D&D Question

[Carnage-DVS]

D&D Question

Ok, so this is bugging me.
Say a Paladin has detect evil. He detects one of his party members is evil. Let's say he tries to redeem him but fails to convince him? Would he let him go on his way or try to kil/stop him?

 

[alainpp66]

Imo, if the Paladin truly felt like the other would continue to do evil deeds, he would be forced to do his best to stop him.

If it means killing him, and the entity is evil enough to have warranted it, it must be so.

 

[alexzed]

I was bored, so looked it up:

1) Knowing and willing performance of an evil act causes irrevocable loss of the abilities which distinguish the paladin from the main class from which it is drawn.

2) The paladin is restricted in the alignments of characters with whom he may associate. All of his henchmen must be lawful good, and his other associates must all be good. He may participate in an adventure in which he is working with non-evil neutrals only if it is limited to a single expedition, and only if it will further a lawful good cause.

3) Death to all who oppose the cause.

4) Death before dishonour.

I'd say he kills the evil char.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

How does he try to redeem him? What is the evil PC trying to do that the paladin is against?

If its a big enough attempt, I can see the situation leading to violence.

 

[Peregrine]

Speaking as a DM, the answer is "he finds some in-character explanation for why he needs to allow the character to live, to accomplish his mission or whatever." Assuming it's just the aura of evil, not the evil character murdering someone in front of the paladin, the paladin would find himself making a new character very quickly if he tried to kill him. The alignment is "lawful good", not "lawful stupid"... if a player wants to play a paladin in a mixed-alignment setting, he is expected to play the paladin as more than a mindless "kill everything even slightly evil" robot.

 

[bladesyz]

I was bored, so looked it up:
I'd say he kills the evil char.

What source did you get that? By that logic, Sturm would've either killed Raistlin or left his company a long time ago.

Detect Evil is the most retarded spell around. If a simple level 1 spell could detect morality, the entire social structure would be changed.

 

[alexzed]

What source did you get that? By that logic, Sturm would've either killed Raistlin or left his company a long time ago.

Detect Evil is the most retarded spell around. If a simple level 1 spell could detect morality, the entire social structure would be changed.

I just grabbed those points from a D&D site...

Agree with second point...

 

[Dondrei]

LOL, an ethical dilemma in D&D?

 

[ModeratelyConfused]

http://www.devilducky.com/media/9271/

 

[Dondrei]

*Hits MC with some wadded-up paper*

Lightning Bolt! Back to the past with you and your link!










Ah, who am I kidding? I still love Ogre Battle.

 

[WebDragon]

Ok, so this is bugging me.
Say a Paladin has detect evil. He detects one of his party members is evil. Let's say he tries to redeem him but fails to convince him? Would he let him go on his way or try to kil/stop him?

If he simply detects the guy as evil, but the guy has done nothing to warrant retribution from the Paladin, then I think the Paladin would simply part ways with the evil person in question, unless there are story/plot reasons that prevent that.

I'll assume here that the evil dude and the Paladin and both PCs, and the DM wants them to be in the same party. If that is the case, then its up to the DM to make it work, since by the Paladin's very nature, he simply won't get along with the guy. Hell, the Paladin could lose his status if he let the guy get away with something evil.

However, that is not to say that the Paladin would kill him/try to stop him right off the bat. If that were the case, everytime a Paladin walks past a jail, he'll have to pop in, cast a few detect evil spells, and then proceeds to massacre everyone there. That is obviously not the case.

As long as:

1. The evil guy doesn't do anything to warrant a response from the paladin in front of him.

and...

2. There is a good plot/story reason why they should be in party together.

... then there are no problems, for the short run anyway. In the long run, the Paladin will want to be rid of the guy's company as soon as possible (i.e. finish the quest) and will watch him like a hawk in the meantime to make sure that the he doesn't do anything evil while being a member of his party.

Funny you should ask this as I'm currently playing in a group where I'm the only evil character, the rest are all neutral or good. I've had to go to great lengths to hide my true alignment from them and appear to be a nice guy (for my own agenda) When I eventually get discovered and confronted, which I expect to be soon, I'll tell them to judge me by my actions and not by what some spell tells them about me.

If in your case, the evil dude says that, and the Paladin has seen nothing bad from him, the Paladin will have to give him the benefit of the doubt as a point of honor.

 

[bladesyz]

When I eventually get discovered and confronted, which I expect to be soon, I'll tell them to judge me by my actions and not by what some spell tells them about me.

If I was a Paladin, I'd rather trust my spells. Spells don't go wrong, while actions can be deceiving.

 

[WebDragon]

If I was a Paladin, I'd rather trust my spells. Spells don't go wrong, while actions can be deceiving.

Perhaps, but just because your spell tells you that I'd have the mental capability of commiting evil acts without remorse, that means that you'll have to strike me down although I've actually not done anything wrong? (to your knowledge anyway)

 

[Raistlin Majere]

If I was a Paladin, I'd rather trust my spells. Spells don't go wrong, while actions can be deceiving.

Ever run into Wild Magic?