and a good-for-nothing goblin using only detect evil and no perception or logic. So, I think this sense entitles paladins to shun people they feel are evil, but does not entitle them to condemn them because of that feeling.

Schroedingers Other Cat Please, grant the players of paladins a bit of freedom and consider the possibility they are mature and consciously aware of what they are doing (and that they not do it solely for the phat-loot and XP).

Those people who enjoy playing paladins should not fear that their character will fall from their deity's grace by going on one adventure with an evil character. The manner in which we handle this particular aspect of a paladin's code of conduct is not sudden, nor drastic, and provides a player with plenty of freedom to interrupt this part of their character's personality. However, not associating with evil is a vital part of being a paladin.

Code of Conduct While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters. A paladin will not continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

Now, should a paladin continue their association with evil characters for an extended period of time, they may receive enough shifts to cause their alignment to change from lawful to neutral. At that point, they would lose their divine abilities and powers. However, this process is rather lengthy, requires a lot of interaction on our part, and provides a player with plenty of opportunity to discuss their character's development with us.

In summary, associating or adventuring with evil characters will not cause a paladin to instantly fall from their deity's grace. However, doing so for a prolonged amount of time, which would show a clear disregard for this part of their code, may result in the loss of their divine abilities and powers.

I guess it’s pretty obvious that a paladin can't travel with evil boys; it is quoted in the book. Lose their powers because of that, no; lose some alignment points, yes. But on the other hand, they know they can't travel with evil, they have the 'tools' to detect that and yet they do so, why? I agree that D&D philosophy and religion is incredibly simple, making everything harder, but I don’t think that’s something that makes a paladin’s job harder, by the contrary, I would say it makes easier. Because since it ‘lacks’ information of how to perfectly RP one, any player can ‘create’ or ‘improve’ the code with his own believes. As long as it doesn’t create a conflict with any other code-rule.

On the other hand I think it’s a bit lame to use detect evil every damn time. Especially because you are in Underdark, and I think there is a huge amount of evil around, probably every time a paladin uses DE he can detect an evil npc/pc/creature/whatever, and there is a not-so-small possibility that he can get stunned (overwhelming evil) by simply using DE in the market or something. So, in my opinion, DE should be used ‘to make sure’, if have a suspicious or something like that. Not as a walking evil radar. What I said before is that I think a paladin shouldn’t walk with evil *when* he figures out someone is. Otherwise the DE can easily screw a great ‘mystery’ or even a plot, if used for no reason, by finding out a particular npc (I have no idea if DE works with npcs) is actually evil. Anyway, that’s just what I think.

Paladin Detect Evil should be used early and often.

Paladins are not just Lawful Good fighters, they're an absolute and utter force for good.

Associating with an evil character even for the "greater good" isn't really what paladins are about in most situations. What happens when you find the treasure, do you split it evenly (enriching the evil character)? And the evil character may indeed have some other agenda.

It is for situations just like those that the code of conduct was designed to prevent.

However as Cheezit said a character will not become fallen for a single incident (unless the incident has very serious consequences), but rather be reflected in a slow and gradual accumulation of chaos points.

I believe this is the way the designers of this setting intended paladins to be, and I think it works well for our setting.

Edit: I should clarify, OOC I don't personally care how a player chooses to play a paladin. This post was more to provide perspective on the reaction of the forces of good (deities, and so on) and what sort of IC reaction paladins could expect to receive from the choices they make.

One problem is that as far as I know, Detect Evil, like Bluff, and Persuade (or Diplomacy), was not really designed to be used on other PCs. This is to make sure that each player is always in control of their own character and nodoby else can tell them what their PC is thinking, feeling, or doing outside of the game mechanics (unless they're magically dominated of course). Being able to tell someone's alignment should be played, in my opinion, as being able to sense the true intentions in their heart, or reading their aura perhaps. I don't think it gives a paladin license to immediately smite the person on the spot. A paladin is lawful after all and would see the need to have proof, even if she knew the person's motives were corrupt. However, they would without a doubt set out to bring the evil person to justice and wouldn't cooperate with them or aid their plans in any way and would do all they could to expose their evil to others.

I think paladins ought to have the choice to inflict a point of evil, or chaotic on themselves, if they think they have made a mistake in thier code. I dont know how hard it would be to give them a tool that does this however.

Jadelink

Haquin Otherwise the DE can easily screw a great ‘mystery’ or even a plot, if used for no reason, by finding out a particular npc (I have no idea if DE works with npcs) is actually evil.

We design our plots and mysteries with Detect Evil in mind, so that it serves as a clue and enhances the depth of a plotline/mystery, rather than simply screwing it up. I know that there's at least one piece of a rather small puzzle somewhere in the module that only paladins and goodly clerics can pick up, related to detecting evil.

outcrowd1 One problem is that as far as I know, Detect Evil, like Bluff, and Persuade (or Diplomacy), was not really designed to be used on other PCs. This is to make sure that each player is always in control of their own character and nodoby else can tell them what their PC is thinking, feeling, or doing outside of the game mechanics (unless they're magically dominated of course).

Since it's a late indicator, it'd just be silly for paladins to immediately smite anybody they see with an Evil alignment. Not to mention, it wouldn't be a strategy conducive to the survival of said paladin! Those two facts may explain why I haven't yet seen anybody take that approach.

Jadelink I think paladins ought to have the choice to inflict a point of evil, or chaotic on themselves, if they think they have made a mistake in thier code. I dont know how hard it would be to give them a tool that does this however.

Well I always wonder is it REALLY the right approach to always just shun the people you perceive as "Evil"..

I mean I would think, shouldn't each and every holy warrior who's worth it rather try to save the sinner's sorry soul..?

Historical evidence shows it's just easier to kill people who don't agree with you.

That's real-life crusaders, who I'd guess to be Lawful evil to Lawful neutral at best, NOT Lawful good.

Good and killing just doesn't go together for me.

Obviously, you have never considered killing Ashley Simpson for the greater good of humanity.

Linelle Well I always wonder is it REALLY the right approach to always just shun the people you perceive as "Evil"..

I mean I would think, shouldn't each and every holy warrior who's worth it rather try to save the sinner's sorry soul..?

That's definitely up to the character. A more merciful paladin could focus on trying to redeem people who have fallen to evil; a more judicious paladin could focus on trying to limit the damage that evil people can do by rooting out their plans and foiling them; a more aloof paladin could choose to not interact with them whatsoever (even in an attempt to redeem them) to avoid the possibility of inadvertantly tarnishing his own virtue.

Redeeming people who have fallen to evil is quite different from calling upon their assistance to aid in a holy quest, however.

Interesting subject, I've always put a lot of thoughts on how paladins show react to different 'types' of evil.

Analysing your example, I see how a paladin wouldn't want to deal with the evil wizard, but attacking him out of the blue for just being evil would be something that only the most unwise of the fanatics would do.

I believe most paladins wouldn't want an evil person travelling with him, simply because said person may not be trustable. Not only the fact that his and his friends life may depend on some untrustable person, but 'questing' (any lucrative deed) together may imply in gaining resources for who knows what deeds said person may be plotting.

Likewise, a paladin would be wary of working for someone evil. Like in your example, the wizard may have second intentions, but that wouldn't stop the paladin in achieving his goals (stop the animatrons, since they are indeed a menace to the city, or whatever). But if said wizard was hiring the paladin to get ingredients for a spell, he probably would think he wouldn't put it to good use, especially if there's a big red pentagram on his wizard tower. :)

On the other hand, I believe the paladin would be much more prone to physically attack evil when it's in the form of undead, demons or, like you said, evil by nature races ( might have some mercy with this last one, in some cases).

It's interesting how different paladins, having different personalities, background, deity, etc, can act different to evil. Like it was said, the paladin could shun evil and incite others to avoid them like the plague, others might try to know and try converting (although, I'd think that's more like a cleric's job), and there are those who may even attempt to destroy cults of the opposing deities.

Another interesting thing is, according to the Code of Conduct, paladins don't travel with those who offend their Code of Conduct. I'm supposing that means that a more anal paladin could be really pissed if someone acts cowardly during battle, endangering his fellow companions, to the point of expelling him from the party? Or someone who constantly offends his deity, or his way of life, certainly the paladin wouldn't approve.

Paladins definitly should think about traveling with evil.

I know today I watched a paladin wind up dead because her evil party decided she'd make a fine sacrifice to the last villain on quest rather than fight said villain.

From what I can gather, the player was very upset about the death. All I can think though is, even if your paladin may adjust their moral values to aid evil doers or be compassionate enough to show them kindness and succor--some evil characters are very dedicated to evil for the sake of evil too. They may only be traveling with a paladin specifically to cause evil, and your paladin may not know it until its too late, you've lost your powers or been slain.

Just reading what Oroborus wrote about the paladin traveling with the evil party and I have to say that paladin got EXACTLY what they deserved, IG of course. This shouts of a case of Eyes Wide Shut to me. I can cite numerous examples and parables about cases like this but there is little point.

OOC though, it sucks having your character murdered, no one likes to die under any circumstances and I feela little sympathy for the player but in all honesty what did you really expect? Tea and flowers and sitting round the camp fire holding hands and singing "Kom-Bah-Ya"? Of course the evil ones will knife you if it is in their own interests.

The paladin that chooses to adventure with evil people has broken their main ethic and has/will suffer accordingly.

Sure paladins can try to redeem evil folks or smite them as Howland as noted earlier, it all depends on the individual's personality. Paladins are people too and can have flaws in their personality, such as pride, arrogance, naiviety etc. It all depends on what the player wants as their character to achieve.

Going round using DE is what a Paladin should be doing, ALL THE TIME! They don't have to rant and foam about it though when they detect evil. Try to use that high charisma instead and persuade people that by working with evil leads to greater evil etc. Also, mention that evil folks simply can't be trusted in the long run, but a paladin can. No decent paladin is going to loot party members if they fall, no decent paladin will hog treasure but insist on equal shares for all or even give up their own share so the others in the party get more as a reward for doing good works.

Reputation and sticking to a rigid code is what a paladin is all about, use that to your advantage and you'll be alright.

And NEVER, EVER trust evil people...period! :twisted:

I do not know of the case of the murdered/sacrificed Paladin, and my heart goes out to the player who had a character slain under foul circumstances. Must be a world of pain, and I can only imagine the loss must be great.

But.. Way to go Evil

Talwyn

Going round using DE is what a Paladin should be doing, ALL THE TIME!

This is the gist of it. You have DE for a reason. That reason, for the most part, is to avoid situations like what happened. That player went on to other things, which is neither here nor there but the ig situation could have easily been avoided with a few mouse clicks.

In other news, a paladin got sacrificed by nefarious characters?! Ho hum, just another day in the underdark. *turns the newspaper page to the comics* ah, Ziggy, your social foibles humor us all.

You can even quickslot Detect Evil! It can be as simple as a single button press. :)

Funnily enough the above incident (Martyr Paladin betrayed and slain by the evil around him he decided to travel with for reasons known only to the Paladin) is a good example why I put up my initial post, starting this thread.

It is exactly for stories like this that I think a paladin should not be automatically shoved toward evil just for moving about with evil doers. I think there are more martyr-paladins than alive ones. And that is also how it should be IMHO.

Paladins are tough to play due to their code of conduct and mine did not last long too. Never backing out of a fight while there is at least one of the party was the cause of many near death experiences - and a few deaths. It makes the paladin think thrice about whom she travels with - a simple fool, not necessarily evil, can mean death.

The possible IG consequences (though I feel the pain of the player above) for paladins travelling with evil are often predictable. But - remaining on my initial point of view - I can often see valid reasons for a paladin to move with a party that contains one or two evil PCs (and if it is only to turn the situation around or to watch the backs fo the non-evil fools who follow into what the paladin perceives as a highly dangerous situation for them). And evil PCs - while being evil - do not necessarily *exclusively* persue evil goals. Few things are black and white (few, but a Paladin on one end of the stick, and undead/demons on the other sure are). Most personalities are probably shades somewhere in between. A player might click the 'evil alignment button' for reasons other than simply wreaking havoc and being a sociopath in every single action and thought.

... anyhoo, just my two cents :)

<Edit to add:> Just to clarify. This is no rant or campaign of mine that paladins should see the good in every twisted and evil soul. It is simply my opinion that a paladin travelling with evil should not necessarily be shoved toward evil herself (without a brief analysis of the situation), as there might be 'paladinny' motives behind it, which may depend on many factors.

To the paladin mentioned above by Orborous: My condolences - but think on the bright side: That is the stuff for legends and immortality!!

SOC, I agree with you. There are often valid reasons for a paladin to bite the bullet and travel with an evil character. However, the IC consequence is simple: Their patron looks down upon such behavior, no matter how good the intent is, more often than not.

As a result, even when redeeming evil, you may risk being influenced by it, and end up getting a few chaotic/evil points as collateral damage; especially when questing with a character of such intent, given the simple fact that you're helping them on their way, be it with funds from the expedition, or aiding their goals without knowing it.

Noone is saying that paladins who mindlessly travel with evil characters, and those that travel with them due to some ulterior motive are in the same boat, but the consequences for their actions can often be similar, the only difference being the severity of them.

The person getting sacrificed was there gods way of smiting them for travelling with evil. >_> <_<

I was thinking about this when my dwarven paladin realized that one of his fellow dwarves may be evil. Dwarves, being clannish folk, would seem to be very intolerant of a bad seed in their ranks, but by the same token, maybe wouldn't want to accept the dishonor of acknowledging that one of the clan is one and would be more concerned than most folks with rehabilitating him. The reaction I decided on was to bring the paladin's "hunch" about the character up with the clan's priests and to ask them to confront the dwarf and see if maybe he has something in his heart he may want to talk to them about. In the meantime, the paladin will keep a watchful eye on the evil dwarf and try to show him an example of dwarven goodness.

I think there's no one way to deal with these situations.

This passage from the Book of Exalted Deeds is something I try to keep in mind while playing a Paladin faced with the option of lying or grouping with evil in order to accomplish something good in the end.

From the AD&D Book of Exalted Deeds:

Some good character might view a situations where an evil act is required to avert a cataclysmic evil as a form of martyrdon:"I can save thousands of innocent lives by sacrificing my purity". For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them no matter how great the need.

There are two components of a Paladin's motivations:

Goodness: This has been fairly well expounded upon.

Lawfulness: If laws exist that protect the evil mage from punishment by the Paladin, the Paladin must chose lawful methods of interacting with such characters. Disassociation and denouncement come to mind.

It is for just this reason that Mordred and Morgan Le Fey were tolerated by ALL the knights of Arthur. The law protected them from open attack, although they were still spoken against by some. It was not until they turned against Arthur openly (effectively making them outlaws and subject to punishment) that warring them was acceptable.

Note several things about paladins in special cases:

A paladin will NEVER kill a good character. Ever. If he will, he'll have to atone for it. Jailing a good character is considered lawful and perhaps good for the character himself to prevent him, for exemple, from doing chaos - so a paladin should always prefer this option as a last one, if all other conviction fails.

A paladin has Persuade for a reason: most paladins will try to convince that Chaotic Good halfling that what he does is wrong and not worth the tons of gold he'll get for it. If this fails, see the above option.

Lastly, paladins have a very strong definition of good and evil - they might disagree with even Neutral Good characters about 'utter goodness' because they want to perfect goodness and law in the universe, and not just do good deeds all the time. This concept might be difficult to understand, but if you want to understand it better - read the Paladin's Handbook for 2nd edition. You wrong regret it. :)

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that the paladin in the first post, attacking the wizard because she's detected that he is evil, is acting chaotically. Paladins are Lawful Good after all; they will not tolerate evil, but they do use lawful means to punish it.

Question to the DMs: why do you say a paladin would recieve +Chaos for travelling with an evil character? Why not +Evil?

It's breaking their oath, not committing an evil act.

Yep but if the paladin failed to do anything when that evil character did something EVIL in plain view, then that would be pushing more than just their ethical stance.

Thats where the problem for the paladin comes in, if they ignore what the evil character does. When the evil character kills a helpless prisoner, tortures an enemy.

There are magical ways to "disguise" alignment (and self) in PnP, whereby you have a bigger dillema. What happens when the paladin observed was an illusion? A detect evil that gave a wrong reading? If he/she chose to act or not act base on what they observed what are the results for them?

Are there situations that NO solution would stop the paladin from drifting to chaos or evil?

A paladin sees a creature attacking a woman, he/she rushes to her defence and slays the beast. The illusion dissipates and the paladin has actually killed a town guard that had been attacked by the "woman" who was actually an illusionist wanted for the murder of many citizens.

So what has the paladin done?

The truth was obscured and their intent was pure, but yet they still slayed an innocent, somebody still died.

I'm sure MOST people would agree that the paladin acted justly even when the result was that the wrong person died. The paladin's deity may have been able to see clearly , would they judge the paladin harshy for it? I'd say it's more likely to cause a great deal of remorse in the paladin, than actually be grounds for the removal of their powers. It's more likely the "I dont 'feel' like a paladin, I made a bad mistake" would be more the reason for a problem to be there. In fact, if the paladin didnt try and make amends for the mistake (even though it wasnt his/her fault, think of it as an unfortunate accident, caused by somebody else) then thats when they may have a problem.

Either way the possible alignment effect would be "lagged" to see what the paladin would do about it once they know the truth.

In fact if the illusion was still in operation beyond the guard's death and the paladin was NEVER the wiser, how could they be held to account by his deity or anyone else.?

chaosprism There are magical ways to "disguise" alignment (and self) in PnP, whereby you have a bigger dillema. What happens when the paladin observed was an illusion? A detect evil that gave a wrong reading?

chaosprism If he/she chose to act or not act base on what they observed what are the results for them?

Are there situations that NO solution would stop the paladin from drifting to chaos or evil?

chaosprism

A paladin sees a creature attacking a woman, he/she rushes to her defence and slays the beast. The illusion dissipates and they've actually killed a town guard that had been attacked by the "woman" who was actually an illusionist wanted for the murder of many citizens.

So what has he/she done?

The truth was obscured and their intent was pure, but yet they still slayed an innocent, somebody still died.

I'm sure MOST people would agree that the paladin acted justly even when the result was that the wrong person died. The paladin's deity may have been able to see clearly , would they judge the paladin harshy for it? I'd say it's more likely to cause a great deal of remorse in the paladin, than actually be grounds for the removal of their powers. It's more likely the "I dont 'feel' like a paladin, I made a bad mistake" would be more the reason for a problem to be there. In fact, if the paladin didnt try and make amends for the mistake (even though it wasnt his/her fault, think of it as an unfortunate accident, caused by somebody else) then thats when they may have a problem.

Besides, why was the monster attacking the woman in the first place?

Yeah concealing alignment is exactly what I'm talking about :) blocking divinations etc. Blocking the paladins ability to discern that truth.

Why was the monster attacking the woman? well thats because the ILLUSIONIST had weaved an illusion around the guard and himself.

That made the illusionist appear like a poor street woman , and the guard who was attacking the illusionist appear like a monster. The illusionist was a wanted criminal and the guard was trying to bring him in for justice when the paladin intervened. Lucky illusionist :)

If you're still referring to the Paladin questing with evil, he probably already shifted to Chaos and Evil, if he willingly did so (Spells that alter aligment, obviously wouldn't include the shift, if the Paladin does not know their aligment). But yes, willingly observing evil acts, and not acting on it, according to your dogma, shifts you to evil/ chaos.

As for "questing" with evil, It depends on the situation theres quite a number of scenarios where a paladin may accompany an evil character somewhere (and they may fight things along the way for their own mutual survival).

One may be that the paladin knows of the "evil" character and wants to find out where the Gang leader is, so he holds his toungue and plays along to find out where the core of the rotten apple is. I completely reject the stereotyped "stupid paladin" who calls the "detected as evil" character a cad and he's going to take them in for questioning without any proof other than the guy "feels wrong" , or simply refuses to have any contact at all with them, and hereby lets the evil character go around and commit more murders when the paladin isnt there to see them.

"stupid" paladins have their place in a fantasy world certainly, but theres no way all of them have to act like clones of one another. theres a GREAT number of deities who accept paladins, have their own orders, and they have AS YOU'd expect completely different ways to arrive at the same result. Theres a number of core things that are the same, like them following the oaths and laws as layed down by the clergy of their deity. Their upholding of honor, defence of "innocents" and decent law abiding people.

chaosprism As for "questing" with evil, It depends on the situation theres quite a number of scenarios where a paladin may accompany an evil character somewhere (and they may fight things along the way for their own mutual survival).

One may be that the paladin knows of the "evil" character and wants to find out where the Gang leader is, so he holds his toungue and plays along to find out where the core of the rotten apple is. I completely reject the stereotyped "stupid paladin" who calls the "detected as evil" character a cad and he's going to take them in for questioning without any proof other than the guy "feels wrong" , or simply refuses to have any contact at all with them, and hereby lets the evil character go around and commit more murders when the paladin isnt there to see them.

"stupid" paladins have their place in a fantasy world certainly, but theres no way all of them have to act like clones of one another. theres a GREAT number of deities who accept paladins, have their own orders, and they have AS YOU'd expect completely different ways to arrive at the same result. Theres a number of core things that are the same, like them following the oaths and laws as layed down by the clergy of their deity. Their upholding of honor, defence of "innocents" and decent law abiding people.

Of course they wont ACCEPT evil deeds.. i'm not saying they should.

I agree too that a paladin would NEED to try and attempt to save the woman even if the whole scenario was just an illusion. Nobody is saying he'd need to SLAY the creature though and it is pretty much a no-win situation for him. Thats where a lot of "good folk" get it wrong you dont need to KILL SOMETHING to overcome it, or to help another.

Having such a strict code of conduct means you will break before you will bend, it's the nature of the paladin. But nothing can be so broken that it cannot be mended, even death can be overturned in this world.

Deady force begets deadly results. The ramifications can be far worse than that eventuality.

Back to travelling with an "evil" detected person , having a "dark" feeling about somebody you're travelling with, SHOULD only make you want to find out what the reason for it is.

If they do some "evil" in front of you then they've just proven your feeling about them ,and you've caught them red handed so to speak. Theres also the NEUTRAL people that wont detect as evil that have and can do evil.

Thats why I dont like the idea of paladins using their "detect evil" as some sort of grouping selection criteria, it's overly simple, it should just make them wary. Nor should d.m's instantly punish alignment wise those that do. If I was a d.m.. I'd watch the interaction, and judge the paladin by that.. not by his choice of companions.

chaosprism Back to travelling with an "evil" detected person , having a "dark" feeling about somebody you're travelling with, SHOULD only make you want to find out what the reason for it is.

If they do some "evil" in front of you then they've just proven your feeling about them ,and you've caught them red handed so to speak. Theres also the NEUTRAL people that wont detect as evil that have and can do evil.

Thats why I dont like the idea of paladins using their "detect evil" as some sort of grouping selection criteria, it's overly simple, it should just make them wary. Nor should d.m's instantly punish alignment wise those that do. If I was a d.m.. I'd watch the interaction, and judge the paladin by that.. not by his choice of companions.

Feel free to discuss further though. But bear in mind that the Sourcebook will still be the rules we play by.

*shrugs* Well that's fine I guess, never ecen seen the book of exalted deeds. But for me travelling with a shady character is NOT an evil act, do other characters of other alignments get shifts toward evil and chaos if they travel with a "evil" character?

If a neutral good diviner casts DETECT evil finds out one of his members is "detecting as evil" does he suddenly get an alignment shift, even though he's been with him for 2 weeks before he cast the spell?

I guess it depends what's in the code, if it says that a paladin will not willingly associate with a dark souled person for any reason, then the "misdirection" problem happens again. A good character may have had a spell placed on them that makes their alignment appear as evil, maybe they're carring an item they picked up along the way that does the same thing.

I say that the problem comes in actions, not presumptions, assumptions and potentials. Even if a character :"detects" as evil, they arent really evil to the paladin till they've been 'observed' doing it. Before that it's just a sneaking suspicion, a feeling.

But you're right the problem lies with WOTC's definitions, well moreso my attitude to those definitions (which they probably did for simplicity)

Dont paladins of different deities have DIFFERENT codes to live by anyway?

chaosprism Dont paladins of different deities have DIFFERENT codes to live by anyway?

Whenever the code of a Paladin, and the dogma of their deity come in conflict, the code of a Paladin is the one that should be followed.

Paladin's do have a hard time of it then, things always going into internal conflict. Ethic's vs Moralities, codes vs dogma's.

So you're saying for a paladin LAW > GOOD for them.

That must explain why they'res so many fallen ones then.

As I said above.. those that will not bend under stress will break.

Given the no other choice option to a) Break the law but still do a "good" action b) Do an "evil" Action but uphold the law.

most would choose the break the law, a shift in ETHICS is considered a far less thing than a shift in morality.

Which for me actually means that paladins SHOULD consider GOOD > LAW. Which in effect means that their CODEs are secondary to their morality. And their morality is related to their dogma isnt it? Since the dogma is what they believe is right.

Nope, good is DEFINITELY larger than law for a paladin, since doing unlawful acts just shifts you points towards chaotic, while doing just a single evil act immediately costs them their paladinhood.

So a paladin would rather do a chaotic, yet good act than a lawful evil one. That's for sure and even the sourcebook says so. If you think otherwise, it's open for interperetation.

Simply travelling with and/or aiding an evil person is not evil, it is chaotic as it breaks the Paladin's code. If a paladin decides to assist an evil person for the 'greater good', then it's a chaotic choice they willingly make and will need to atone for at some point. It is not as severe as committing an outright evil act, but if they continue to routinely break their code they will be behaving in a NG/CG manner and eventually no longer be a paladin.

Metro_Pack If a paladin decides to assist an evil person for the 'greater good', then it's a chaotic choice they willingly make and will need to atone for at some point.

But in the end, the interpretation of this alignment system to real life issues squeezes a portion of my brain in an undesireable way.

Perhaps everyone could look up the Exalted Deeds sourcebook, for what a Paladin's dogma exactly is, and what consequences a Paladin's actions could have. Would make discussing a lot easier, since it does not leave any room for discussing. :D

No book here, but I fail to think that it would dismiss all discussion on the issue. I'm also somewhat confused as to why all Paladins have to follow the same dogma and the info on that sourcebook, other than only because we are playing on a Forgotten Realms-based server?

Paladins are religious warriors and will fight for what is right for their respective God and faith (I know this is overly simplified but..). The unfortunate pidgeon-hole that D&D does is to also associate them with LG as described by what D&D thinks being LG is. It fails to completely cover and understand the delusion of what many of these warriors have in the name of God and what they think is Good (the Crusaders are a likely example).

But again this is FR, and Paladins are the representitive of what is LG as clearly defined by Exalted Deeds.

There ARE paladins of gods that ARENT lawful good, and the codes of THOSE paladins would be different than the ones that govern the paladins of Torm or Tyr.

The "lawful" part of the paladin from my perspective is the abeyance to the codes and dogma of their god. The rules that govern the knights of that order.

However the book of exalted deeds that coldburn constantly bashes us over the head with "it's in the book deal with it" is supposedly canon and overrides our viewpoints apparently. Maybe you could quote some stuff from the book coldburn, when it comes to paladins of other faiths. Because thats the thing I'm most interested to hear about.

There for example an order of paladins who follow kelemvor, which is a lawful neutral god (of death by the way) who's main aim is to combat undead. What are your thoughts on their behavior?

On a side note Bin, there is some older stuff published in dragon magazines (probably from 2nd edition) that mention a number of KNIGHT types that arent lawful good that recieve powers of their own from their deity. There was definitely chaotic Good, and neutral good ones. Some people will say of course if you want to be a KNIGHT of a non-lawful but good god you should simply make a FIGHTER/CLERIC with the right alignment and go from there. (and then down the road (level 8+) get divine champion) And if you want the DARK knight version that upheld the 'aims' of an evil god/goddess you'd be Fighter/cleric and then choose Blackguard later on. But i'm wandering off topic again.

Paladins are quite different from mere "knights" or "religious fighters."

Try to keep this discussion civil.

As with the advent of the Barbarian class, 3.x actually should have created a class of Holy Warrior and have the Paladin be the LG variety of that class. The Holy Warrior would follow what a Paladin class follows, a slightly lesser Fighter with divine abilities, but not be restricted to a particular alignment, and yet must maintain whatever alignment/God they follow to continue to be a Holy Warrior. I think having to multiclass a Cleric and Fighter is not really the same essense of what Holy Warriors would be designed to do...to physically protect the faith. But multiclassing surely does help to bridge the gap and allow us play almost any type of character we have in mind. So in conclusion, I guess it really doesn't fricken matter. :D

All paladins should just succumb to the goodness that is Delgado and be done with it. You cannot escape your fate, your demise is assured.

*Your friendly neighbourhood Wizard*

I've always treated the Law scale in relation to one's honesty, standards, moral and code of conduct.

Which means a man might be inside an evil society, break every corrupt law and still be the most lawful man ever. This is my opinion.

One of the prime reasons Paladins don't work with evil is pretty simple; Paladins are a shining example of why pure goodness always wins. If they're working with evil to achieve their good ends then it sort of contradicts the example they set, "I could do the hard work and buy that armor I really want. Or I could work with Jack the Throat Slasher and earn it faster."

That, to me, is the best way to justify it. A paladin refuses to work with evil for even the most mundane things as it's a submission to evil, even if it's very minor. Of course, there's nothing stopping a paladin from being cordial with a man who's evil. He simply can't help that man in a way that would assist the said evil man towards his own ends.

I also think the dogma of a diety is of more importance than the code of a paladin (Assuming they're all the same for every paladin, which I doubt but I've no idea). If a man is a paladin of said god, he upholds that god's dogma. If he does something that conflicts with his god for the sake of following his paladin code, that seems a bit iffy. I imagine his god would be far more forgiving to bending his oaths as a paladin if it served his own dogma before he would the other way around.

I think one issue that would help immensely if it were clarified is the actual IC perception of the OOC "detect evil" tool. In other words, to what extent are paladins aware of this ability, and what precisely does it mean in -IC- terms to them.

Is it a funny intuition, something that gives them a suspicious feeling whenever they spend time with, or simply study someone who is, in fact, evil? Is there any margin for error, in the case of a young, green paladin?* (Or even beyond that?) Or do they see flashing lights and hear a booming voice in their head, "BEHOLD YE EVIL; PROCEED WITH SMITINGS!"

Perhaps this could even be clarified in the tool message. Instead of "N has an evil aura of power X" you might get something along the lines of, "You see a vision of an ugly aura surrounding Joe Meaniehead," or "You feel very uncomfortable when studying Bob 'Evil' Dirtypants, as if hungry raccoons were nibbling at your soul." (Or something to that effect.)

*Edit: To clarify my own question, I do know that alignments can be masked, and also that evil auras can emanate from things other than people, ie places or objects people could carry. But these would all be "external" sources of error from a paladin's point of view, and my question was wether a paladin could make an error "internally," for instance mistake an intuitive bad feeling about someone for the feeling they might get about an evil person due to their ability to detect evil.

I thought it goes like this?

©, Rambeaux, Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:11 pm.

I give full credit to him, great drawing!

Seriously though, all kidding aside, let me just look it all up from the Sourcebooks, and post it here.

Inquisitor I've always treated the Law scale in relation to one's honesty, standards, moral and code of conduct.

Which means a man might be inside an evil society, break every corrupt law and still be the most lawful man ever. This is my opinion.

My personal interpretation of LG paladinhood is that a paladin within a LE society would do one of the following: Either A: live by the laws so long as it is possible, while working to reform them from within - or when this is no longer possible, (Probably because following the law would require increasingly evil acts) B: denounce his citizenship and move into a neighbouring country so that he can join open war upon the LE country in hopes of creating a better order in the country. (Alternatively, denounce citizenship and openly declare civil war upon the state from within.)

The war part is really optional, and would depend on the temperament of the paladin, I suppose. The more important bit, to me, lies in the paladin giving up citizenship, which I should explain:

My reason for this opinion lies in the principles of citizenship. It is an implied contract or agreement between governments and citizens, where one party promises protection and certain benefits, and the other party agrees to in turn abide by the laws of the country so long as they are citizens, or on territory that is the property of that country.

I do not see paladins as taking their duties as citizens lightly, even in an LE environment, given that they are lawful themselves. That's why I think that the "LE country scenario" should result in particular reactions from paladins. The scenario should not result in "My paladin can do whatever he feels like and remain lawful, so long as what he does is good." Those two things are not the same.

First off:

Book of the Rightious The Paladin is a holy warrior for the entire Pantheon.

More to come.

Reposting Schättenjager's previous post, to save me some time:

Schattenjäger This passage from the Book of Exalted Deeds is something I try to keep in mind while playing a Paladin faced with the option of lying or grouping with evil in order to accomplish something good in the end.

From the AD&D Book of Exalted Deeds:

Some good character might view a situations where an evil act is required to avert a cataclysmic evil as a form of martyrdon:"I can save thousands of innocent lives by sacrificing my purity". For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them no matter how great the need.

You can redeem him in his own, free time. Not while the evil guy quests with you, and gains a reward, since you will have made him slightly more powerful, which tips the balance once more.

Book of Exalted Deeds Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them no matter how great the need.

Bear in mind, willingly party with evil.

Coldburn Understandibly, such actions would and should hit a Paladin extra hard. So no questing with evil, not even to redeem him.

You can redeem him in his own, free time. Not while the evil guy quests with you, and gains a reward, since you will have made him slightly more powerful, which tips the balance once more.

Please try to decribe "questing" in IC terms, since it's pretty much an OOC term to describe certain scripted task-reward mechanisms here. If there was a quest, "Sit in Pub trying to Redeem Evil Guys," could a paladin not "quest" with evil then? And what other exceptions might there be, if that were the case?

Remember that characters are not aware of receiving experience ICly.

My definition of questing, how I used it here:

Anything that allows a player to gain more knowledge, experience, items, gold, friendships, or anything at all.

This can be as hard as helping that Blackguard to slay a Dragon for his loot, or helping the Blackguard slay a Dragon to save a village of innocent people from the Dragon's fiery wrath.

Or, as simple as telling that slightly evil Kobold where the bathroom is.

For the sake of argument, and hopefully helping me and others achieve a better understanding of the why and how of paladinhood:

Coldburn or helping the Blackguard slay a Dragon to save a village of innocent people from the Dragon's fiery wrath

This seems a bit ridiculous on the surface. If a paladin couldn't do anything that indirectly benefitted evil people, he couldn't:

Donate to charities Pay taxes Support the law-enforcers Defend his own city Etc.

Let's examine this more closely:

BoED Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however[...]

Notice that it says "means" - this only tells us that paladins can't do evil deeds in order to achieve their goals. Evil means are not the same as evil people.

Again,

Some good character might view a situations where an evil act is required[...]

It says nothing about not letting evil people help to accomplish a good deed. Only that the paladin cannot do evil deeds themselves in order to accomplish a good end.

Edit:

I do vaguely recall seeing something that said paladins would not willingly party with evil characters, though I am not 100% certain it was "source" material.

I also think that the linearity of quests contributes somewhat to this whole issue. Normally, I think, a conflict would arise in differences of how a quest should be completed. Evil characters will want to achieve it through thuggery, vice, assassination, theft, lies, etc. Good characters will of course lean towards other means, such as honest appeals to conscience, up-right opposition, puppy dogs, open confrontation, duels and/or honorable combat, etc.

Now, since the nature of scripted quests generally allows very little variation in how a quest is completed, the source of a lot of conflict between good and evil characters is removed. Obviously, DM-run quests are places where this can come to the fore-front, but scripted quests have the effect of muffling this to some degree.

Good points McGrendel and thanks for the postings Coldburn. It seems to me, in regards to in-game quests and adventures, that the emphasis should be on the goals, and if the Paladin is grouped with Evil people who do not do evil things to accomplish those goals (the means for that goal are not evil), then I don't see any real major problem with a Paladin having chance associations with Evil characters to fulfil a good deed. The good/evil conflict should of course create tension in the group, but the Paladin does need to adhere to the laws and remain civil if no criminal act has been performed.

But I do think there can be some flexibility in how each Paladin interprets how willing or comfortable he is in interacting with evil people. He should not tolerate evil doings, but evil characters come in many different forms and the Paladin would certainly react differently to a weak, selfish rogue than to a demon or devil. I don't think it's realistic to think that everyone within a religious group is on the same page on how to deal with adversity. There is not a lot of room for interpretation in a LG mentality, but grey areas always exist.

Bindragon It seems to me, in regards to in-game quests and adventures, that the emphasis should be on the goals, and if the Paladin is grouped with Evil people who do not do evil things to accomplish those goals (the means for that goal are not evil), then I don't see any real major problem with a Paladin having chance associations with Evil characters to fulfil a good deed.

And again, you are overlooking a point. Sure, a Blackguard may save a puppy for some coins. But with those coins he'll purchase the poison, and he will poison the well in a little town, so a lot of people die. Just because the Blackguard saved a puppy!

Now, the Paladin is no fool. Evil may not always be evil, but they will do evil again, and when they do, you have brought them one step closer to archieving it. A Paladin will not stand for such an action, and will therefore never help evil.

Unless he likes to be a naughty Paladin.

Coldburn And again, you are overlooking a point. Sure, a Blackguard may save a puppy for some coins. But with those coins he'll purchase the poison, and he will poison the well in a little town, so a lot of people die. Just because the Blackguard saved a puppy!

Your example does not correlate to what I was saying. A Blackguard saving a puppy for money is not a good deed. A Paladin saving a puppy, using a rogue in his party who happens to be evil to climb up a pole and save the puppy and the party receives no money for the task is a good deed. The evil group member assisted in a NON-evil fashion. He was useful and productive according to the Law and Goodness. I just don't find this to be a problem unless the character you are playing wants to be more anal about to what level he will interact with evil people.

Coldburn Now, the Paladin is no fool. Evil may not always be evil, but they will do evil again, and when they do, you have brought them one step closer to archieving it. A Paladin will not stand for such an action, and will therefore never help evil.

Let's not put them on pedestals...Paladins are not perfect. A Paladin with a lower Wisdom and a likely average Intellegence will be a fool periodically. And an evil character who assists on a good deed, as far as the Paladin views it, is still a good deed and can be deemed by the Paladin as a good successful group task, foolish or not.

I just think you are making this way too cut and dry. You should read Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series (I've read the 1st book), it really shows how complex these moral deeds of righteousness can be under a given political culture. A great book and must read, if you haven't already. :)