Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?

[olejars]

Is stealing a sword from a shop to fight the dragon thats going to kill the whole town an [EVIL] act?

No, but I would argue that it's not honorable. Anyone that is going to fight a dragon that could destroy an entire town is an PC/NPC that is well off anyway, or doesn't have any regard for their lives when they could tactically retreat and regroup to defeat the dragon after finding a better means to do so.

Theirs not much honor in being a crunchy morsel if the town gets destroyed anyway.

Edit: Not something I'd make a paladin fall for, but definately a slap on the hand from either their deity (if they follow one) or have a dream that is manifested by the power of law and goodness.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A variant? I thought it was the norm that alignment could override subtype- for the purpose of determining "who's a villain and who's not"?

It can, but villian isn't a mechanical key-word like evil is. That's another of those points of dissonance between the mechanical construct and the social construct. Just because the fiend has changed his ways, doesn't mean that removing the evil he's composed of from the world is no longer a good act. I certainly wouldn't punish a good character that chose not to though.

[Menteith]

It can, but villian isn't a mechanical key-word like evil is. That's another of those points of dissonance between the mechanical construct and the social construct. Just because the fiend has changed his ways, doesn't mean that removing the evil he's composed of from the world is no longer a good act. I certainly wouldn't punish a good character that chose not to though.

See, I'm comfortable making the judgement that murdering a LG Paladin, regardless of race, is never a Good act. And I would actively punish a Good character that murdered them solely because of their race. Because they're a LG Paladin helping people, and you just murdered them because of preconceived, incorrect reasons.

BoED can suck a nut - it's full of so many bad ideas about Alignment it's not even funny. Using it as a guideline, maybe, but I wouldn't seriously rely on either it or BoVD for alignment in my games.

[hamishspence]

BoED can suck a nut - it's full of so many bad ideas about Alignment it's not even funny. Using it as a guideline, maybe, but I wouldn't seriously rely on either it or BoVD for alignment in my games.

It actually tends to support the notion that one shouldn't kill beings solely for "being evil" you need a better justification that that.

It's BoVD that stresses the "allowing a fiend to live is clearly evil" notion.

[Kelb_Panthera]

See, I'm comfortable making the judgement that murdering a LG Paladin, regardless of race, is never a Good act. And I would actively punish a Good character that murdered them solely because of their race. Because they're a LG Paladin helping people, and you just murdered them because of preconceived, incorrect reasons.

BoED can suck a nut - it's full of so many bad ideas about Alignment it's not even funny. Using it as a guideline, maybe, but I wouldn't seriously rely on either it or BoVD for alignment in my games.

If you don't like the books you don't have to use them. That doesn't change the fact that they're the official source for the mechanical aspects of alignment. Also note, that I'm not saying that the player shouldn't run into trouble for offing a LG member of a society, just that, if he has powers based on his alignment, he shouldn't lose them.

Again, thinking of fiends, or any other outsider for that matter, in the same way you think of mortals is fundamentally flawed. Their mindsets and physical makeup are wholly alien. They interact with the fundamental forces of alignment in a manner that is different from that of mortals. They are not people in the traditional sense.

[Menteith]

Their mindsets and physical makeup are wholly alien. They interact with the fundamental forces of alignment in a manner that is different from that of mortals. They are not people in the traditional sense.

Could you please cite a source for that viewpoint, one that clearly supports it above all other interpretations? I feel that the burden of proof is on you, when you say things like sentient beings with the same capacity for life and goodness as a human aren't people. Because that sounds a wee bit sociopathic - even for D&D - to me.

And while I don't love BoED, here's what it officially says about violence;

- "First, violence in the name of good must have just cause" (BoED p9)

- "the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm" (BoED p9)

- "Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." (BoED p10)

- "The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants" (BoED p10)

I'm not getting the vibe from these statements that killing stuff because it's from a different plane and looks scary is morally acceptable, or in some way not murder.

EDIT
Man, I'd forgotten how absolutely stupid the writers of BoVD were. I'm paging through it again, and here's some gems on what "Evil" actually is....

"Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism, and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."
(You heard it here, alcoholics and sodomites are Evil.)

"Betrayal does not have to be intentional"
(but it's still Evil, you monster, how dare you get tricked by someone!)

"[Cheaters] rig their enemy's equipment so it breaks or does not function properly"
(How dare you use basic tactics against us! Evil!)

Book of Vile Darkness also calls out Chromatic Dragons as "creatures of consummate, irredeemable Evil". Which also isn't true in canon, as there are non-Evil Chromatics, if I recall correctly.

[kyoryu]

If you don't like the books you don't have to use them. That doesn't change the fact that they're the official source for the mechanical aspects of alignment. Also note, that I'm not saying that the player shouldn't run into trouble for offing a LG member of a society, just that, if he has powers based on his alignment, he shouldn't lose them.

Well, there's an interesting contradiction here. If there's something that says "killing evil outsiders is always okay, because they're made of evil", then that carries the presumption that they *can't* be good. They're just flat out incapable of it, in the same way that humans are incapable of breathing water.

Allowing evil outsiders to then become good (which is a prerequisite for being a paladin) means you've already houseruled them enough that that particular rule doesn't make any sense any more.

[Menteith]

Well, there's an interesting contradiction here. If there's something that says "killing evil outsiders is always okay, because they're made of evil", then that carries the presumption that they *can't* be good. They're just flat out incapable of it, in the same way that humans are incapable of breathing water.

Allowing evil outsiders to then become good (which is a prerequisite for being a paladin) means you've already houseruled them enough that that particular rule doesn't make any sense any more.

Except there are canon Fiends who aren't Evil, which wouldn't make it a houserule....plus, the general statement "Always Alignment X" only means that an overwhelming majority of the population is that alignment, not that the creatures are actually "Always Alignment X".

[kyoryu]

Except there are canon Fiends who aren't Evil, which wouldn't make it a houserule....plus, the general statement "Always Alignment X" only means that an overwhelming majority of the population is that alignment, not that the creatures are actually "Always Alignment X".

A) So killing those Fiends would not fall under the "killing Evil outsiders is okay".

B) My understanding is that statement about "Always alignment X" applies to critters like orcs and goblins, not necessarily to outsiders that are literal embodiments of those alignments.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Could you please cite a source for that viewpoint, one that clearly supports it above all other interpretations? I feel that the burden of proof is on you, when you say things like sentient beings with the same capacity for life and goodness as a human aren't people. Because that sounds a wee bit sociopathic - even for D&D - to me.

The only source I can site for a different mindset is logic. A creature that has completely different biological needs and no concern for aging will think in a fundamentally different way from anything that would be called mortal. The biology is a bit easier, both fiendish codexes have the better part of a chapter each on the subject. Because of these differences, fiends do not possess the same capacity for goodness. While they do have a capacity for goodness, that capacity is different. If the extraplanar forces of good don't recognize that capacity, for whatever reason, that's a flaw in the system, but part of the sytem none-the-less.

And while I don't love BoED, here's what it officially says about violence;

- "First, violence in the name of good must have just cause" (BoED p9)

Removing solid evil from the world sounds pretty just to me.

- "the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm" (BoED p9)

orcs are not fiends, just unpleasant.

- "Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." (BoED p10)

BoVD pg8 Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, ..., is clearly evil.

- "The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants" (BoED p10)

explain to me how any creature that can destroy with a thought is a non-combatant.

I'm not getting the vibe from these statements that killing stuff because it's from a different plane and looks scary is morally acceptable, or in some way not murder.

I never said the alignment system had a problem with murdering fiends, and not all natives to the lower planes are fiends. We're looking only at creatures with the [evil] descriptor tag.

EDIT
Man, I'd forgotten how absolutely stupid the writers of BoVD were. I'm paging through it again, and here's a gem on what "Evil" actually is....

"Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism, and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."
(You heard it here, alcoholics and sodomites are Evil.)

"Betrayal does not have to be intentional"
(but it's still Evil, you monster, how dare you get tricked by someone!)

"[Cheaters] rig their enemy's equipment so it does not function properly"
(How dare you use basic tactics against us! Evil!)

I have to admit that some of those are just silly, but I can't say that they aren't part of the rules that govern alignment.

[The Random NPC]

Well, there's an interesting contradiction here. If there's something that says "killing evil outsiders is always okay, because they're made of evil", then that carries the presumption that they *can't* be good. They're just flat out incapable of it, in the same way that humans are incapable of breathing water.

Allowing evil outsiders to then become good (which is a prerequisite for being a paladin) means you've already houseruled them enough that that particular rule doesn't make any sense any more.

Not necessarily, just because someone is made out of elemental evil, doesn't mean it can't be Good. Like making a dam out of bread, just because it'll most likely break at the first touch of water, doesn't mean it isn't a dam, or made of bread.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A) So killing those Fiends would not fall under the "killing Evil outsiders is okay".

B) My understanding is that statement about "Always alignment X" applies to critters like orcs and goblins, not necessarily to outsiders that are literal embodiments of those alignments.

Again, killing them would not be a problem if they have the evil descriptor. The alignment line in the creatures stat-block is completely irrelavant.

[kyoryu]

"Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism, and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."
(You heard it here, alcoholics and sodomites are Evil.)

"Betrayal does not have to be intentional"
(but it's still Evil, you monster, how dare you get tricked by someone!)

"[Cheaters] rig their enemy's equipment so it does not function properly"
(How dare you use basic tactics against us! Evil!)

I have to admit that some of those are just silly, but I can't say that they aren't part of the rules that govern alignment.

At least for the first one, there's a difference between saying "x is a trait often found in Evil people" and "x is inherently evil and makes you evil".

As far as betrayal, it's a lot like intent. Betrayal due to carelessness or thoughtlessness is far closer to Evil than betrayal due to being completely duped.

On the rigging equipment... yeah, that's what cheaters do. But that also implies a scenario in which there are rules that can be broken, which there really aren't on the battlefield. As an example: sabotaging your opponent's armor or gear in a tournament. I still don't know that it's *evil*, but it's certainly chaotic in nature at a minimum. It certainly *could* be evil, depending on what was done - sabotaging the armor in such a way to guarantee that the opponent would die in a friendly competition is pretty evil in my book.

Sabotaging enemy equipment during a war? Unless there's specific rules/laws prohibiting it, why wouldn't you? And, again, that still tends towards unlawful/chaotic rather than flat out evil.

[toapat]

ok, Let us build a Strawman:

Before us we have a Succubus

She works as an Escort.

When she works, she does not suppress her inherent talents.

All of her profits goto the local Orphanage.

It is the Only Orphanage within 1 month travel.

The Orphanage would shut down if she did not work every single day.


What does the LG paladin do.

[Menteith]

The only source I can site for a different mindset is logic. A creature that has completely different biological needs and no concern for aging will think in a fundamentally different way from anything that would be called mortal. The biology is a bit easier, both fiendish codexes have the better part of a chapter each on the subject.

So they're fundamentally similar to Elves, Warforged, Necropolitian, anyone with easy access to Reincarnate (Read - most high level characters who can UMD or have Divine friends). So they think differently than humans; that's true of a staggeringly large amount of races in D&D, and still doesn't justify killing.

1) Removing solid evil from the world sounds pretty just to me.
1A)orcs are not fiends, just unpleasant.

2) Destroying a fiend is always a good act.
2A)Allowing a fiend to exist, ..., is clearly evil.

3) explain to me how any creature that can destroy with a thought is a non-combatant.

Answers
1) There is no in game consequence for having additional [Evil] creatures walking around, other than the Evil they may perpetuate. If Eludecia never performs an Evil act, the fact that she has the [Evil] subtype will never make a difference to the world. If you can show me how the world is negatively affected by the mere presence of an [Evil] subtyped creature existing, I'll consider it further, but as it stands, I still see it falling within the same area as murdering Orcs who haven't done anything wrong.

2) This falls under the whole "the book is idiotic" label that I'll get into later, but in a nutshell, even if you accept that killing a fiend is a [Good] act, the book doesn't actually specify that leaving a fiend alive is an [Evil] act - and with how badly the book was written, I'd heavily caution you against reading into things.

3) By choice. Look, if you're comfortable making the statement that you should murder everyone in a war who has the potential to oppose you, then you're committing war crimes. Just because someone has the potential to do something doesn't make them a combative.

I have to admit that some of those are just silly, but I can't say that they aren't part of the rules that govern alignment.

There are mutually exclusive, contradicting statements about alignment throughout D&D (like the morality of Undead - seriously "Deathless" is such a laughable cop out once they realized how badly they'd handled it). I also am committing Evil when I use Deathwatch to monitor a patient's health as a doctor. The alignment books alone will contradict each other, and require a personal ruling on how to handle the things they say (like murdering Dragons who've committed no Evil purely on skin color - Good or Evil, because the books give different opinions). Alignment in D&D fundamentally can't be reconciled with every book out there; the rules that govern alignment require so much opinion from the DM/players that the whole thing is basically meaningless, anyway.

To sum up my point - There isn't a stable body of rules governing alignment when everything is taken into consideration. The rules presented in BoVD and BoED are childishly simplistic ideas of morality that basically bash anything some random dude didn't like (which apparently includes deviant sexual practices, the horrors!). Using common sense and real world morality is going to be required for any real alignment issue, and appealing to the nonexistent authority of the alignment rules is meaningless.

[Kelb_Panthera]

ok, Let us build a Strawman:

Before us we have a Succubus

She works as an Escort.

When she works, she does not suppress her inherent talents.

All of her profits goto the local Orphanage.

It is the Only Orphanage within 1 month travel.

The Orphanage would shut down if she did not work every single day.


What does the LG paladin do.

He shanks the crap out of her for sucking the life out of her johns. That's one of a succubus's talents, sucking the life out of the people she kisses. An exalted paladin would do everything he could to either fund, or relocate the orphanage, but any paladin should kill the succubus. Even if she was a paragon of virtue that never hurt a fly, the paladin wouldn't fall for offing her. He shouldn't kill her in that case, but doing so would mechanically be a good act.

[toapat]

He shanks the crap out of her for sucking the life out of her johns. That's one of a succubus's talents, sucking the life out of the people she kisses. An exalted paladin would do everything he could to either fund, or relocate the orphanage, but any paladin should kill the succubus. Even if she was a paragon of virtue that never hurt a fly, the paladin wouldn't fall for offing her. He shouldn't kill her in that case, but doing so would mechanically be a good act.

Congradulations, you caused the death of 500+ children

if She wasnt killing people through her job, you attain a first level unholy divine rank, because you just increased abuse in the city by 500%, and killed 500+ children.

Paladins dont have WBL within SRD

[Menteith]

He shanks the crap out of her for sucking the life out of her johns. That's one of a succubus's talents, sucking the life out of the people she kisses. An exalted paladin would do everything he could to either fund, or relocate the orphanage, but any paladin should kill the succubus. Even if she was a paragon of virtue that never hurt a fly, the paladin wouldn't fall for offing her. He shouldn't kill her in that case, but doing so would mechanically be a good act.

Or it'd be a mechanically Evil act according to the guidelines in BoED. Which is why I'm saying that those books aren't actually useful as Alignment rules. Because they're contradictory, and pretty bad even on their own.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Congradulations, you caused the death of 500+ children

No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

so they're fundamentally similar to elves, warforged, (other long-lived races)

No. Among those, only the constructs and undead are truly immortal. Undead fall under the same heading as [evil] subtype creatures. Many of them have a hunger that they must sate, and amongst those that don't they usually became undead through an evil act. Constructs have a basic mindset programed into them. They are just as different from outsiders as they are from mortal creatures.

... There isn't a stable body of rules governing alignment...

You're right, it doesn't make perfect sense, that's why we end up with these debates. That and the dissonance between the alignment rules and the social construct of morality. That doesn't change the fact that they are the rules.

[toapat]

No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

In Medival Europe, in the scenario, the kids are kept alive by the wallet of a succubus who likes children but doesnt particularly care about her clients. The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep? that goes to feeding that pain in the ass horse because you dont have Create Food and Water as a spell, and cant learn it.

and yes, A Paladin IS HELD to the cascading results of their actions.

[toapat]

No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

In Medival Europe, in the scenario, the kids are kept alive by the wallet of a succubus who likes children but doesnt particularly care about her clients. The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep? that goes to feeding that pain in the ass horse because you dont have Create Food and Water as a spell, and cant learn it.

and yes, A Paladin IS HELD to the cascading results of their actions.

[Menteith]

No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

""He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others." (BoVD, p9), Evil Act, Paladin falls.

I can and will hold a Paladin responsible for the slow deaths of hundreds of children and their benefactor. Due to a paladin's actions, more suffering, pain, and evil (due to the surviving children turning to Evil) will now result. This is something forseeable, and I can't think of a single player that could try and justify that to a DM with a straight face.

You're right, it doesn't make perfect sense, that's why we end up with these debates. That and the dissonance between the alignment rules and the social construct of morality. That doesn't change the fact that they are the rules.

So is Drown Healing, the Trample Feat giving Wargs Hoof attacks, and other fun nonfunctional statements. Just because they've been written down doesn't make them any more stupid or absurd. There are mutually exclusive areas of the alignment "rules" that cannot be resolved without ignoring a source. There isn't a guideline on which source is more definitive. Thus, players and DMs will have to use their best judgement on what's actually good and evil (which is a good thing anyway, given BoVD and BoED). When a creature does no harm, and quite a bit of good, I'd say murdering it in cold blood because a book told you it was OK to do doesn't mean that the act is any more just, it just means the book is wrong.

[The Random NPC]

ok, Let us build a Strawman:

Before us we have a Succubus

She works as an Escort.

When she works, she does not suppress her inherent talents.

All of her profits goto the local Orphanage.

It is the Only Orphanage within 1 month travel.

The Orphanage would shut down if she did not work every single day.


What does the LG paladin do.

One of two thing, kill the succubus, or let the succubus live, either one wouldn't result in the paladin falling. Leaving the orphanage without funding after killing the succubus may result in falling.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In Medival Europe, in the scenario, the kids are kept alive by the wallet of a succubus who likes children but doesnt particularly care about her clients. The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep? that goes to feeding that pain in the ass horse because you dont have Create Food and Water as a spell, and cant learn it.

and yes, A Paladin IS HELD to the cascading results of their actions.

You're assigning assumptions to your hypothetical that you never specified. Did the paladin know that the succubus was an orphanage's benefactor? My comment about the paladin helping the orphanage to the best of his ability is something that he should be inclined to do in anycase. I can agree that if he does know about the orphanage and the succubus's ties to it, then he would be responsible for taking up the responsibility of caring for that orphanage. If he succesfully produces a way for the orphanage to continue, great. If he fails, he fails. He doesn't fall unless he didn't try.

Okay, my turn for a hypothetical. A paladin is traveling through the woods when he's attacked by a warg. He slays the warg with little effort because he's of reasonably high level. That wargs pups die, because he never returns to the den and either they starved or his mate wasn't there to protect them at a critical moment. His mate, possibly after recovering from her own near starvation, in a fit of rage goes to the nearest town and starts attacking innocent peasants.

Where do you draw the line for the paladin's responsibility? The dead pups? The dead villiagers? If you hold a paladin, or any character for that matter, to every possible consequence of his actions, then every person who's ever done anything has commited an evil act, and did it without even knowing about it in most cases.

[Kelb_Panthera]

""He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others." (BoVD, p9), Evil Act, Paladin falls.

I can and will hold a Paladin responsible for the slow deaths of hundreds of children and their benefactor. Due to a paladin's actions, more suffering, pain, and evil (due to the surviving children turning to Evil) will now result. This is something forseeable, and I can't think of a single player that could try and justify that to a DM with a straight face.



So is Drown Healing, the Trample Feat giving Wargs Hoof attacks, and other fun nonfunctional statements. Just because they've been written down doesn't make them any more stupid or absurd. There are mutually exclusive areas of the alignment "rules" that cannot be resolved without ignoring a source. There isn't a guideline on which source is more definitive. Thus, players and DMs will have to use their best judgement on what's actually good and evil (which is a good thing anyway, given BoVD and BoED). When a creature does no harm, and quite a bit of good, I'd say murdering it in cold blood because a book told you it was OK to do doesn't mean that the act is any more just, it just means the book is wrong.

See my previous post for the rebuttal to the hypothetical.

If we throw out the rules, then we're just discussing our, obviously differing, opinions. By the definition of "opinion" neither of us can be right or wrong, and this discussion becomes moot.

[toapat]

You're asigning assumptions to your hypothetical that you never specified. Did the paladin know that the succubus was an orphanage's benefactor? My comment about the paladin helping the orphanage to the best of his ability is something that he should be inclined to do in anycase. I can agree that if he does know about the orphanage and the succubus's ties to it, then he would be responsible for taking up the responsibility of caring for that orphanage. If he succesfully produces a way for the orphanage to continue, great. If he fails, he fails. He doesn't fall unless he didn't try.

Okay, my turn for a hypothetical. A paladin is traveling through the woods when he's attacked by a warg. He slays the warg with little effort because he's of reasonably high level. That wargs pups die, because he never returns to the den and either they starved or his mate wasn't there to protect them at a critical moment. His mate, possibly after recovering from her own near starvation, in a fit of rage goes to the nearest town and starts attacking innocent peasants.

Where do you draw the line for the paladin's responsibility? The dead pups? The dead villiagers? If you hold a paladin, or any character for that matter, to every possible consequence of his actions, then every person who's ever done anything has commited an evil act, and did it without even knowing about it in most cases.

RAW: The Paladin only knows the conditions of the Strawman. It becomes his responsibility if executing the Succubus to help the orphanage. He does not know who to contact, where it is, or whether he can actually convince anyone to help it out. A Paladin, following the PHB code to the letter, does not have spare coin to give an orphanage he just found out about.

IF paladin was written properly, they would have Soothe animal as a first level spell, and as a second level spell Conjure Food and Water. The difference here is that THIS cascade of Events can not within reasonable bounds be judged by the paladins actions alone, because there might have been a Dire Half Fiend Polar Bear on the future path of the Worg in question. This is a Strawman in actuality.

The reason why the Succubus orphan Matron works, is because a Succubus is a Demon who even in origin is an Infiltrator and Escort. Her not being found out can easily be attributed to a combination of Alter form at will, High bluff, Diplomacy, Perform, and Charisma, and a torch.

[Menteith]

You're assigning assumptions to your hypothetical that you never specified. Did the paladin know that the succubus was an orphanage's benefactor? My comment about the paladin helping the orphanage to the best of his ability is something that he should be inclined to do in anycase. I can agree that if he does know about the orphanage and the succubus's ties to it, then he would be responsible for taking up the responsibility of caring for that orphanage. If he succesfully produces a way for the orphanage to continue, great. If he fails, he fails. He doesn't fall unless he didn't try.

I'll give you a slightly more comprehensive situation
A Fiend has been the guardian of a town for centuries. Its honor and compassion is beyond doubt, and it alone is responsible for the protection and lives under its watch. In your mind, is it a good act to murder this creature, knowing full well that doing so will only bring harm to the world around it and destroy a noble being, because of a single line in BoVD that's contradicted by BoED and the existence of non-Evil Fiends?

Okay, my turn for a hypothetical. A paladin is traveling through the woods when he's attacked by a warg. He slays the warg with little effort because he's of reasonably high level. That wargs pups die, because he never returns to the den and either they starved or his mate wasn't there to protect them at a critical moment. His mate, possibly after recovering from her own near starvation, in a fit of rage goes to the nearest town and starts attacking innocent peasants.

Where do you draw the line for the paladin's responsibility? The dead pups? The dead villiagers? If you hold a paladin, or any character for that matter, to every possible consequence of his actions, then every person who's ever done anything has commited an evil act, and did it without even knowing about it in most cases.

Sure, you need to keep it reasonable. You can't endlessly go down the path of causality. But would it be cool for the Paladin to still murder than Good demon even if he knew his actions would result in the slow death by starvation of hundreds, and the destruction of a Good creature, solely due to that creature's origins?

[Kelb_Panthera]

RAW: The Paladin only knows the conditions of the Strawman. It becomes his responsibility if executing the Succubus to help the orphanage. He does not know who to contact, where it is, or whether he can actually convince anyone to help it out. A Paladin, following the PHB code to the letter, does not have spare coin to give an orphanage he just found out about.

IF paladin was written properly, they would have Soothe animal as a first level spell, and as a second level spell Conjure Food and Water. The difference here is that THIS cascade of Events can not within reasonable bounds be judged by the paladins actions alone, because there might have been a Dire Half Fiend Polar Bear on the future path of the Worg in question. This is a Strawman in actuality.

The reason why the Succubus orphan Matron works, is because a Succubus is a Demon who even in origin is an Infiltrator and Escort. Her not being found out can easily be attributed to a combination of Alter form at will, High bluff, Diplomacy, Perform, and Charisma, and a torch.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the paladin didn't know where the orphanage was, how to get there, or even that the woman he just killed was a succubus? One of these cannot be true.

If he knew she was a succubus, and she told him about the orphanage, then there'd be no reason for him to believe it, and he shouldn't be held responsible for the orphanage.

If he heard about the orphanage from someone else, then other people know about it and he can find it if he tries hard enough.

If he didn't know she was a succubus, but did know she was killing people, and he knew about the orphanage, he shouldn't have auto-killed her. He should've tried to capture her and turn her over to the authorities.

If he didn't know she was a succubus, didn't know about the killings, and did know about the orphanage, why did he want to kill her in the first place?

The problem isn't in my response to the hypothetical, it's in the hypothetical's lack of relavant detail.

[toapat]

I'll give you a slightly more comprehensive situation
A Fiend has been the guardian of a town for centuries. Its honor and compassion is beyond doubt, and it alone is responsible for the protection and lives under its watch. In your mind, is it a good act to murder this creature, knowing full well that doing so will only bring harm to the world around it and destroy a noble being, because of a single line in BoVD that's contradicted by BoED and the existence of non-Evil Fiends?

Sure, you need to keep it reasonable. You can't endlessly go down the path of causality. But would it be cool for the Paladin to still murder than Good demon even if he knew his actions would result in the slow death by starvation of hundreds, and the destruction of a Good creature, solely due to that creature's origins?

^Good Example. One book says that creatures with a [Evil] Descriptor should be pitied for not being able to understand Love.

the reason why i built my scenario the way i did is that the Succubus is clearly being Evil, but you cant kill her lest you comit an evil act.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'll give you a slightly more comprehensive situation
A Fiend has been the guardian of a town for centuries. Its honor and compassion is beyond doubt, and it alone is responsible for the protection and lives under its watch. In your mind, is it a good act to murder this creature, knowing full well that doing so will only bring harm to the world around it and destroy a noble being, because of a single line in BoVD that's contradicted by BoED and the existence of non-Evil Fiends?



Sure, you need to keep it reasonable. You can't endlessly go down the path of causality. But would it be cool for the Paladin to still murder than Good demon even if he knew his actions would result in the slow death by starvation of hundreds, and the destruction of a Good creature, solely due to that creature's origins?

Again there are flaws in the hypothetical, but I'll answer anyway. Mechanically, yes, killing the demon is a good act. Morally no of course not, but that's the rub. Mechanical alignment and the social construct of morality are related, but not the same thing.

Now for the flaws in the hypothetical: what's the paladin's motivation for attacking the demon? Why didn't he change his mind when he, inevitably, found out that the demon was good? Why wouldn't he do everything in his power to prevent the eventual decline of the city? Why are the peasants staying there to starve when they know that their benefactor is gone? How in the blazes did an entire town come to trust a frickin' demon?

Without all of the proper context, all there is to fall back on is mechanics.

Like I said, if you want to discuss mechanics, I'll do everything I can to show my point. If you want to discuss morality, that's all just opinion anyway and neither of us can be definitively right or wrong.