Well, in the game you cannot cast detect evil in dialogue mode, so you would not know if he is evil or not. Also, detect evil only detects evil not alignment or intentions. Just because the drow did not flag as evil, I would not make the major jump to, he must be a good guy. Minsc provides intel on where the gnoll stronghold is, the intel is good enough to find it. Just because the drow is fighting gnolls located 2 days or so away from the stronghold does not mean that he can give me better intel on it's location that Minsc has already. I don't know if Dynaheir is a live or not, but I do know that every moment lost is one more moment that she could die or be tortured. I'm not going to let someone bleed out on the side of the road, but if the guy was bandaging himself up and looked like he could take care of himself, and there was another person in urgent need of my help, I might leave them to it and keep on toward the other person.
At the end of the day, you can role play it the way you want, and I think we generally agree on how we would do it, but I do think there is some allowance for a Paladin to weigh their priorities and make a decision on what is the greater good.
Please don't use color of skin to paint this as a bad judgement, since drow in FR are inherently evil and Drizzt is a notable exception. The Paladin is not prejudiced due to the color of the skin, but rather the known general behavior of a specific type of elf. Just as the Paladin makes similar judgements when encounter undead, gnolls, and other [genrally] bad guys.
That is NOT the 2E Player's Handbook description of Lawful-Good.
I am going by the same rules as you, in fact this is from the 2E rules
Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities.
I do agree that clerics and paladins are going to follow the rules of their particular diety over any secular laws. But, if you are lawful good, following the lawful part is just as important as following the good part, and to me that's rigid. It doesn't matter if the belief system is secular or not. Lawful good doesn't mean you always do the right thing, the most good thing, it means you do the good that is within the rules that you follow. Lawful good is not more good then neutral or chaotic good.
Well there's a pretty big provisional in there about the "less philosophical types"; as a holy warrior with a reasonably high wisdom requirement I think the Paladin is expected to be philosophical about it. And while I do agree that will usually include obeying the law of the land, I think the issue of a higher calling will always be paramount. The issue starting this was if killing the Drow on sight was justified, and that it might be the law of the land. I will always say the Paladin's higher calling would over-rule such a clearly evil law, and the Paladin would categorically not kill a non-threatening Drow no matter what the secular law on the issue might be.
Please don't use color of skin to paint this as a bad judgement, since drow in FR are inherently evil and Drizzt is a notable exception. The Paladin is not prejudiced due to the color of the skin, but rather the known general behavior of a specific type of elf. Just as the Paladin makes similar judgements when encounter undead, gnolls, and other [genrally] bad guys.
You don't understand what prejudice is. To judge an individual member of a race based on actions not taken by that individual simply because he is of the same race as others who have taken such action is prejudice. Pure and simple. You may not want it to be. you may not like it. Doesn't change the fact that it is.
Sure they do--where do you think their divine powers come from?
From the game's own handbook (salient part is asterisked):
TURNING UNDEAD One important, and potentially life-saving, combat ability available to Clerics and Paladins is the ability to Turn Undead. ***Through the Cleric or Paladin, a deity manifests a portion of its power,*** terrifying evil, undead creatures or blasting them right out of existence. However, since the power must be channeled through a mortal vessel, success is not always assured. This ability is a mode selection for that character—nothing else can be attempted while he or she is attempting to Turn Undead. Good Clerics and Paladins can Turn Undead so they lose morale and run away or (less often) destroy them outright. Evil Clerics and Blackguards Turn Undead may gain control of an undead creature, and can cause morale loss in Paladin’s.
I'm not saying that the Paladin is not prejudiced, I'm saying it's not skin color, but rather the actual creature that he is pre-judging. Meaning if he sees a human with the skin color of a drow he will not react as he would to a drow, but if he sees a drow, he will react like he would toward a drow. I hope that makes sense. It's an important distinction to me.
Say what?! How exactly do they have divine powers from detect evil to casting 4th level cleric spells without a deity?! The pantheon presented in BG is incomplete for the Forgotten Realms, and I don't know it right off to know exactly who the deity in question is (maybe Helm? But I think he's more Lawful-Neutral?).
It's kind of an oxymoron to have a secular holy warrior! (Maybe a crusading ACLU attorney? Funny...)
Drow are Elves. Drow is a sub-race to Elves. Drizzts is an Elf with dark skin. Your example isn't that the Paladin is acting negatively because of him being an elf, but because of him being an Elf with dark skin. In other words, it is very specifically because of the color of their skin. However, even if you treat them as a race unto themselves, saying 'Because of skin color' is an accepted convention.
So, tell me. Would you think that a Paladin would be justified in killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl without provocation as well?
But the passage from the game manual I posted above, as well as the DnD rule set BG is based on, both clearly show the intent for the design of Paladins.
The fact that you don't have to assign a deity in the character selection screen is irrelevant.
Let's be clear here, I've not said that a Paladin is Justified in killing a drow based on the fact it is a drow, please review my posts. I've taken care to specifically state that I don't think the Paladin is justified in killing Drizzt unprovoked.
You may call it splitting hairs, that's fine. That's now how I see it.
Okay, so the Turn Undead ability mentions a deity. Strange that the class description doesn't, lol
Keep in mind that BG is an officially licensed DnD game, and as such, it follows the design and spirit of the original DnD ruleset in regards to the classes and how they function. Paladins have always been intended as divinely-powered warriors.
SirK8 it wasn't you, but it's how this thread was started.
Finneous it is much more clear in PNP. BG is just a computer implementation of AD&D 2E rules and the Forgotten Realms setting. It's a very good implementation, but it certainly isn't complete. The role of Paladins as holy warriors and the whole scope of the Realm's Pantheon are among those things that were never fleshed out very much for the computer game.
Yes, I know. However, if you'd choose to read the class description I'm sure you'd agree it emphasises ideals rather than deities (and indeed the description itself doesn't mention deities at all).
@SirK8. No offense was intended. As atcDave indicated, this thread seems to be fairly polarized and you 'Appear' to be on the side that says it is OK to... Well, you get the idea. Anyway, no offense.
I'd still appreciate your opinion on the whole Larry, Darryl and Darryl question.
@FinneousPJ, The concept for Paladins are the Knight Templars. These are the enforcers of the church. I believe the class description describes that they have to have a set of ideals "Like" a Deity to believe in, but I want to say that probably 99% of the time that means a Deity to worship. In any case, the benefits over being a simple fighter have to come from somewhere. In a world replete with Gods, that becomes the most logical place for the power to come from.
Drow are Elves. Drow is a sub-race to Elves. Drizzts is an Elf with dark skin. Your example isn't that the Paladin is acting negatively because of him being an elf, but because of him being an Elf with dark skin. In other words, it is very specifically because of the color of their skin. However, even if you treat them as a race unto themselves, saying 'Because of skin color' is an accepted convention.
So, tell me. Would you think that a Paladin would be justified in killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl without provocation as well?
Being Drow is not just about skin color. Drow are inherently evil. It's not the same as comparing humans in the real world.
If you are a Paladin how could you not justify killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl? Just because they don't attack you? A heavy armed and armored Paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends, they might not attack you because they are scared. You let them pass and they kill some poor farmer and his family. As a Paladin you have failed to protect the innocent you are sworn to protect.
Yes, I know. However, if you'd choose to read the class description I'm sure you'd agree it emphasises ideals rather than deities (and indeed the description itself doesn't mention deities at all).
I still don't see where you are thinking their powers come from. Thin air?
And why have the need to follow the strict alignment and high reputation or else they lose their powers? I mean, if they weren't divinely powered? Who says whether they are doing Good or not, and yanks their powers? Santa Claus? The State?
Being Drow is not just about skin color. Drow are inherently evil. It's not the same as comparing humans in the real world.
If you are a Paladin how could you not justify killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl? Just because they don't attack you? A heavy armed and armored Paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends, they might not attack you because they are scared. You let them pass and they kill some poor farmer and his family. As a Paladin you have failed to protect the innocent you are sworn to protect.
These are the fundamental differences between us.
When playing a Paladin I can find no reason to kill Larry, Darryl and Darryl. They have done nothing wrong that I am aware of. I see no evidence of their evil deeds nor intent. I judge them based on their actions, not on the unfortunate circumstances of their birth.
There was a really good quote that came out of a recent "Person of Interest". it went something like this "If you set out to right all of the worlds wrongs, you may find that you only add to them." Or words to that effect.
Um, Paladins can Detect Evil. Not Good. There are many Nuetral aligned creatures with bad intent and should not be assumed they are good. Constant vigilance!
How do you know Drizzt didn't initiate the fight with the Gnolls? We don't know who is in the wrong. We don't even know it to be Drizzt right away. As such, his blade could just as easily turn on you.
As for the Law, the Flaming Fist (Law of the Land) see fit to kill Viconia for being Drow. As such, attack Drizzt is the right thing to do. Otherwise, he or she would not be adhering to known practice and implementation of the Law.
@Person of Interest quote: Paladins are supposed to right as many wrongs. They are to be ever vigilant, hence the dedication that few can have. You do not chose to be a Paladin. You are called to it.
If it means assured death, it is your job to die a martyr.
Drow are Elves. Drow is a sub-race to Elves. Drizzts is an Elf with dark skin. Your example isn't that the Paladin is acting negatively because of him being an elf, but because of him being an Elf with dark skin. In other words, it is very specifically because of the color of their skin. However, even if you treat them as a race unto themselves, saying 'Because of skin color' is an accepted convention.
So, tell me. Would you think that a Paladin would be justified in killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl without provocation as well?
Being Drow is not just about skin color. Drow are inherently evil. It's not the same as comparing humans in the real world.
If you are a Paladin how could you not justify killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl? Just because they don't attack you? A heavy armed and armored Paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends, they might not attack you because they are scared. You let them pass and they kill some poor farmer and his family. As a Paladin you have failed to protect the innocent you are sworn to protect.
There have always been good and neutral Drow, from their very origin in Queen of the Demon Web Pits. They tend towards Chaotic-Evil, in the same way High Elves tend towards Chaotic-Good. And a well known exception like Drizzt proves the point. The fact that their culture and tendencies are twisted and evil means they always need to be treated with extreme caution, but like anyone else, a Drow can be given the opportunity to prove themselves as friends or allies.
Larry, Darryl and Darryl are a joke.
Also remember evil and dangerous are not the same thing. Seriously, I've known many people who are greedy, selfish and hateful in almost everything; I would certainly call such things "evil", but whether its because they fear the legal system or they still have some trace of decency in them, they are harmless. And I think a pretty basic tenet of "good" ideology is leaving those who pose no threat alone, and leaving them free to enjoy the life of their choosing.
@doppleganger95. Drizzts is NOT evil and the paladin has a ready and easy way to determine that.
You have been traveling all day so the paladin probably hasn't used their Detect Evil yet that day.
Also, I am thinking that if I saw a host of Evil monsters attacking a lone Evil creature and the lone evil creature asked for my help, even if I couldn't detect evil on something my spider sense would be tingling that something was amiss here. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who looks remarkably like that famous Hero Drizzts I have heard about. Even if he didn't, I wouldn't assume anything until I had more facts. And since I am tracking gnolls to their lair, I at least have a pretty good sense they are the bad guys. And the enemy of my enemy might be my friend.
Also, your comment above about Lawful alignments, you can tend towards society and not believe or be required to uphold every single unjust law in the land. If you played a Paladin in a land where slavery was legal, would you think it lawful good to have slaves? I wouldn't.
Finally, I say again. If you act on prejudices ("all drow are evil" a prejudice) and not on reality, you are going to end up doing evil. You don't get a pass simply because you are prejudiced. And believing someone is evil doesn't make them evil.
Thank you! Slavery is a great example for me to use. A lawful good character would try to educate people and change the laws to free people. You could argue that the character would not own slaves. But, he might own slaves if that society allowed slaves to "earn" their freedom. Or if he knew that other slave owners were so abusive to the slaves that owning slaves and treating them well would be better than the alternative. A neutral good or chaotic good character would be willing to do illegal things to free them. Think underground railroad or maybe even killing an evil slave owner to free the slaves. This is such a great example because their has been so much slavery in human history. Serfs, indentured servitude, and even societies with castes. You either believe that every person in the ruling classes throughout human history was evil or that their were good people who functioned under what we now consider evil rules.
In real life making assumptions based on sex, skin color, religion, sexual preference, religion, political beliefs, wealth, age, weight, really any example you want to use, is prejudice. But, this is a game and the game simplifies complex things by making rules. D&D simplifies things by making good and evil fairly clear cut. Chromatic Dragons are evil. Orcs, goblins, gnolls, and ogres are evil. Devils, demons and the undead are all evil. Drow are evil. It's not an assumption or a generaliztion, or intolerance because it's different than me, it's part of the rules of the game. As a DM, or a story teller, putting a twist on the expected tends to make for a compelling story. But, it's a clear exception. It doesn't mean that my Paladin, or any other good character I am playing has to stop and check if every typically evil creature I fight is really evil.
And letting evil creatures go simply because they didn't do evil to you isn't a good idea. Haven't you ever seen Spiderman?
And letting evil creatures go simply because they didn't do evil to you isn't a good idea. Haven't you ever seen Spiderman?
Poor Uncle Ben!
Killing something that 'Might' do evil is (IMHO) just as evil. Sometime read Minority report by Philip K Dick. what you describe is a totalitarian state wherein the Paladin strikes to prevent evil. That way leads to the dark side. Just ask Vader.
and yes, I collected Spiderman comics through the late 70's and all through the 80's. There have been many times when OL Web-head has resisted striking someone who was potentially Evil and ended up being rewarded. Sure, sometimes he isn't.
Striking to prevent Evil is Evil itself. Don't get me wrong, when a goblin moves in next door it may call for extra vigilance. But not murder unless they earn it.
And reference the slavery discussion, that can be very complicated, but I can easily imagine a Paladin who is himself a part of an Underground Railroad, maybe even a leader or organizer of it. It depends on so much. Something like slaves being sold as monster food or as victims for a combat arena is clearly evil it would demand extraordinary and "illegal" actions to put an end to it. When the law is evil, a lawful-good character should act against it. If the whole state is evil, the Paladin may even become an outlaw. If the slavery is purely commercial, I could understand a response of even owning slaves to protect them from a worse fate. Historically, a lot of slaves would actually be more like convicts in today's world. They were enslaved when they fought on the loosing side in a war or committed some major crime short of murder. Their enslavement might even have a term after which they were free. It's a fairly recent idea to lock people up for their crimes. So I can easily imagine in such a situation a Paladin might even become a slave holder, with idea of caring for, protecting, and rehabilitating the individual. From a pure gaming perspective I don't really want to deal with such a thing, but I would buy it as theory.
You must also remember that Paladins have to override local laws if their Deity's stance is contradictory.
@ Minority Report totalitarian state: Yes and no. A Paladin's actions are also dictated through their Deity's stance, will, and position. If an Order of Paladins in control become oppressive their Deity will act accordingly. They will find themselves out of favor.
Now here is where you cannot use morality of the real world when making decisions in/about a PnP RPG. Faerun is a reality in which the Gods are physical entities that you can be 100% positive of their existence. The doubt everybody has at one point or another in reality does not exist in Faerun. They know there is an afterlife. There are beings that have always been and will always be pure evil. That cannot change. It is the essence of their very soul.
We have seen corrupt churches and religions act in the name of the Christian God throughout history (remember the Crusades, Salem Witch trials, etc). We do not see God directly intervene. In Faerun, you can bet your ass if you start ruining a Deity's reputation there will be either a direct repercussion or his Clerics and/or Paladins will hunt you down with Divine Intervention on their side.
My point was that the attitude presented was one of totalitarianism. "Kill anything that Might be evil". Larry, Darryl and Darryl all spring from 'Evil' races. They do nothing what so ever to the party. they do not present as evil, yet doppleganger95 indicated that they saw no reason not to kill them outright. There is no proof that they are evil or have/will ever hurt a fly. Killing them without cause merely because they are of an evil race is (IMHO) evil.
I'd also like to correct one point from your post. Although the existence of the Gods in Faerun is obvious, that in no way means that the INTENTIONS of the Gods are known. In that, Clerics and Paladins are sometimes just as much in the dark as those of the real world. Clerics and other Divine types don't have a voice in their heads telling them to take X action or to avoid Y situation. They can make assumptions and mistakes just like anyone else.
And although there are beings of pure evil, the various human-like races (elves, dwarves, half-lings etc...) are not consigned to only ever being Evil. There are manifest examples of good and neutral representatives of most of the races that populate the world. I'd buy off on saying that a Demon or a Devil are unredemptively evil, but not much else.
Mestar there's a lot of truth in all of that. Certainly it is far easier to determine intent or motives in a universe with such meddling gods! A cleric can be exposed as false if he suddenly can't cast spells. Criminal cases can be decided by a detect lie spell. The world would be very different. But that still doesn't allow for preventative punishment, or at least not in a Good-aligned area. I can imagine an evil state or church using magic to eliminate potential threats, but a good church or state should not do such a thing. I don't think that quite means real work morality doesn't apply, but it sure could put a different twist on some things!
Killing something that 'Might' do evil is (IMHO) just as evil. Sometime read Minority report by Philip K Dick. what you describe is a totalitarian state wherein the Paladin strikes to prevent evil. That way leads to the dark side. Just ask Vader.
and yes, I collected Spiderman comics through the late 70's and all through the 80's. There have been many times when OL Web-head has resisted striking someone who was potentially Evil and ended up being rewarded. Sure, sometimes he isn't.
I'm not killing anything that might be evil, I am killing things that are evil. We are not talking about killing a bear because it is potentially dangerous. We are talking about killing evil creatures created by evil gods who want to kill or enslave all that is good.
We are talking about a lawful good character, not a neutral character. They are not looking for a balance in the force. Part of being a paladin is protecting other good creatures from evil. You are the knight in shining armor looking to rid the land of evil.
I have read Minority Report. But, I like Man in a High Castle much better.
Striking to prevent Evil is Evil itself. Don't get me wrong, when a goblin moves in next door it may call for extra vigilance. But not murder unless they earn it.
In the real world I agree with you completely. But, in fantasy land I couldn't disagree more. If my Paladin is living in Beregost and the mayor comes to tell me that a group of goblins has taken up residence near the town I don't wait for them to start killing and eating the townsfolk before I go out there and take care of the problem. That's not being evil, that's part of the job description.
When you go into Cloakwood do you kill off the Wyvern's? Why? They didn't attack you, you went into their den based off the word of some elf you just met. Do you go into the spider nest? If you do then you are invading the home of a creature that has done nothing to you. You can't use the excuse that you were attacked by these creatures in the forest and you are protecting others from potential harm. That would be striking to prevent evil and you just said that is evil itself. So do you avoid these areas?
What about evil characters / beings that aren't actively trying to hurt anyone, but are just selfishly minding their own business? Do they need to be killed?
Just because someone is evil, doesn't necessarily mean they are dangerous.
And there is also a question of proportion. What about the evil bureaucrat, who cheats on his paperwork to line his own pockets? Does he deserve to die?
Comments
At the end of the day, you can role play it the way you want, and I think we generally agree on how we would do it, but I do think there is some allowance for a Paladin to weigh their priorities and make a decision on what is the greater good.
Please don't use color of skin to paint this as a bad judgement, since drow in FR are inherently evil and Drizzt is a notable exception. The Paladin is not prejudiced due to the color of the skin, but rather the known general behavior of a specific type of elf. Just as the Paladin makes similar judgements when encounter undead, gnolls, and other [genrally] bad guys.
From the game's own handbook (salient part is asterisked):
TURNING UNDEAD
One important, and potentially life-saving, combat ability available to Clerics and Paladins is the ability to Turn Undead. ***Through the Cleric or Paladin, a deity manifests a portion of its power,*** terrifying evil, undead creatures or blasting them right out of existence. However, since the power must be channeled through a mortal vessel, success is not always assured. This ability is a mode selection for that character—nothing else can be attempted while he or she is attempting to Turn Undead. Good Clerics and Paladins can Turn Undead so they lose morale and run away or (less often) destroy them outright. Evil Clerics and Blackguards Turn Undead may gain control of an undead creature, and can cause morale loss in Paladin’s.
It's kind of an oxymoron to have a secular holy warrior! (Maybe a crusading ACLU attorney? Funny...)
Drow are Elves. Drow is a sub-race to Elves. Drizzts is an Elf with dark skin. Your example isn't that the Paladin is acting negatively because of him being an elf, but because of him being an Elf with dark skin. In other words, it is very specifically because of the color of their skin. However, even if you treat them as a race unto themselves, saying 'Because of skin color' is an accepted convention.
So, tell me. Would you think that a Paladin would be justified in killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl without provocation as well?
But the passage from the game manual I posted above, as well as the DnD rule set BG is based on, both clearly show the intent for the design of Paladins.
The fact that you don't have to assign a deity in the character selection screen is irrelevant.
You may call it splitting hairs, that's fine. That's now how I see it.
Finneous it is much more clear in PNP. BG is just a computer implementation of AD&D 2E rules and the Forgotten Realms setting. It's a very good implementation, but it certainly isn't complete. The role of Paladins as holy warriors and the whole scope of the Realm's Pantheon are among those things that were never fleshed out very much for the computer game.
I'd still appreciate your opinion on the whole Larry, Darryl and Darryl question.
@FinneousPJ, The concept for Paladins are the Knight Templars. These are the enforcers of the church. I believe the class description describes that they have to have a set of ideals "Like" a Deity to believe in, but I want to say that probably 99% of the time that means a Deity to worship. In any case, the benefits over being a simple fighter have to come from somewhere. In a world replete with Gods, that becomes the most logical place for the power to come from.
If you are a Paladin how could you not justify killing Larry, Darryl and Darryl? Just because they don't attack you? A heavy armed and armored Paladin and his 5 powerful looking friends, they might not attack you because they are scared. You let them pass and they kill some poor farmer and his family. As a Paladin you have failed to protect the innocent you are sworn to protect.
And why have the need to follow the strict alignment and high reputation or else they lose their powers? I mean, if they weren't divinely powered? Who says whether they are doing Good or not, and yanks their powers? Santa Claus? The State?
When playing a Paladin I can find no reason to kill Larry, Darryl and Darryl. They have done nothing wrong that I am aware of. I see no evidence of their evil deeds nor intent. I judge them based on their actions, not on the unfortunate circumstances of their birth.
There was a really good quote that came out of a recent "Person of Interest". it went something like this "If you set out to right all of the worlds wrongs, you may find that you only add to them." Or words to that effect.
How do you know Drizzt didn't initiate the fight with the Gnolls? We don't know who is in the wrong. We don't even know it to be Drizzt right away. As such, his blade could just as easily turn on you.
As for the Law, the Flaming Fist (Law of the Land) see fit to kill Viconia for being Drow. As such, attack Drizzt is the right thing to do. Otherwise, he or she would not be adhering to known practice and implementation of the Law.
@Person of Interest quote:
Paladins are supposed to right as many wrongs. They are to be ever vigilant, hence the dedication that few can have. You do not chose to be a Paladin. You are called to it.
If it means assured death, it is your job to die a martyr.
Larry, Darryl and Darryl are a joke.
Also remember evil and dangerous are not the same thing. Seriously, I've known many people who are greedy, selfish and hateful in almost everything; I would certainly call such things "evil", but whether its because they fear the legal system or they still have some trace of decency in them, they are harmless. And I think a pretty basic tenet of "good" ideology is leaving those who pose no threat alone, and leaving them free to enjoy the life of their choosing.
In real life making assumptions based on sex, skin color, religion, sexual preference, religion, political beliefs, wealth, age, weight, really any example you want to use, is prejudice. But, this is a game and the game simplifies complex things by making rules. D&D simplifies things by making good and evil fairly clear cut. Chromatic Dragons are evil. Orcs, goblins, gnolls, and ogres are evil. Devils, demons and the undead are all evil. Drow are evil. It's not an assumption or a generaliztion, or intolerance because it's different than me, it's part of the rules of the game. As a DM, or a story teller, putting a twist on the expected tends to make for a compelling story. But, it's a clear exception. It doesn't mean that my Paladin, or any other good character I am playing has to stop and check if every typically evil creature I fight is really evil.
And letting evil creatures go simply because they didn't do evil to you isn't a good idea. Haven't you ever seen Spiderman?
Poor Uncle Ben!
and yes, I collected Spiderman comics through the late 70's and all through the 80's. There have been many times when OL Web-head has resisted striking someone who was potentially Evil and ended up being rewarded. Sure, sometimes he isn't.
And reference the slavery discussion, that can be very complicated, but I can easily imagine a Paladin who is himself a part of an Underground Railroad, maybe even a leader or organizer of it. It depends on so much. Something like slaves being sold as monster food or as victims for a combat arena is clearly evil it would demand extraordinary and "illegal" actions to put an end to it. When the law is evil, a lawful-good character should act against it. If the whole state is evil, the Paladin may even become an outlaw.
If the slavery is purely commercial, I could understand a response of even owning slaves to protect them from a worse fate.
Historically, a lot of slaves would actually be more like convicts in today's world. They were enslaved when they fought on the loosing side in a war or committed some major crime short of murder. Their enslavement might even have a term after which they were free. It's a fairly recent idea to lock people up for their crimes. So I can easily imagine in such a situation a Paladin might even become a slave holder, with idea of caring for, protecting, and rehabilitating the individual. From a pure gaming perspective I don't really want to deal with such a thing, but I would buy it as theory.
@ Minority Report totalitarian state:
Yes and no. A Paladin's actions are also dictated through their Deity's stance, will, and position. If an Order of Paladins in control become oppressive their Deity will act accordingly. They will find themselves out of favor.
Now here is where you cannot use morality of the real world when making decisions in/about a PnP RPG. Faerun is a reality in which the Gods are physical entities that you can be 100% positive of their existence. The doubt everybody has at one point or another in reality does not exist in Faerun. They know there is an afterlife. There are beings that have always been and will always be pure evil. That cannot change. It is the essence of their very soul.
We have seen corrupt churches and religions act in the name of the Christian God throughout history (remember the Crusades, Salem Witch trials, etc). We do not see God directly intervene. In Faerun, you can bet your ass if you start ruining a Deity's reputation there will be either a direct repercussion or his Clerics and/or Paladins will hunt you down with Divine Intervention on their side.
I'd also like to correct one point from your post. Although the existence of the Gods in Faerun is obvious, that in no way means that the INTENTIONS of the Gods are known. In that, Clerics and Paladins are sometimes just as much in the dark as those of the real world. Clerics and other Divine types don't have a voice in their heads telling them to take X action or to avoid Y situation. They can make assumptions and mistakes just like anyone else.
And although there are beings of pure evil, the various human-like races (elves, dwarves, half-lings etc...) are not consigned to only ever being Evil. There are manifest examples of good and neutral representatives of most of the races that populate the world. I'd buy off on saying that a Demon or a Devil are unredemptively evil, but not much else.
I don't think that quite means real work morality doesn't apply, but it sure could put a different twist on some things!
We are talking about a lawful good character, not a neutral character. They are not looking for a balance in the force. Part of being a paladin is protecting other good creatures from evil. You are the knight in shining armor looking to rid the land of evil.
I have read Minority Report. But, I like Man in a High Castle much better.
When you go into Cloakwood do you kill off the Wyvern's? Why? They didn't attack you, you went into their den based off the word of some elf you just met. Do you go into the spider nest? If you do then you are invading the home of a creature that has done nothing to you. You can't use the excuse that you were attacked by these creatures in the forest and you are protecting others from potential harm. That would be striking to prevent evil and you just said that is evil itself. So do you avoid these areas?
What about evil characters / beings that aren't actively trying to hurt anyone, but are just selfishly minding their own business? Do they need to be killed?
Just because someone is evil, doesn't necessarily mean they are dangerous.
And there is also a question of proportion. What about the evil bureaucrat, who cheats on his paperwork to line his own pockets? Does he deserve to die?