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

[toapat]

Originally Posted by Menteith

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!

It is from one of the Wizards articles, and i think it is brought up in the Succubus paladin one, but im not going to go hunt for it

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

Falls-From-Grace certainly seemed CN to me.

I thought she was officially LN.

Some fiends, like efreeti and dao, aren't "modified mortal souls"- they're creatures born the normal way- on the Elemental Planes rather than the Lower Planes.

What's the appropriate response to them?

If an efreeti trading party visits a city, starts selling Plane of Fire exotic materials to the locals, and suddenly a paladin wades in, starts attacking them because "they're fiends- they taint the material plane by being there"- what happens?

Should the paladin Fall for launching an unprovoked attack on relatively innocent (as far as he knows) traders?

Going back to the original topic- if a paladin and a rogue are travelling together, and the rogue chooses to spare the life of a fiend because "I don't know it's done any harm on this plane yet" - was this an Evil Act that the paladin must prevent?

What Evil acts carried out by rogues and other party members, can the paladin choose to politely object to, rather than use force to rectify?

How much in the way of Evil acts is needed before the paladin must obey the "will not continue an association with those who repeatedly offend against the paladin's moral code" rule comes into play?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by hamishspence

I thought she was officially LN.

Some fiends, like efreeti and dao, aren't "modified mortal souls"- they're creatures born the normal way- on the Elemental Planes rather than the Lower Planes.

What's the appropriate response to them?

If an efreeti trading party visits a city, starts selling Plane of Fire exotic materials to the locals, and suddenly a paladin wades in, starts attacking them because "they're fiends- they taint the material plane by being there"- what happens?

Should the paladin Fall for launching an unprovoked attack on relatively innocent (as far as he knows) traders?

Going back to the original topic- if a paladin and a rogue are travelling together, and the rogue chooses to spare the life of a fiend because "I don't know it's done any harm on this plane yet" - was this an Evil Act that the paladin must prevent?

What Evil acts carried out by rogues and other party members, can the paladin choose to politely object to, rather than use force to rectify?

How much in the way of Evil acts is needed before the paladin must obey the "will not continue an association with those who repeatedly offend against the paladin's moral code" rule comes into play?

I think I may have found one of the reasons my opinion doesn't jive with some of you. I don't consider efreeti fiends either. To my mind, the word "fiend" is used as a catch-all to describe outsiders native to the lower planes and carrying the evil subtype, not just any creature who has an evil alignment and the outsider type. (seriously, are there any outsiders native to the lower planes that don't carry the evil subtype?)

The efreeti traders aren't auto-smite material, but probably bear watching, since they're known to be an evil race. They're automatically on thin-ice, but not kill-on-sight.

As for intra-party politics. The paladin should object to any member of his party committing an evil act. How forcefully he should object depends on how evil the act is. How evil an act is, unfortunately, is often subjective. The only actions that are hard-line, do-not-allow actions are torture and, the ill-defined, murder. It's ultimately a judgement call on the part of the paladin. The RAW isn't specific enough for an exhaustive list.

As for how often he should grudgingly allow lesser evils, I say, as long as it serves the greater good, and he doesn't actually commit any such acts himself, or until the character performing the evil acts starts pinging on ye olde evil-dar.

Mind you, when I say "lesser evils," I mean things that could only be considered evil depending on motivation. ie killing an evil, but not "always evil" creature for racial hatred, rather than any sense of justice, or maliciously stealing from those who would be undeniably harmed by the theft, rather than stealing minor baubles from a rich lord because you're a klepto. If motivation and intent are the only way to define whether an act is evil or not, then a paladin can let them slide sometimes, unless the character committing the act is, himself, evil.

Does that make sense? I'm willing to elaborate further if my position is still unclear.

[Water_Bear]

Part of the issue here is misuse of terms. Fiend means one specific thing, and people have been misapplying it.

Fiend, in D&D 3.5 at least, means an Outsider with the [Evil] subtype. They always ping Evil on Detect Evil, even if they are Paladins themselves, and technically it is an Evil act to allow them to exist. A Paladin could theoretically fall by choosing not to kill a Succubus Paladin, but also fall for committing murder if they did.

Other "Usually/Always Evil" Outsiders are not Fiends. This includes Efreeti, and I think at least one of the other Genie breeds. These guys will usually ping Evil, but the less-hardcore mortal kind of Evil unless they're a Cleric of Hextor or something. Killing them ought to be morally equivalent to killing an Orc; they're probably a jerk, but you should check first.

The 'Lingering Corruption' rule apparently just says "Evil Outsider" rather than Fiend, which opens the door to saying species like Tieflings or Efreeti shouldn't be allowed on the Material Plane. I personally think they meant Fiend, but that's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

that's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.

Can I sig this? It is pretty great.

[Water_Bear]

Originally Posted by tuggyne

Can I sig this? It is pretty great.

Go for it.

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

Part of the issue here is misuse of terms. Fiend means one specific thing, and people have been misapplying it.

Fiend, in D&D 3.5 at least, means an Outsider with the [Evil] subtype. They always ping Evil on Detect Evil, even if they are Paladins themselves, and technically it is an Evil act to allow them to exist. A Paladin could theoretically fall by choosing not to kill a Succubus Paladin, but also fall for committing murder if they did.

Other "Usually/Always Evil" Outsiders are not Fiends. This includes Efreeti, and I think at least one of the other Genie breeds. These guys will usually ping Evil, but the less-hardcore mortal kind of Evil unless they're a Cleric of Hextor or something. Killing them ought to be morally equivalent to killing an Orc; they're probably a jerk, but you should check first.

Sorry about that- I was sure they had Evil subtype- maybe was confused.

I know some outsiders not native to the Lower Planes have it:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/uvuudaum.htm

I think the Detect Evil rules also say "Evil Outsider" not "Outsider with Evil subtype":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

[Mnemnosyne]

I'm not sure there's a proper definition for 'fiend' in 3.5, actually. I certainly can't recall that term being specifically defined anywhere, though I'd like to see a reference if it is.

In 2nd Edition it was pretty clearly laid out in Faces of Evil: the Fiends. Fiends are: baatezu, tanar'ri, yugoloths, gehreleths, and hordlings. Everything else doesn't count as a fiend.

And yeah, there's a lot of [Evil] outsiders that aren't from the lower planes. The reason you thought of genies was probably because, at least in the Manual of the Planes, the Dao is listed as having the evil subtype, but that one has been updated in 3.5 and lacks it now.

Kaorti, on the other hand, still have it as far as I'm aware. There's some others. Krathbairn, from 106 Dragons of Faerun, are outsiders with both the evil and native subtype. Native to Faerun. Also the Earth Glider (84 Underdark), native to the Elemental Plane of Earth. Probably a handful of others scattered about. Githyanki used to have the evil subtype in 3.0 also (moderately relevant since BoVD is also 3.0, so when it was written, they would have counted).

[hamishspence]

The three "Fiend of" PRCs in Fiend Folio (late 3.0, has some 3.5 rule conventions) require Outsider and Evil subtype- but I don't think they require the Extraplanar subtype. A case could be made that those two traits define a Fiend.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The only place I remember seeing fiend almost-defined is in the MM glossary under the evil subtype heading. That's a bit vague though.

[Morithias]

I just thought of something. If killing a creature with the evil subtype is always a good act, is killing a creature with the good subtype always an evil act?

For example if your DM threw at your an evil celestial that had gone mad and decided that to "end the corruption of the human race" she would wipe out the whole material plane, you know a Judge Death "the crime is life, the sentence is death" type thing.

Would the paladin fall for killing her? After all, she has the good subtype, therefore by your logic it must be an evil act to kill her and prevent the genocide of every being on the material plane.

Think about what your logic implies.

[The Random NPC]

Originally Posted by Morithias

I just thought of something. If killing a creature with the evil subtype is always a good act, is killing a creature with the good subtype always an evil act?

For example if your DM threw at your an evil celestial that had gone mad and decided that to "end the corruption of the human race" she would wipe out the whole material plane, you know a Judge Death "the crime is life, the sentence is death" type thing.

Would the paladin fall for killing her? After all, she has the good subtype, therefore by your logic it must be an evil act to kill her and prevent the genocide of every being on the material plane.

Think about what your logic implies.

No, our logic is RAW says killing fiends is a good act, nothing in RAW (that I'm aware of) says killing celestials is an evil act. Therefor, killing a celestial would fall under normal good/evil judgments.

[Kish]

If you base "killing a good fiend is a good act" on anything other than, "The rulebook sez so, swallow without chewing!" then it would seem to have to be some crap about "removing evil energy from the world," as Kelb Panthera has said a few times. Accordingly, killing an evil celestial would be an evil act.

If your argument is just "this one supplement says killing a fiend is always a good act and doesn't recognize the existence of nonevil fiends, swallow without chewing, I reject any contradictions in other books," well, I can't say I see the point, but very well, you may declare technical victory.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Morithias

I just thought of something. If killing a creature with the evil subtype is always a good act, is killing a creature with the good subtype always an evil act?

For example if your DM threw at your an evil celestial that had gone mad and decided that to "end the corruption of the human race" she would wipe out the whole material plane, you know a Judge Death "the crime is life, the sentence is death" type thing.

Would the paladin fall for killing her? After all, she has the good subtype, therefore by your logic it must be an evil act to kill her and prevent the genocide of every being on the material plane.

Think about what your logic implies.

I have thought of that implication.

Yes the paladin falls. Removing that good energy, even if it was being misused, shifts the world's balance toward evil. Getting an atonement would be as simple as asking for one in that case, however.

[kyoryu]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

I have thought of that implication.

Yes the paladin falls. Removing that good energy, even if it was being misused, shifts the world's balance toward evil. Getting an atonement would be as simple as asking for one in that case, however.

Right. I can't imagine a Paladin killing the equivalent of an angel and *not* seriously regretting it/having issues about it, even if it was truly necessary.

[Morithias]

You're kidding right? A single murder of a creature that was planning to genocide EVERYONE. Not just the evil people, EVERY LIVING THING, from children, to other celestials on that plane, and you're claiming it's an evil act to do so.

Saving BILLIONS of lives by killing one person, that had you been able to capture and take back to the city for trial, would've just been executed anyways.

Yet you claim that killing the lady running the bakery just because she happens to have bat wings instead of feathered wings is a GOOD act?

It's racism nothing more, nothing less.

[kyoryu]

Originally Posted by Morithias

You're kidding right? A single murder of a creature that was planning to genocide EVERYONE. Not just the evil people, EVERY LIVING THING, from children, to other celestials on that plane, and you're claiming it's an evil act to do so.

Saving BILLIONS of lives by killing one person, that had you been able to capture and take back to the city for trial, would've just been executed anyways.

Yet you claim that killing the lady running the bakery just because she happens to have bat wings instead of feathered wings is a GOOD act?

It's racism nothing more, nothing less.

Well, you're presuming that a Fiend is essentially like an Orc. RAW, they're not.

An orc is a sentient being that has the capability to choose between good and evil. A Fiend is *made* of Evil. They're radioactive, except they let off Evil-Rays instead of X-Rays. If a radioactive monster happens to be friendly, it's still radiating everything around it and will make them die from cancer. Just Evil cancer in this case. Okay, the analogy breaks down a bit.

An Evil outsider doesn't have the same worldview as humans, or even orcs or evil dragons. Fundamentally, they have a blind spot when it comes to Good - they don't understand it, they don't grok it, it makes as much sense to them as describing a painting would to a blind person.

That's their fundamental nature. That's the difference between "Alignment: Evil" or "Alignment: Always Evil" and actually having the [Evil] tag.

An Orc may be "Usually Evil" or "Always Evil" due to society, whatever hormones they have in their systems, whatever. But they're still flesh and blood, and organic critters like people. They are infinitely closer in terms of morality to people than outsiders are. An orc may act in an evil fashion, while the outsider literally IS Evil. Capital letters. A poster around here has a sig about them being made of "cruelectrons". That's pretty much on target.

Now, you may not want that to be the case in your game. You may want them to be more like orcs, just from someplace different. If that's the case, go for it! The rules about smiting down Evil wouldn't apply in that case.

[Water_Bear]

Originally Posted by Morithias

Seriously dude, stay away from me. I don't want you killing me and claiming "it had to be done because he had brown hair".

It's racism nothing more, nothing less.

I get where you're coming from; there are some gross implications, as Rich has repeatedly pointed out, with the standard D&D presentation of race as a determinant of alignment. There is a mechanical incentive (at least for Paladins) to kill or help NPCs primarily on the basis of their Race, which is problematic.

I'm not sure if this applies to Celestials and Fiends though. As beings so closely tied into the concepts of elemental Good and Evil, it doesn't seem unreasonable that killing them might have consequences independent of their choices. Killing an evil Celestial, rather than talking them down or capturing them, might weaken Good itself as a cosmic force. From a more practical standpoint, it is much more likely to redeem a fallen angel than even a human paladin; they are Good in a very literal sense.

Also; don't call other posters potential murderers, even as hyperbole.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by kyoryu

Well, you're presuming that a Fiend is essentially like an Orc. RAW, they're not.

An orc is a sentient being that has the capability to choose between good and evil. A Fiend is *made* of Evil. They're radioactive, except they let off Evil-Rays instead of X-Rays. If a radioactive monster happens to be friendly, it's still radiating everything around it.

An Evil outsider doesn't have the same worldview as humans, or even orcs or evil dragons. Fundamentally, they have a blind spot when it comes to Good - they don't understand it, they don't grok it, it makes as much sense to them as describing a painting would to a blind person.

True or false: RAW, fiends cannot possibly be of the Good alignment. (False.)
True or false: RAW, there are no examples of fiends of the Good alignment. (False.)
True or false: RAW, fiends are less sapient than orcs. (False.)
True or false: Being around a creature with the Evil subtype causes cancer (or other health risks comparable to radiation, irrespective of the creature's actual actions). (False.)

There is considerable irony in you wrapping up this post, which is all about claiming your house rules are RAW, with telling someone else that they don't have to follow RAW if they don't want to.

[Menteith]

On the other hand, once [Good] is accepted as being a set cosmic force (which it is by RAW), then one can immediate start questioning whether or not [Good] is actually good. Killing a fallen angel who's tormenting orphans for fun might weaken [Good], just as murdering a benevolent [Evil] creature might strengthen it - but as societies are freely capable of deciding what they see is good and evil (which might be dramatically different from [Good] and [Evil]), it's not impossible for a good person to side with [Evil] forces. Morality isn't an absolute, and the fact that [Good] and [Evil] are makes them incompatible in my eyes. Also, whether or not a Paladin is supposed to side with [Good] (the cosmic force with somewhat arbitrary rules that can lead to the murder of innocents under the right circumstances) or simply follow their heart and try and do good isn't defined as to my knowledge as the writers seemed to assume that [Good] and actual goodness would always overlap, which is really wrong.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Morithias

You're kidding right? A single murder of a creature that was planning to genocide EVERYONE. Not just the evil people, EVERY LIVING THING, from children, to other celestials on that plane, and you're claiming it's an evil act to do so.

Saving BILLIONS of lives by killing one person, that had you been able to capture and take back to the city for trial, would've just been executed anyways.

Yet you claim that killing the lady running the bakery just because she happens to have bat wings instead of feathered wings is a GOOD act?

It's racism nothing more, nothing less.

Tone it down a notch there kujo. You didn't say genocide against everything, you said just humans. Why should a dwarf care?

More to the point, we're not discussing RAW anymore. We're discussing logical extensions of RAW. If you don't agree, there's no need to get into a snit over it. Simply state, "I do not agree, and here's why." Saying, "you guys are racist A-holes!" doesn't really contribute to the discussion.



@Leshy: I have to take responsibility for de-railing this thread harder than I've ever derailed a thread before. Sorry dude. I didn't mean to, it just kind of happened.

[Water_Bear]

Originally Posted by Menteith

On the other hand, once [Good] is accepted as being a set cosmic force (which it is by RAW), then one can immediate start questioning whether or not [Good] is actually good.

...

Also, whether or not a Paladin is supposed to side with [Good] (the cosmic force with somewhat arbitrary rules that can lead to the murder of innocents under the right circumstances) or simply follow their heart and try and do good isn't defined as to my knowledge as the writers seemed to assume that [Good] and actual goodness would always overlap, which is really wrong.

Yeah, there is a sort of disconnect between Good and good, mainly because even if there is an objective morality IRL (I doubt it) no-one agrees on what it would entail.

I personally think True Neutral comes a lot closer to what 'good' means to me; you are willing to do what it takes to keep the world turning and it's people safe and happy, without being tied down to any particular doctrine (even the doctrine of Chaos and freedom).

Ironically, that colors how I look at these kinds of problems. Kill a sentient being, even one who is a really swell guy, to help prevent them from leaving "lingering Evil" laying around and causing some vague calamity? Yeah, sounds legit. Keep a genocidal demigod alive because their death might slightly unbalance the multiversal Evil-Good axis? I'm more than happy to be Evil to save Human lives, so unless you can show me some pretty convincing statistics I'll just kill it and be done with it.

But I'm pretty sure a Paladin is more focused on obeying the rules of Good than on the actual consequences of their actions. Their actions will typically benefit people, but when it comes down to it they will be divinely punished if they ever commit an Evil act, even to help people. Paladins who try to help people by doing Evil in the fluff always seem to turn into cackling villains pretty quickly.

-Edited because I forgot to actually have a point initially-

[Morithias]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

Also; don't call other posters potential murderers, even as hyperbole.

Yeah that's why I edited that sentence out, I apologize for it. I crossed the line, my emotions got the better of me.

This is why I use the "Holy/Unholy, Secondary/Primary" alignment system I designed instead of the current one. It's easier to say a fiend is made of "unholy energy" and have people believe they can still be good, rather then calling them from birth evil.

Hell in my setting the fiends aren't even evil. The devils run the judgement system of judging souls and sending them to the proper afterlives and the demons guard the abyssal prison where you're sent if you committed enough sin, and where you serve your time.

They're the prison guards and police of the afterlife.

[The Random NPC]

Originally Posted by Kish

If your argument is just "this one supplement says killing a fiend is always a good act and doesn't recognize the existence of nonevil fiends, swallow without chewing, I reject any contradictions in other books," well, I can't say I see the point, but very well, you may declare technical victory.

I don't suggest anyone play this way, it's just the rules as written. We all know how bad written the rules can be.

Originally Posted by Menteith

On the other hand, once [Good] is accepted as being a set cosmic force (which it is by RAW), then one can immediate start questioning whether or not [Good] is actually good. Killing a fallen angel who's tormenting orphans for fun might weaken [Good], just as murdering a benevolent [Evil] creature might strengthen it - but as societies are freely capable of deciding what they see is good and evil (which might be dramatically different from [Good] and [Evil]), it's not impossible for a good person to side with [Evil] forces. Morality isn't an absolute, and the fact that [Good] and [Evil] are makes them incompatible in my eyes. Also, whether or not a Paladin is supposed to side with [Good] (the cosmic force with somewhat arbitrary rules that can lead to the murder of innocents under the right circumstances) or simply follow their heart and try and do good isn't defined as to my knowledge as the writers seemed to assume that [Good] and actual goodness would always overlap, which is really wrong.

A summary of my argument, [Good] and [Evil] are objective forces in D&D. This causes many problems, not the least of which is some subjective good acts are not [Good]. I don't recommend anyone blindly plays this way.

Originally Posted by Morithias

Yeah that's why I edited that sentence out, I apologize for it. I crossed the line, my emotions got the better of me.

This is why I use the "Holy/Unholy, Secondary/Primary" alignment system I designed instead of the current one. It's easier to say a fiend is made of "unholy energy" and have people believe they can still be good, rather then calling them from birth evil.

Hell in my setting the fiends aren't even evil. The devils run the judgement system of judging souls and sending them to the proper afterlives and the demons guard the abyssal prison where you're sent if you committed enough sin, and where you serve your time.

They're the prison guards and police of the afterlife.

I personally would much prefer to play in a setting like this, RAW is only useful for discussions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Kish

If you base "killing a good fiend is a good act" on anything other than, "The rulebook sez so, swallow without chewing!" then it would seem to have to be some crap about "removing evil energy from the world," as Kelb Panthera has said a few times. Accordingly, killing an evil celestial would be an evil act.

If your argument is just "this one supplement says killing a fiend is always a good act and doesn't recognize the existence of nonevil fiends, swallow without chewing, I reject any contradictions in other books," well, I can't say I see the point, but very well, you may declare technical victory.

Hey! I'd like to think my carefully thought out arguments are a bit more compelling than, "This is the RAW you will comply! RAWRR!"

I have, after all, provided several other sources for a logical argument to my position.

[Morithias]

Originally Posted by The Random NPC

I personally would much prefer to play in a setting like this, RAW is only useful for discussions.

Thank you very much. Also it lets you use classes you normally could not. Want to play an Deathstalker who only paralyzes and uses stealth to bounty hunt? Go ahead, just make sure you have an unholy alignment (meaning you have fiend blood somewhere in your ancestory).

Want to use your crit-crazy disciple of dispater build? Go ahead, just keep in mind that Dispater a devil who judges those who die. You're a follower of the police, so your job is NOT to spread evil, but rather keep order and spread happiness.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Hey! I'd like to think my carefully thought out arguments are a bit more compelling than, "This is the RAW you will comply! RAWRR!"

I have, after all, provided several other sources for a logical argument to my position.

If it helps, I agree that you're correct with regard to what alignment is, with respect to the books. When I disagree, it's with the books themselves, not with your argument.

I don't believe that alignment should be a RAW issue (man, I never thought I'd be advocating in overt defiance to RAW, but there you go). It should be clear what it is for each group, and how mechanical issues with alignment (like a Paladin's code) should be handled, but I don't believe that following RAW on this will lead to a more compelling game. This may differ for other groups.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Menteith

If it helps, I agree that you're correct with regard to what alignment is, with respect to the books. When I disagree, it's with the books themselves, not with your argument.

I don't believe that alignment should be a RAW issue (man, I never thought I'd be advocating in overt defiance to RAW, but there you go). It should be clear what it is for each group, and how mechanical issues with alignment (like a Paladin's code) should be handled, but I don't believe that following RAW on this will lead to a more compelling game. This may differ for other groups.

I like the way alignment works with RAW just fine, but otherwise I agree.

If alignment is to be taken any kind of serious, there needs to be a discussion about it. I'm pretty sure I've said that a couple of times already. I just took umbrage to the implication that I was being a tool.

If that's not what he meant, then, "no harm, no foul," and no hard feelings.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

But I'm pretty sure a Paladin is more focused on obeying the rules of Good than on the actual consequences of their actions. Their actions will typically benefit people, but when it comes down to it they will be divinely punished if they ever commit an Evil act, even to help people. Paladins who try to help people by doing Evil in the fluff always seem to turn into cackling villains pretty quickly.

I don't know if I buy that; correct me if I'm wrong, but the nature of the fall isn't something that's ever been RAW defined. I've seen it done with a bolt of divine lightning smiting away their class features, and I've seen it happen their own sub-conscience stopped them from doing it. Gods, [Good] or otherwise, never need to enter into it. Paladins can be completely divorced from the Divines, for the most part.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Hey! I'd like to think my carefully thought out arguments are a bit more compelling than, "This is the RAW you will comply! RAWRR!"

I have, after all, provided several other sources for a logical argument to my position.

Your position is that killing a sapient and good entity, because it has the Evil subtype and "radiates evil energy," is a morally correct action, correct?

Sorry. I can't say the words you want me to. The only sense in which your position is viable, is that one supplement says, in the baldest terms and without recognizing that "evil subtype" and "evil alignment" don't necessarily go together, that "letting a fiend live is an evil act."