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

[elizasteave]

Well, I only had a small idea regarding this thing, but when I went through this thread, then I realized that I really had small idea about what's allowed and what's not regarding paladin and rogue. Thanks community for sharing all these things over here.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The thing is, your basis that fiends cause harm by their very presence is wrong, except on the material plane. There, and only there, do fiends cause harm by their very presence.

Killing a fiend is always good, but it's also evil if that particular fiend doesn't prey on the innocent, and there is nothing inherent to their nature that requires that to be so, as long as they avoid long-term presence on the material plane.

Now, if you kill fiends because fiends are evil, you're gonna be right almost every time. You may spend lifetimes killing them without ever murdering, because you might not run into one that doesn't prey on the innocent. But, in the ridiculously rare event that you happen to run into such a fiend, and kill it, because 'fiends are evil', you've committed murder. So, if a paladin did that, he'd fall. Because murder is evil, and paladins fall when they willingly commit any evil act, no matter how balanced it is. The paladin could probably get an atonement, and it likely wouldn't be too huge a deal. Maybe he'd have to get a True Resurrection for the fiend he killed to make up for it. But it'd still have been an evil act.

Being wrong is evil now?

One thing BoVD and BoED agree on is that intention matter as much as the action itself.

The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. (example) Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: (examples)

If you kill a fiend, or any other "always evil" creature for that matter, because you are of the belief that it is evil, and by doing so you're preventing it from harming innocents, you have not commited murder, even if you're wrong. It's certainly a tragedy but it's not evil.

I simply cannot agree with any interpretation of good that would punish its adherents for making mistakes in good faith. Especially considering that causing despair is considered evil.

If a paladin smites one of these oh-so-rare non-evil fiends he's caught by surprise with no knowledge that it isn't evil, and suddenly finds himself no-longer blessed by the forces of good, how can that not cause him to despair? Everything he's ever been taught tells him that fiends are creatures of irredeemable evil. At the time of the attack, the creature pinged on detect evil and his smite ability struck home with its full force. Then his source of power suddenly snatched that power away. That sounds an awful lot like betrayal to me. Betrayal, incidentally, is another evil act.

If the forces of good are commiting evil acts against their own champions, how the hell are those champions supposed to continue to believe in good? Nevermind the sheer hypocrisy of holding individuals to a higher standard than the force that empowers them.

Incedentally, while I no longer believe my previous justification is entirely within the parameters of RAW, you have to admit that my logic is pretty solid.

[Mnemnosyne]

Yeah, I agree that your logic is solid in that case, and I agree that it sounds like betrayal (because the paladin wasn't informed that some fiends don't, in fact, deserve killing), and hypocrisy (because most gods that have paladins have, in fact, committed at least one evil act). But I also think that is exactly what happens according to RAW.

Being wrong in general isn't evil, but being wrong about killing someone? That's not really an 'oops, my bad! Sorry!' situation, that's...well, murder. You've ended a sentient life, completely intentionally and not by accident, and they didn't do anything to deserve it. If that's ok, if that's not a big deal, especially under objective morality, then there's a serious problem in the system.

Good intentions help, but they're not always enough. Both reality and stories, including plenty of official D&D stories, are full of people who have the best of intentions and are still doing evil. Consider the sliding of the third layer of Arcadia that you mentioned previously, done by the Harmonium. The Hardheads often have the best of intentions, but it's often not quite enough.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So our disagreement comes down to our interpretations of what is or is not a valid justification of the act of killing the fiend. That's not RAW, it's RAI. Each of us is interpreting the same rule, specifically "intent matters," in different ways. At this point it's become a difference of opinion. Neither of us can be proven definitively right or wrong.

How frustrating.

I guess all that's left to say now, is, "I disagree with your interpretation of this particular rule, but if that's how you wanna play it in your game, so be it."

Personally, I see that as holding good to an impossible standard, but to each his own.

[kyoryu]

Being wrong in general isn't evil, but being wrong about killing someone? That's not really an 'oops, my bad! Sorry!' situation, that's...well, murder. You've ended a sentient life, completely intentionally and not by accident, and they didn't do anything to deserve it. If that's ok, if that's not a big deal, especially under objective morality, then there's a serious problem in the system.

Good intentions help, but they're not always enough. Both reality and stories, including plenty of official D&D stories, are full of people who have the best of intentions and are still doing evil. Consider the sliding of the third layer of Arcadia that you mentioned previously, done by the Harmonium. The Hardheads often have the best of intentions, but it's often not quite enough.

I do think it's also a matter of whether or not there's negligence involved.

If you're not going with "Fiends are Evil, therefore killing one is always Good", then just whacking a fiend because "they're probably Evil" is negligent, and therefore Evil.

Finding out that the fiend is in fact Evil, and is doing destructive things with a group of evil fiends means you're A-OK.

If it turns out that the fiend was in fact a double-agent, and was only working with the group to double-cross them is tragic - but not necessarily Evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I do think it's also a matter of whether or not there's negligence involved.

If you're not going with "Fiends are Evil, therefore killing one is always Good", then just whacking a fiend because "they're probably Evil" is negligent, and therefore Evil.

Finding out that the fiend is in fact Evil, and is doing destructive things with a group of evil fiends means you're A-OK.

If it turns out that the fiend was in fact a double-agent, and was only working with the group to double-cross them is tragic - but not necessarily Evil.

But how do you find out if the fiend is evil? Unlike some "always evil" creatures, a fiend will always light up a detect evil. If he has more than 1HD he'll ping as at least moderately evil at that. There is no way to determine, reasonably quickly, if a fiend is not evil.

[Menteith]

But how do you find out if the fiend is evil? Unlike some "always evil" creatures, a fiend will always light up a detect evil. If he has more than 1HD he'll ping as at least moderately evil at that. There is no way to determine, reasonably quickly, if a fiend is not evil.

Then the logical answer is to not plan out and execute the killing of a sentient being quickly.

[kyoryu]

But how do you find out if the fiend is evil? Unlike some "always evil" creatures, a fiend will always light up a detect evil. If he has more than 1HD he'll ping as at least moderately evil at that. There is no way to determine, reasonably quickly, if a fiend is not evil.

Which is why I made the example of finding out that he's working with a group of fiends and doing nefarious things. You know, research. Almost like a detective might have to do before bringing in (or summarily executing) a suspect.

Of course, you could *neglect* to do such, but that would be, ah, "negligent".

[Kish]

Then the logical answer is to not plan out and execute the killing of a sentient being quickly.

Indeed. Particularly based on easily-fooled magical detection methods.

Someone to whom, "But how do you determine whether you can legitimately kill someone on sight if Detect Evil isn't Reliably Detect Valid Target?" looks like a valid question...well, he'd better never play Ravenloft, for one thing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Given the nature of very nearly all fiends, taking the time to make sure will almost always result in the fiend A) getting away, and B) causing harm to pretty much anyone it comes across. This, again, feels like holding good to an impossible standard. You're basically arguing that it's better to let most fiends go about their villianous way than to risk smiting the one-in-a-billion not-evil fiend. That's just not reasonable.

[hamishspence]

No- the argument is that the standard for killing fiends is exactly the same as the standard for killing humans, elves, dwarves, etc.

"Doing the research" to prove that the apparent villain (under Detect spell) is, in fact, a villain "for real" seems like a pretty basic standard.

Same principle might apply to a Neutral cleric of an Evil deity, for that matter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm arguing that holding an immortal creature with drastically different biological needs, that disrupts reality with its presence to the same standard that you hold mortal creatures is patently absurd.

For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

[Menteith]

I'm arguing that holding an immortal creature with drastically different biological needs, that disrupts reality with its presence to the same standard that you hold mortal creatures is patently absurd.

For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

Citation for the bolded section? Being Evil isn't a crime or a sin, according to what I've read. And don't Fiends only disrupt individuals on the Material Plane, meaning that in an extraplanar location, their presence doesn't inherently cause harm?

[kyoryu]

For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

Imagine a Lawful Evil executioner. Likes murdering, but doesn't murder because it's against the law. He took a job working as an executioner because he *likes* it, but he only kills those who have been justly sentenced to death (presume this is a non-corrupt society).

Evil as all get-out. Gets his jollies from killing people. In terms of society though, does absolutely nothing wrong.

[hamishspence]

For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

neutral-aligned clerics of evil deities aren't automatically "double agents". They might simply be people who signed up to the less malevolent aspects of the deity's dogma.

Even evil beings, for that matter "don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers" (Eberron Campaign Setting). BoED also points out that waging war on Evil beings isn't necessarily good- and might even be Evil- if those beings have been "causing no harm".

though that might mean "causing no death-penalty-level harm" since being Evil pretty much mandates some Evil acts- and some people being harmed in some fashion by them.

It might be a case of context- if you know the fiend is seeking redemption- because you've heard it straight from the mouth of his celestial guide (like, the angel in the Succubus Paladin example)- you have much less reason to claim "I thought it was necessary at the time"

"For The Greater Good" may not be a nefarious motive in itself- but that doesn't mean all murders commited for that reason "are not murders in the D&D sense of the word".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Citation for the bolded section? Being Evil isn't a crime or a sin, according to what I've read. And don't Fiends only disrupt individuals on the Material Plane, meaning that in an extraplanar location, their presence doesn't inherently cause harm?

No citation, just logic. We've moved beyond RAW at this point anyway.

The RAW is plain. Killing a fiend is good. Killing an intelligent creature without reasonable justification is evil.

We've now moved into the RAI territory of what is reasonable justification, and where do you draw the line for making mistakes.

It's entirely academic at this point, since we're just discussing our opinions.

[Water_Bear]

Evil as all get-out. Gets his jollies from killing people. In terms of society though, does absolutely nothing wrong.

Not to mention there are many forms of non-violent evil, some of which a cynical person might say are required for society to function.

Spoiler

Show

An NE Banker who refuses to give loans to poor starving orphans to keep their profit margins up and wrings every possible penny out of poor debtors isn't just Evil; their actions can likely be traced directly to dozens of deaths, hundreds if they are old enough and in a big enough city. Yet their frugality means more gold is available to fund investments in infrastructure or magical research which will make life better for whole cities, as a side-effect of their attempts to enrich themselves.

A Dread Necromancer is doing things that, by RAW, are horribly evil. Creating undead, likely worshiping evil deities, using diseases and [Evil] spells as weapons. But a small army of undead, properly buffed and lead intelligently, could fight a war to completion with a minimum of casualties. They are potentially very effective; operating without need for rest supplies (except maybe Black Onyx) or reinforcement, having a huge morale advantage and being naturally scary. A large number of small Evil acts add up to save a Good empire, or bring peace to a war-torn land.

A group of Neogi traders setting up shop in your city is a horrible thing; they are evil, extraplanar spiders who enslave and torment people and deal in the most depraved wares on every plane. But they are also the single most reliable possible trade route for extraplanar or highly expensive magical items. A city which deals with them is hooking itself into a market which will enrich it's citizens and enable their champions or armies to better defend them from other external evils.

Trading a handful of slaves per year to make your city wealthy and secure is unquestionably evil, but it might just be necessary. Rather deal with the Neogi than risk some Lich finding the 'Macguffin of World Destruction' and your city's heroes not being able to get the gear to fight it.

It really isn't too hard to come up with these, and the point stands that sometimes Evil can be beneficial, even if it isn't Good.

Paladins shouldn't be judged too harshly for subversions (if 99% of Balors are evil, and a Balor attacks you, killing it is reasonable), but they should do their do diligence when possible and keep an open mind. Sometimes Evil needs to be converted more than it needs to be smited. Sometimes it is worth tolerating the devil you know rather than inviting much worse disaster by removing them.

[hamishspence]

The tricky part is squaring this with BoVD's "Allowing a fiend to exist (let along helping or cooperating with one in any way) is clearly evil".

Still, novels have had paladins do this and not Fall. Some 3.5 adventures (like Savage Tide) pretty much require you to obtain fiendish and celestial help, to complete successfully.

"Respect for life" may include respect for all life- Evil included. Which doesn't mean you don't kill- just that you've extremely careful about being sure it's necessary.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Now that we're discussing our opinions on RAI, I'm withdrawing from the discussion. I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear already. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is immaterial, since it's all just opinion.

A quick summary reiteration: I'm of the opinion that, for reasons I've already cited, allowing a fiend to exist on any plane is harmful, unless they've rid themselves of the evil subtype. Therefore, killing them upon determining that they are a fiend is okay if they light up detect evil, unless they come to you to for help in being redeemed.

[hamishspence]

And what if they're clearly under someone else's "being redeemed" supervision? Or seem to be doing so, very successfully, on their own?

removing the Evil subtype might be the reward at the end of the redemption path- rather than something to be handed out at the start of it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And what if they're clearly under someone else's "being redeemed" supervision? Or seem to be doing so, very successfully, on their own?

removing the Evil subtype might be the reward at the end of the redemption path- rather than something to be handed out at the start of it.

I don't know why I'm answering this when I said I was done, but a good creature is supposed to be humble. Even if he's doing well on his own, he should be willing to ask a paragon of virtue (read: paladin that isn't fallen) for pointers. Even asking for the smallest of help is still asking for help.

As for the ritual to remove his evil subtype, if he's truly repentant he should want to undergo the ritual as soon as the option is available, whether that's at the beginning of the path of redemption, the end, or somewhere in-between.

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh... yea, I don't think Humility is considered a primary virtue of being Good in D&D...

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh... yea, I don't think Humility is considered a primary virtue of being Good in D&D...

[Mnemnosyne]

Now that we're discussing our opinions on RAI, I'm withdrawing from the discussion. I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear already. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is immaterial, since it's all just opinion.

A quick summary reiteration: I'm of the opinion that, for reasons I've already cited, allowing a fiend to exist on any plane is harmful, unless they've rid themselves of the evil subtype. Therefore, killing them upon determining that they are a fiend is okay if they light up detect evil, unless they come to you to for help in being redeemed.

Ok, since we're debating opinion here...you're basing your opinion that fiends are harmful by their very presence on the lingering evil rule, right? Because as far as I know, there isn't anything else that suggests that a fiend minding its own business and not causing harm (for instance, the previously mentioned A'kin the Arcanaloth) is still harmful by nature.

Assuming you are, what about other outsiders? That rule very specifically says "The long-term presence of an evil outsider on the Material Plane." Now, you're extending material plane to all planes, which isn't unreasonable if you're looking at it in a logical manner and not trying to stick to absolute RAW, but why are you limiting 'an evil outsider' to fiends only? That category encompasses everything that is an Outsider with the evil alignment. Tieflings? Outsiders. Genasi? Outsiders. Lots of outsiders can be evil without being fiends and without having the evil subtype. Why, if you're taking the most expansive possible reading of where an evil outsider does harm, are you not also taking a straightforward and logically expansive reading of what an evil outsider is? Is there a logical reason for this seemingly inconsistent application of extremely narrow selection criteria to one part of the rule, while simultaneously broadly expanding the actual verbiage of another part of it?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I haven't been including plane-touched because they're make up is comprised of material plane stuff. As for the expansiveness of the word fiend, I was of the impression that all of the outsiders native to the lower planes had the evil subtype. If I'm wrong about that, I would include any evil outsider native to a lower plane, regardless of the absence of that subtype.

My extension of the lingering evil rule goes much further than just expanding it to include all planes, it also includes all alignments. Anarchs on any plane other than their native are making those planes more chaotic. Axiomats are making whatever plane they're on more lawful, and celestials are making whatever plane they're on more good. My basis for this was never in the lingering evil rule alone, the points I brought up earlier about planar layers moving about because of too much of another aligned energy was part of the reasoning too.

On a completely unrelated note: I just use the phrase "more good" without being grammatically incorrect. Take that english teachers.

[hamishspence]

As for the ritual to remove his evil subtype, if he's truly repentant he should want to undergo the ritual as soon as the option is available, whether that's at the beginning of the path of redemption, the end, or somewhere in-between.

The ritual doesn't remove it so much as replace it. Basically- Evil subtype is replaced with Good subtype, if a Good cleric uses the ritual.

It's entirely probable that many of the various redeemed fiends in D&D were created before the notion of this ritual came up.

[Lord_Gareth]

The ritual doesn't remove it so much as replace it. Basically- Evil subtype is replaced with Good subtype, if a Good cleric uses the ritual.

It's entirely probable that many of the various redeemed fiends in D&D were created before the notion of this ritual came up.

Falls-From-Grace certainly seemed CN to me.

[Wardog]

not only that, but it is often cited that "Always Alignment" unless specifically Neutral Hungry or Unaligned, means 95% of the populous is that alignment.

Do you have a source for that?

I was under the impression that "Always Evil" meant "Always Evil, except for isolated or unique cases justified by Plot" (think: Buffyverse vampires).

Not "one in twenty is non-evil".

[Kelb_Panthera]

The ritual doesn't remove it so much as replace it. Basically- Evil subtype is replaced with Good subtype, if a Good cleric uses the ritual.

It's entirely probable that many of the various redeemed fiends in D&D were created before the notion of this ritual came up.

Like I said earlier, I don't have a copy of SS atm, but that's basically the same net effect. The fiend stops being a physical incarnation of evil. Whether he's realigned with good, law, chaos, or none of the above is irrelavent.

[Menteith]

Do you have a source for that?

I was under the impression that "Always Evil" meant "Always Evil, except for isolated or unique cases justified by Plot" (think: Buffyverse vampires).

Not "one in twenty is non-evil".

Alignment;
Often: A plurality (40%-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

MM1, p305

I've seen the 95% number batted around a few times, but I can't find a hard source for it myself. If anyone has it, please let me know!