Let me clarify: A Paladin may decide to kill a Drow on sight (probably with a detect evil to be sure) because in doing so they'd believe themselves to be preventing said Drow from killing someone else, since Drow have a (seemingly fully earned) reputation for being heartless monsters. That's not to say it's right or I condone it or anything, just it's one possible mindset to explain why a Paladin would kill a Drow.
(a) Detect Evil is not supposed to identify individual character alignments.
(b) Anyone who bases life or death decisions based on something as superficial as the color of one's skin has a lot bigger problems than their Paladinhood. I can't see anyone with such broad ranging prejudices ever passing the entrance exam of any Lawful Good 'Church school', let alone graduating.
You can just replace 'paladin' in this argument with virtually any religion (including Jedi!)
Oh jeez, don't even get me started on the jedi. They're less "good" and more "wait for the forces of evil to swoop in and kill us all" again, and again, and again. The problem I have at the heart of it with Paladins (and jedis for that matter) is the seeming inability for large groups of them to take immediate actions against something obviously and inherently evil.
I've had conversations with people who literally believe that any crime is justifiable for a 'greater good' as long as it is THEIR greater good. For everyone else it would be proof they are evil.
A bit of a jump there, isn't it? If some kid was mugged or there was an attempted kidnapping on the street you're saying that intervening with necessary violence is somehow evil? I agree the ends don't justify the means, but in some extreme cases it seems wrong to say inaction is somehow morally superior to getting your hands a bit dirty. Doesn't really seem like a proof of evil to me.
Let me clarify: A Paladin may decide to kill a Drow on sight (probably with a detect evil to be sure) because in doing so they'd believe themselves to be preventing said Drow from killing someone else, since Drow have a (seemingly fully earned) reputation for being heartless monsters. That's not to say it's right or I condone it or anything, just it's one possible mindset to explain why a Paladin would kill a Drow.
(a) Detect Evil is not supposed to identify individual character alignments.
(b) Anyone who bases life or death decisions based on something as superficial as the color of one's skin has a lot bigger problems than their Paladinhood. I can't see anyone with such broad ranging prejudices ever passing the entrance exam of any Lawful Good 'Church school', let alone graduating.
Pity there's no "agree very strongly" button.
Detect Evil is used to detect extreme evil like demonic or diabolical, not character alignments. At least in AD&D. I don't know about later versions.
Players so often overlook the fact that their character was devoted enough to their faith and religion to make it through training. As a DM, I remember once threatening a player, not that he would loose his paladinhood, but that he would loose his character. He tried to commit a very evil act the first time he played the character. I told him; a paladin may fall, but there's no way you "fooled" your deity to get through five years of training and go rogue. If you think you can do that, I'm taking away your character and you can try to start a different one.
You can just replace 'paladin' in this argument with virtually any religion (including Jedi!)
Oh jeez, don't even get me started on the jedi. They're less "good" and more "wait for the forces of evil to swoop in and kill us all" again, and again, and again. The problem I have at the heart of it with Paladins (and jedis for that matter) is the seeming inability for large groups of them to take immediate actions against something obviously and inherently evil.
Jedi is more to a druid than a paladin, they role is to maintain order but not a lawful order, more to an equilibrium of shorts. At least that's what i see when i watch star wars !
To me, someone doesn't just randomly decide to be a Paladin. it is a calling, an almost divine inspiration. And even then, I bet that 99% of those who go to Paladin school can't make the cut. It almost has to be a symbiosis in purpose between the Paladin and their chosen patron. These are the Deities chosen holy warriors. They are the Creme-de-la-creme of the church.
It is one of the huge problems I have with later editions of the game where someone can take one level of Paladin for the + bonus to saving throws and to qualify for EDMs. The profession isn't like taking a semester annex course. it is not only years and years and years of devotion and training but really a fundamental part of the character's soul and being. Anything less is a Fighter for the church.
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
Godwin's Law. Also totally not evil. xD In short, don't trust the groupies of divinity. They're clearly insane.
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
Except that this statement is false and Adolf Hitler in fact was a Darwinist atheist who rejected mysticism in his doctrine.
I've had conversations with people who literally believe that any crime is justifiable for a 'greater good' as long as it is THEIR greater good. For everyone else it would be proof they are evil.
A bit of a jump there, isn't it? If some kid was mugged or there was an attempted kidnapping on the street you're saying that intervening with necessary violence is somehow evil? I agree the ends don't justify the means, but in some extreme cases it seems wrong to say inaction is somehow morally superior to getting your hands a bit dirty. Doesn't really seem like a proof of evil to me.
You're right about that, but I actually meant that some people justify committing serious crimes as long as THEIR god says it is okay, but in identical situations with another religion they claimed the crime was proof that the other religion was evil.
Controversial details for those who don't mind thread derailment:
my mother-in-law is a devout Pentecostal and really takes "biblical infallibility" to the extreme. She believes that the slaughter of Canaanite babies by the Hebrews was a direct command from God, and it was therefore good. (Numbers 31, Joshua 6,7,8, and 1st Samuel 15).
She is inconsistent in judging other "baby killers" as servants of Satan. She thinks all abortions are evil. She said that the Quran must be written by Satan because in one instance a muslim prophet kills a child on God's command. She couldn't rationally compare those situations to the infanticide in the Bible.
It's scary to see a sweet old woman turn ice cold in conversation and defend the deliberate murder of babies as "good." Especially when that is her own standard of evil.
Sorry for the controversy. I'm too new with this forum to get off-track like this. I don't mean to offend Christians with better answers than my mother-in-law
You're right about inaction being a worse evil in certain situations. I just meant something different. Zealous indoctrination makes it difficult to adapt in areas where common sense would be better.
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
Except that this statement is false and Adolf Hitler in fact was a Darwinist atheist who rejected mysticism in his doctrine.
That statement is false. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. All Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Unst" (God On Our Side). The Nazi party had open support from the Catholic Church.
good=selfeless,evil=selfish,so the paladin is good because he acts not for personal gain but for what he believes is best for the rest,if he's wrong or prejudiced or misguided or deceived it's another matter
good does not mean wise,intelligent or perceptive,not even objective,only good intentions a good person can be racist if he truly believes that one race is evil
also a good character can hate what he perceives as evil
Bill I completely disagree with that. Unless you're running an atheist game setting, the gods would define good and evil, and mere mortals would be defined by what set of rules (which deity/religion) they are following. Of course a mortal may redefine said rules, but if the deities are real, they do so at their own peril. It all comes down to who actually has metaphysical authority to define good and evil.
So Paladin's are supposed to be the epitome of righteousness and good, right? If that's the case how is it they can justify the slaying of entire races "because they are evil?" I see a lot of comments that Paladins would never align themselves with evil creatures, ex: Viconia and furthermore may even be compelled to purge them if at all possible. Let's not forget their atypical self-righteousness tends to lead them to arrogance, pride and a form of self-importance (our morality is better than yours mentality) usually associated with evil characters. I think in some cases it could be argued that Paladins are actually an alternative evil.
Ex: A Paladin knows that one evil individual is, with 100% certainty going to kill a large population. However, the Paladin does not have proof he could bring before any court of law, more importantly this individual is a well known political official. There is no chance to gather evidence to bring against this individual and it literally comes down to a split second decision where the Paladin CAN kill this person and save hundreds or thousands of lives. Despite this if they were to kill this individual they would be considered a fallen paladin. I.e. a "True Paladin" would never really be able to do anything about a Lawful Evil character who covered their bases properly?
This is why I like neutral good. Because F**k a court of law evildoer, I have to kill you NOW. Farewell King Henry VIII, England will be a much more stable nation now that you are *hypothetically* gone - But we're totally keeping the church of England. Cake or Death?
It's NOT nihlistic racism when talking about a species that would take you and turn you into a spider for fun. 99% of them are rotten to the core and want nothing but to take your loved loves and torture and kill them in front of you. Stop pretending like the drow are the victims here, they have more than earned their reputation for being evil and if you also DETECT it, it's so way not racist if you decide not to help them. It's like letting Charles Manson hang out with you and your friends because you're afraid people will think you dislike hippies.
when the game comes to touch a personality matter, i always prefer Masquerade rules to work that, D&D give me a solid ground, but masquerade make each character unique.
Bill I completely disagree with that. Unless you're running an atheist game setting, the gods would define good and evil, and mere mortals would be defined by what set of rules (which deity/religion) they are following. Of course a mortal may redefine said rules, but if the deities are real, they do so at their own peril. It all comes down to who actually has metaphysical authority to define good and evil.
I agree. It's a whole different argument when gods are proven to exist in that realm. In the FR setting, it's completely opposite from the real world, and you'd have to be extremely ignorant to be an atheist. Although you can choose to be an antitheist and defy the gods.
(a) Detect Evil is not supposed to identify individual character alignments.
Depends on which version of AD&D/D&D you're talking about.
1st Edition: Yes, it does. From the PHB description of Detect Evil: "This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object. For example, evil alignment or an evilly cursed object will radiate evil, but a hidden trop or an unintelligent viper will not."
2nd Edition: No, except under unusual circumstances (e.g., powerful NPCs intent on committing evil acts).
3rd Edition: Yes, but most non-clerics under 10 hit dice are "faint."
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
I wasn't suggesting Amalric was right. I was offering information not an opinion.
Paladins are forced to be lawful good and rangers are forced to be chaotic good for reasons. Chaotic good- does what's right or wrong based off of a moral system. Rangers don't care about laws because out in the wilderness they don't really apply. You harm something, it will try to harm you back. Lawful good- does what's right or wrong based off the law of their (good) god. Paladins make their god's choices, their choices. They have the wisdom score to know what their god would want at all times. Thus, they act instinctively to the law.
As for "evil" races, it all depends on the encounter with the specific creature. If for say, you're going through the woods and stumble across a hobgoblin encampment and some guards in a group start attacking you, the ranger and paladin would both attack back, without trying to parley because they are normally evil creatures and are attacking you (might try to parley with some elves for example being a normally neutral or good race). As you go through the encampment, you go into a tent where a hobgoblin is telling you he'll help you in some way if you let him live. The paladin, would be more likely to kill it, still being that most good god's law says to kill evil races, then the ranger. The ranger would likely let it live deciding it had redeemed itself by helping you and let it live.
It really all depends on what kind of person you're playing.
You can go the Miko way and be a total asshole about it, detecting evil left and right, condemning everyone who doesn't adhere to your strict moral code, having no concern for the sanctity of life as soon as that life has an 'evil' sticker attached to it. This is how most people see them, and unfortunately, most people play them. Or you can play a decent character who is a paladin because she wants to set an example for the rest of the world and make it a better place, inspiring people to be a better person and defending them from evil without pushing them into a corner. This requires playing a humble, selfless and kind character, something a lot of people have difficulty with (since it's not as fun as playing a holy smite laying badass).
The choice between Law and Good is a classic dilemma that people love to put the paladin in, screwing her either way. From my point of view, the answer is clear; the paladin would beg her god for forgiveness for what he is about to do, kill the evildoer, then lay down her sword and surrender to the courts. She would lose her paladin powers for unlawful murder (and can attone for them after a fashion) and will probably get thrown in jail or even executed but she will rest easy, knowing she saved a hundred thousand lives and her own life is unimportant compared to that.
A paladin should not need glory, gratitude or reverance. She fights for a world where the innocent are protected and true evil is fought. If this can be achieved at the cost of herself, so be it.
Regarding Consorting with Evil Creatures, I never quite got why that was in there. I always assumed it was in the spirit of "Can't be close drinking buddies with the local tyrannical warlord" or "Can't happily shop at the Human Skin leatherworking shop". Not "Can't travel with an evil creature to keep an eye on him." By the literal intent, a paladin can never take evil prisoners (taking them prisoner and caring for the prisoner is consorting with it) or interrogate an evil foe (talking to it or making a deal is consorting with it) . As such, I don't see why a paladin would have problems with travelling with Viconia or Korgan, as long as she keeps them from doing harm. In the end, this prevents them from doing more evil and the paladin's example may show them a better way.
Likewise, a paladin should never police the group. While he may not agree with everything the group does, she probably understands that her sword and smite evil is not the answer to everything. She may not agree with the Rogue's dishonourable backstab but she will see the point of it. She may not agree with the wizard throwing a Cloudkill into a room, then casting Hold Portal on the door but she can't doubt its effectiveness. These are things she would not do herself and if it were up to her, it would not be the first tactic the party would use but a paladin is humble and thus must accept that not everyone thinks as she does. The difficulty there lies in knowing when the party has gone too far and proves to be a greater threat to Good and Order than the enemy they're fighting.
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
Except that this statement is false and Adolf Hitler in fact was a Darwinist atheist who rejected mysticism in his doctrine.
That statement is false. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. All Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Unst" (God On Our Side). The Nazi party had open support from the Catholic Church.
No he was not, he merely needed support from the Roman Catholic church to sustain his political power. In this sense religion and also the belt buckles were used as a means to an end.
His whole doctrine was based on Social Darwinism and he formed a racial concept out of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, who had in the decades before declared God death.
I nearly always play as a paladin and I play her as a rather naive person who is trying to do the right thing. She may be Lawful Good but in my book the good part trumps the law part every time.
There is no reason that paladins need to be one dimensional. After all, Buffy is essentially a paladin (she is the one chosen to stand against the forces of darkness) but it doesn't stop her from being a well-rounded character. She faces complex moral and ethical dilemmas and sometimes has to make compromises to get the job done.
And of course emotions come into it as well. In addition to all the other problems she faces she has to struggle with the fact that she is fatally attracted to bad boys ...
Comments
(b) Anyone who bases life or death decisions based on something as superficial as the color of one's skin has a lot bigger problems than their Paladinhood. I can't see anyone with such broad ranging prejudices ever passing the entrance exam of any Lawful Good 'Church school', let alone graduating.
Plus, think of all the paperwork that you are leaving to your Patron Deity. I can't imagine him thanking you for that.
Detect Evil is used to detect extreme evil like demonic or diabolical, not character alignments. At least in AD&D. I don't know about later versions.
Players so often overlook the fact that their character was devoted enough to their faith and religion to make it through training. As a DM, I remember once threatening a player, not that he would loose his paladinhood, but that he would loose his character. He tried to commit a very evil act the first time he played the character. I told him; a paladin may fall, but there's no way you "fooled" your deity to get through five years of training and go rogue. If you think you can do that, I'm taking away your character and you can try to start a different one.
It is one of the huge problems I have with later editions of the game where someone can take one level of Paladin for the + bonus to saving throws and to qualify for EDMs. The profession isn't like taking a semester annex course. it is not only years and years and years of devotion and training but really a fundamental part of the character's soul and being. Anything less is a Fighter for the church.
All in my humble opinion.
In short, don't trust the groupies of divinity. They're clearly insane.
Controversial details for those who don't mind thread derailment:
(Numbers 31, Joshua 6,7,8, and 1st Samuel 15).
She is inconsistent in judging other "baby killers" as servants of Satan. She thinks all abortions are evil. She said that the Quran must be written by Satan because in one instance a muslim prophet kills a child on God's command. She couldn't rationally compare those situations to the infanticide in the Bible.
It's scary to see a sweet old woman turn ice cold in conversation and defend the deliberate murder of babies as "good." Especially when that is her own standard of evil.
Sorry for the controversy. I'm too new with this forum to get off-track like this. I don't mean to offend Christians with better answers than my mother-in-law
You're right about inaction being a worse evil in certain situations. I just meant something different. Zealous indoctrination makes it difficult to adapt in areas where common sense would be better.
That's why most paladin's dump stat is INT.
good does not mean wise,intelligent or perceptive,not even objective,only good intentions
a good person can be racist if he truly believes that one race is evil
also a good character can hate what he perceives as evil
It all comes down to who actually has metaphysical authority to define good and evil.
Personally, I would double tap him.
1st Edition: Yes, it does. From the PHB description of Detect Evil: "This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object. For example, evil alignment or an evilly cursed object will radiate evil, but a hidden trop or an unintelligent viper will not."
2nd Edition: No, except under unusual circumstances (e.g., powerful NPCs intent on committing evil acts).
3rd Edition: Yes, but most non-clerics under 10 hit dice are "faint."
And of course, in Baldur's Gate, it does.
"Ya! oh wait," -reads thread- "oh. um," -jedi hand wave- "these aren't the paladins you're looking for." -shuffles away-
"hey paladin it's me, your god. i need you to go smite this evil bitch for me."
"you got it boss"
this is paladin ethics in 5 seconds or less.
Chaotic good- does what's right or wrong based off of a moral system. Rangers don't care about laws because out in the wilderness they don't really apply. You harm something, it will try to harm you back.
Lawful good- does what's right or wrong based off the law of their (good) god. Paladins make their god's choices, their choices. They have the wisdom score to know what their god would want at all times. Thus, they act instinctively to the law.
As for "evil" races, it all depends on the encounter with the specific creature. If for say, you're going through the woods and stumble across a hobgoblin encampment and some guards in a group start attacking you, the ranger and paladin would both attack back, without trying to parley because they are normally evil creatures and are attacking you (might try to parley with some elves for example being a normally neutral or good race). As you go through the encampment, you go into a tent where a hobgoblin is telling you he'll help you in some way if you let him live. The paladin, would be more likely to kill it, still being that most good god's law says to kill evil races, then the ranger. The ranger would likely let it live deciding it had redeemed itself by helping you and let it live.
You can go the Miko way and be a total asshole about it, detecting evil left and right, condemning everyone who doesn't adhere to your strict moral code, having no concern for the sanctity of life as soon as that life has an 'evil' sticker attached to it. This is how most people see them, and unfortunately, most people play them.
Or you can play a decent character who is a paladin because she wants to set an example for the rest of the world and make it a better place, inspiring people to be a better person and defending them from evil without pushing them into a corner. This requires playing a humble, selfless and kind character, something a lot of people have difficulty with (since it's not as fun as playing a holy smite laying badass).
The choice between Law and Good is a classic dilemma that people love to put the paladin in, screwing her either way. From my point of view, the answer is clear; the paladin would beg her god for forgiveness for what he is about to do, kill the evildoer, then lay down her sword and surrender to the courts. She would lose her paladin powers for unlawful murder (and can attone for them after a fashion) and will probably get thrown in jail or even executed but she will rest easy, knowing she saved a hundred thousand lives and her own life is unimportant compared to that.
A paladin should not need glory, gratitude or reverance. She fights for a world where the innocent are protected and true evil is fought. If this can be achieved at the cost of herself, so be it.
Regarding Consorting with Evil Creatures, I never quite got why that was in there. I always assumed it was in the spirit of "Can't be close drinking buddies with the local tyrannical warlord" or "Can't happily shop at the Human Skin leatherworking shop". Not "Can't travel with an evil creature to keep an eye on him."
By the literal intent, a paladin can never take evil prisoners (taking them prisoner and caring for the prisoner is consorting with it) or interrogate an evil foe (talking to it or making a deal is consorting with it) .
As such, I don't see why a paladin would have problems with travelling with Viconia or Korgan, as long as she keeps them from doing harm. In the end, this prevents them from doing more evil and the paladin's example may show them a better way.
Likewise, a paladin should never police the group. While he may not agree with everything the group does, she probably understands that her sword and smite evil is not the answer to everything. She may not agree with the Rogue's dishonourable backstab but she will see the point of it. She may not agree with the wizard throwing a Cloudkill into a room, then casting Hold Portal on the door but she can't doubt its effectiveness. These are things she would not do herself and if it were up to her, it would not be the first tactic the party would use but a paladin is humble and thus must accept that not everyone thinks as she does. The difficulty there lies in knowing when the party has gone too far and proves to be a greater threat to Good and Order than the enemy they're fighting.
His whole doctrine was based on Social Darwinism and he formed a racial concept out of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, who had in the decades before declared God death.
There is no reason that paladins need to be one dimensional. After all, Buffy is essentially a paladin (she is the one chosen to stand against the forces of darkness) but it doesn't stop her from being a well-rounded character. She faces complex moral and ethical dilemmas and sometimes has to make compromises to get the job done.
And of course emotions come into it as well. In addition to all the other problems she faces she has to struggle with the fact that she is fatally attracted to bad boys ...