A Little Bit of Clarification About Banites

[Kaizen]

Now, Religious Intolerance, I'm not sure how that's applicable to TFR

A few players managed to get Talos banned from worship and punishable by arrest/death.

We hardly did the things Banites do.

So yes, Religious Intolerance is clear cut and is in fact, on Sundren, a law.

[MelancholyWinds]

What I meant by applicable, was more along the lines of the example given, such as muslims, extremists and the differences, and mashing up a large group that's relatively benign, and a small group with a different interpretation.

[Kaizen]

What I meant by applicable, was more along the lines of the example given, such as muslims, extremists and the differences, and mashing up a large group that's relatively benign, and a small group with a different interpretation.

Man walking around in normal clothes, says offhandedly he worships Bane.


Man clad in fullplate armor, regallia, massive weapon strapped to his back adamantly stating he worships Bane.


Relatively benign/extremist.


It's pretty easy to notice the difference between the two, and you can guess which one draws the most attention to himself on the server, and which one also gets killed. You'd think that some people would find somewhere in between, but I've yet to see it.

[Saulus]

One thing to understand about Forgotten Realms and evil deities is... trying to ban them will not impress them. That's THEIR followers.

That's how revolutions start.

Just saying.

[Spacedog]

Not only evil people worship Bane.
... The fact that someone worships Bane is not an excuse to metagame that they are evil.

Granted, not everyone worshiping Bane will be evil. But, from experience, every Banite in heavy armor capable of adventuring in extremely dangerous terrain like Argyle has been evil, AND has been in the Black Hand, so assuming the worst at this point isn't metagaming, it's just plain logic. A paladin not learning from experience is just an idiot.

Religious intolerance is an evil act.
This one, I'm going to tackle from a slightly contraversial point of view. For this example, consider Muslims.

You can't compare religion in a world where the gods are physical and literal to a world where God(s) is (are) a matter of faith. Torm tells his followers quite literally and directly Banites are the bad guys. You can go meet Torm, if you have the spells and time, and ask him for clarification. FR is a world where not only are the gods literal, they often HATE each other. So yeah, religious intolerance is not only not evil, it's expected. Of everyone. Tormtar are intolerant of Banites. Banites are intolerant of Cyricists. Cyricists are intolerant of everyone. On and on and on.

"OMFG you're a Banite" *splat* = BAD!

Killing someone on the basis of their religious observances when they have actually done nothing wrong is an EVIL act.

Murdering someone is ALWAYS an evil act, no matter what kind of justification the person striking the blow THINKS they have. The only exception to this rule is when you have actually seen the person committing an evil act, or has irrefutable evidence that they have.

Someone showing up on your radar as "evil" is a very, very flimsy excuse for you to go smearing their remains all over the floor. I will be shifting alignments HEAVILY for acts like this.

A paladin gets detect evil for a reason, and this...

...a detect spell is really more OOC info than IC.

.. is just plain wrong. Paladins can detect evil. Period. Now, the challenge comes because evil is a taint. Once performed, that evil hangs on you until you can redeem yourself, somehow. So when a paladin detects evil, he has to decide Can this person be redeemed? If the answer is yes, then it is his job to try and redeem that evil. If the answer is no, it is his job to smite that evil. That's really the basics of it, boiled down. The challenge deepens in determining whether redemption is possible. If it's a Banite swinging a sword at you? Yeah, you're gonna smite that guy. If it's a Banite just standing around? Well, now it's a much harder call. It sometimes takes a long, long time to determine if someone can be redeemed, and even longer to actually redeem them. That's why a paladin shouldn't smite every single evil person they meet, because part of their code is to try and redeem evil where they can.

Further, redeeming evil is, in the eyes of Good (capital G) a much, muuuuuch bigger victory than just smiting evil. So a paladin who never bothers with redeeming is not only ignoring part of his code, he's being pretty damn lazy. So you're correct insofar as the paladin should have some proof, at least in his own mind, but that proof should be that the person is beyond redemption, not necessarily witnessing them eating babies.

You also have local laws to consider. Now, a paladin is not ~necessarily~ bound by local law. Part of their code is to respect laws written by legitimate government, and determining when a government is no longer legitimate is a whoooole other problem. But all of that aside, there's the simple problem that if you smite a Banite who has his papers without good ~legal~ proof, you're gonna be arrested. Paladins have wisdom scores for a reason; you can't do much good behind bars.

All of that said, some paladins will try harder than others. Angelise tended more towards smite'm and let Lathander work out the details. An Ilmatari would likely tend more towards trying to redeem people. The important point is a paladin should never lose touch with either option, mercy and wrath.


... or such is my opinion on the matter.

[Kaeldorn]

Agreed with Spacedog. I think people have been diverting from the main point of this thread. Yes, evil and good exist and yes they are absolutes in FR. Though there are of course different ways to be good or evil and you can still possess traits that are typically considered to be completely on the opposite side of the alignment spectrum, those traits will be able to drag you down if you submit to them.

You can be a paladin who is zealous about killing every evil thing he senses, but that's a rather dark path. The longer you tread it, the more it becomes about killing the evil rather than protecting good from it.

Therefore, paladins (and any good character fighting for justice) should always ask the question why a person is evil, and what is a proper punishment for his transgressions? Someone can be very much evil without having done anything that makes them deserving of a death sentence.

And what if the person has already been punsihed for his deeds? Or are they maybe actively seeking redemption for what they might have done?

Someone who is good should not outright kill anyone without a second thought. That's an evil act.

[MelancholyWinds]

...Which is still fun

[grant]

I can not agree to most of this. The realms are not Earth where god(s) existence or lack thereof, is a mater of debate. In the realms the gods give orders and expect obedience and the risk of feeling their displeasure is real. Many of the gods of the realms are not on friendly terms with each other. This is not the family of the Greek pantheon where the their squabbles rarely ever went beyond turning one follower/demigod against the follower/demigod another god. Zeus's followers did not go to war with Aphrodite's. The human pantheon of the realms is not united under Ao in a way that demands mutual respect and tolerance nor does he control squabbling unless it interferers with his rules of with how the gods relate to the mortals. Intolerance of other faiths is not only expected in some cases it is practically a commandment.

Shar and Selune are at war, and have been for millennia. Their followers are supposed to be intolerant of each other.

From Selune's wiki entry. Let all on whom my light falls be welcome if they desire to be so. but The enmity between Shar and Selûne carries into their priesthoods, such that open battle often occurs when followers of each faith meet.

From Shar's entry. The clergy of Shar seem to pursue practical, local goals designed to further the power of the priesthood and of those who worship Shar, rather than to openly oppose other faiths (save that of Selûne)....Shar's hatred of Selûne extends to her clergy and their relationships with the church of Selûne. The two faiths war continually, and jihads and assassination plots against Selûnites are common where Shar is strong.

Now stomping a banite because he is wearing the local uniform and he has papers, is wrong by Sundren law, and some members of some faiths should be more or less tolerant, however the dogma of some gods will cause others to both disregard the law and be violently intolerant.

However unlike the Jewish-Christian-Muslim mess where people are intolerant over who the last profit was... From Bane's wiki entry. Rites of Bane consist of drumming, chanting, doomful singing, and the sacrifice of intelligent beings, who are humiliated, tortured, and made to show fear before their death by flogging, slashing, or crushing.

That is just a little bit different than the difference between going to Mosque/Temple/Church on Friday/Saturday/Sunday. I see no reason why anyone following a "Good" deity would have any reason to be tolerant of a Banite or any other gods followers who's practices are similar.

Nati was actively stalking a Selunite, in fact was ordered to by a priest of Shar. Her membership in the Black Moon is the reason I used in my rebuild to keep her out of the Sun Soul when she converted to Sune, the local Selunite contingent being less than open to immediate acceptance.

Papers or not I was quite prepared for Nati to get her ass kicked by any Selunite who might have discovered her faith or to be outed if she lost a hit attempt. On the other hand she almost religiously followed the secrecy rule, no one ever suspected her enough to ask for papers, even though she did have them. Paladins knew she was evil, some warned others, but they were never given a reason to question her actions. The evillest thing she did in front of Dain was laugh at him when he scanned Hadavi and ended up rolling around on the ground in pain.

[Darkened Skies]

Agreed with Spacedog. I think people have been diverting from the main point of this thread. Yes, evil and good exist and yes they are absolutes in FR. Though there are of course different ways to be good or evil and you can still possess traits that are typically considered to be completely on the opposite side of the alignment spectrum, those traits will be able to drag you down if you submit to them.

You can be a paladin who is zealous about killing every evil thing he senses, but that's a rather dark path. The longer you tread it, the more it becomes about killing the evil rather than protecting good from it.

Therefore, paladins (and any good character fighting for justice) should always ask the question why a person is evil, and what is a proper punishment for his transgressions? Someone can be very much evil without having done anything that makes them deserving of a death sentence.

And what if the person has already been punsihed for his deeds? Or are they maybe actively seeking redemption for what they might have done?

Someone who is good should not outright kill anyone without a second thought. That's an evil act.

This is precisely my point.

The problem (as ever) is that on a forum it's difficult to put across a point in the original context it is given. Acts make someone evil, not the deity they worship or their alignment. Murdering someone on a context that "They made my pally senses tingle" is never going to be viewed in the eyes of the law as an acceptable act.

I am not telling anyone how they should RP. I'm merely stating that there's consequences for good guys as well as evil as far as PvP is concerned.

And please do not take my post out of context. I did not at any point say "Banites are like Muslims." I was merely using a RL religious instance to explain my point.

[Kaizen]

Acts make someone evil, not the deity they worship or their alignment.

As intelligent (some more than others) beings, you cannot be 'evil' on the alignment factor without first having done something evil. This is where the evilwtfsmite comes into play.

Lawful neutral or simply neutral Banites will not show up on the radar. And I suspect most people who worship Bane out of fear would be just that - neutral.

If you're an evil Banite, you've done some terrible shit in Bane's name. It's that simple.

But I agree, paladins should not merc someone on account of them being pinged on their radar. That's not very paladiny at all.

However, for other classes - NG, CG, N, CN - I always think of the Boondock Saints in these type of scenarios. Were they evil? No. Were they good? Meh -they kept to themselves, went to church, helped out the lower class, cooperated with the authorities. Kill innocents? Nope.

And when they go around mercing evil gangsters and mobsters, does anyone really think what they're doing is evil? No, you're thinking ... 'shit, what they're doing is just and good, and doing what authorities can't do because of the law. Now I want to go around killing mobsters and gangbangers and drug runners down in Mexico'

That's my take, anyways.

[glaes]

Question. Are these thereotical or actual paladins we are complaining about. Because Ive not been seeing these pvps taking place. That said, if there are people acting unlawfully why not act on it ingame as opposed to forum debates? If it is a matter of improper play, make PMs and inform the DMs.

Of course I agree every act and decision carries both possible positives and negatives, paladins being the most scrutinized. I just do not understand where these recent posts are rising from.

[TakenByTheStormX]

I PvPd four people in the last two days, and killed three. The other HiPSed and bailed (which is fine) . All four attacked me first XD. Sometimes, they earn it :X Also, if I'm standing guard per usual and I were to subdual one that attacked me, could I bring them in to the legion and be like hey, he attacked me and stuff. Punish him? Or would I have no grounds? Of course I'd be hesitant to do that, because most people probably just want to respawn and go about their marry way, which is understandable, because I'd be annoyed if vampires brought me back to the citadel every time one beat me. But, yeah, just tossin' two cents in and hoping to get some change back.

[Kaeldorn]

However, for other classes - NG, CG, N, CN - I always think of the Boondock Saints in these type of scenarios. Were they evil? No. Were they good? Meh -they kept to themselves, went to church, helped out the lower class, cooperated with the authorities. Kill innocents? Nope.

And when they go around mercing evil gangsters and mobsters, does anyone really think what they're doing is evil? No, you're thinking ... 'shit, what they're doing is just and good, and doing what authorities can't do because of the law. Now I want to go around killing mobsters and gangbangers and drug runners down in Mexico'

That's my take, anyways.

In the case you are speaking of here, there is valid reason to believe said individuals have commited heinous acts and deserve a good thrashing. Showing up as evil on detect evil while openly worshipping Bane is not that.

Consider the following example:
A wealthy Banite is constructing a house of worship for his deity within a city where poverty reigns and jobs are scarce, and disease has run out of control. The Banite employs a cheap labour force and knows he can replace any of his workers whenever he thinks it's convenient. So if one of his labourers falls ill and comes to him with a plea to allow him to keep working to keep his family from starving, the Banite will not hesitate to toss him on the street and rub it in that he is now weak and useless.

Is this guy an evil bastard? Totally. Should he be put to death for what he did? That's highly questionable. While the Banite will only care about the well-being of his workers as long as they are fit to serve him and leaves them on their own when they become a liability, he is feeding families who rely on his initiative. Also, while he may not give a damn about the workers, he may have prevented the disease from spreading to those of his men who were still healthy.

Refusing to help the needy to serve your own selfish ends is evil, but killing someone who does so out of contempt is evil too.


Also, in my own opinion, someone's good or evil alignment isn't solely dependent on their actions either. Intent does play a key part, as does knowledge of the situation that led to an action. If, in the example above, the Banite had thrown the pleaing worker out on the street because he would otherwise endanger his other men (whose families are dependent on them, too), and then sneered at him to get the situation over with as quickly as possible for both himself and the ill worker, it would have been a neutral act and not an evil one.

Likewise, if a paladin kills a man based on evidence he has collected that later turns out to be false (and the man innocent), it wouldn't necessarily make him evil. If he tries to justify it because he didn't know any better, then it will shift him towards evil because he's trying to get away with it easily. If he feels remorseful about it and prays to Kelemvor to spare the victim's soul, then I don't think his alignment needs to be shifted (though he might still fall and need atonement for the sin).

[GodBeastX]

I tried to avoid this thread all together mainly because I don't agree with a lot of things in it.

Is killing evil an evil act? No.

You see, Alignments are very tangible in D&D as said, BUT, alignments are a DIVINE concept. This is why only divine classes even are able to be aware of them and why divine creatures/classes even have auras of any noteable strength.

It quite literally is a mark on a person that shows them to have done something warranting either great praise or utter punishment (Depending if you are good or evil, blackguards can't tolerate good after all )

HOWEVER, I think this thread is spawned from a common problem in D&D and that is people confusing chaotic acts as evil acts.

While it may not be evil for a paladin to kill this person in front of him, it can be chaotic. And paladins can lose status by being chaotic too long.

What's important though, you also have to remember, different orders have different behavior expectations. While everything described in this thread as bad is exactly what a Helmite paladin -would- do, it is far from what an Ilmaterite paladin would do, or a Sune paladin. To give you an idea I'll outline a few faiths below:

Helmite paladins in D&D history have actually fallen quite often because they will be so driven to destroy evil they'll sometimes kill people who aren't even CLOSE to evil.

"Yeah, uhhh, we just destroyed this whole village because we thought they were harboring evil... sorry about that."

They do get attoned for it, but this does happen in the order. If you're acting like a space marine you're probably being a good helmite paladin. I won't promise you that you won't be in confession and seeking attonement regularly, but this is how that faith works.

A paladin of Tyr will be hard pressed to say he's following the law of the land if he's out cutting people down simply by detect evil and smite. He'd want to take the person in, prove him guilty of something through the law, and bring a just end to the person. It also says in faith and pantheons they tend to side with mercy on many, especially those trying to repent or have crimes they view lesser, otherwise they are eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth. An alignment detection alone would make a Tyr paladin a poor judge, and unless the person committed murder, I doubt a Tyr paladin would execute them.

Paladins of Jergal, for example, would be completely adverse to killing anyone who is not furthering death or undeath and an aura wouldn't tell this paladin how this person got evil.

Paladins of Torm actually swear to a code called "The Penance of Duty" after Torm found his own church corrupt during the time of troubles. It is outlined here:

Debt of Persecution: To repay their persecution of other religions, the truly faithful must aid other goodly religions in reestablishing themselves.

Debt of Dereliction: To atone for their abdication of duty to guard against strife, the Tormish must expend all possible effort to eliminate any surviving cults of Bane, as well as to oppose all efforts of Cyricists, Xvimists, and the Zhentarim.

Debt of Destruction: Followers of Torm are obliged to relieve the destruction to the magic weave incurred during the Time of Troubles. All dead magic areas are to be reported and repaired. In addition, all permanent results of the magical chaos of the Time of Troubles are to be similarly undone and all wild magic areas reported and eradicated.

So yes, a Tormite will go out of his way to fight Bane, he's sworn to.

There's a tendency for people to pop open the Paladin Guide in the Player's Handbook and feel this is how FR paladins work. That paladin description is a guideline, yes, but it's for the Greyhawk campaign setting, not Forgotten Realms.

That being said, I think to some degree some people have gone loony with killing some characters. But at the same time, I think some characters have gone loony with putting themselves in positions where they would be killed.

Running around cutting people down in the countryside is going to make you at least appear to the world as being a Savage, no matter your intention, and you'll be have trouble convincing them otherwise. But at the same token, running around saying "I'm a follower of the god you all fear!" is going to likely find you being treated like garbage. Look at it this way, it's not illegal in most places to be a racist, but think of the crap you'll put up with being a public one that gets in people's faces and upsets them. There's a time and a place for everything.

In the end, I think people need to do some heavy reevaluation.

[BedlamX]

*points to GBX's post*

This is full of win.

In the very few instances I have played a paladin, I have always done my research on that particular deity and what his/her paladin orders actually do. The player's handbook version of paladin is just one of the aspects of paladins. It happens to be the most super goody (and almost comically so) and restrictive of the paladin versions. As noted, both Helm and Torm have quite a bit more leeway in how their paladins act...as long as they are fighting evil. All the reading I have done says their actions have "acceptable losses" as long as the end goal is to protect the majority and destroy the evil. All will feel guilt and sadness for any innocents caught in the crossfire (true remorse is one of the signs of "good") and may seek penance and even take the family members of someone killed in such a way as their own to protect forever. A Tormtar or Helmite may very well just stab a Banite priest that is known to spread fear and evil in the throat for the slightest infractions. He surrenders? Fine, take him in. He breaks free a few times and keeps surrendering to save his own skin just to be released again to harm innocents? Stab the bitch in the throat to save future innocents and uphold his/her god's will. Not quite the Grey Guard level of "kill 'em all and let the gods sort them out" way of dealing with evil, but pretty damned close. Now Tyr and a few others...they are just waaaayyyy too serious and the stereotypical paladin fits perfectly with them.

You want to see a perfect example of non-stereotypical alignment views, look up Shadowbane Inquisitor. Their write-up specifically states that they will destroy an entire village of innocents to take out one demon hiding among them. And they still keep their necessary Lawful Good alignment. Why? Because they feel remorse for the "collateral damage" of their crusade (an inherently "good-aligned" feeling), they followed the edicts of their deity (a lawful edict), and the evil was purged. Now, they probably spend hours and hours doing penance, but that probably involves things like helping rebuild what they were "forced" to destroy and fighting even more evil.

This is why I really dislike the D&D alignment system. No real room to wiggle when people start saying their interpretations of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil are the only way to look at it. Ask any 3 people about any given situation and you will get at least 2 different answers as to if it is good or evil/lawful or chaotic.

Personally, I see it as many people just like to see paladins fall and work the rules to make that happen.