Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phaseroth 02-09-05, 08:01 PM	Hi y'all - this is my first post. I'm a brand-new D&D player at 38 years old (wanted to learn the game way back in high school, but hard to do with a Mom screaming "Oh no you don't! That's SATANIC!" at you...). Never found time to pick up the game later, until now. So I have a fun question right off the bat: Would it be illegal (according to game rules) for a Paladin to give aid to a member of an evil race? Would such an act conflict with his Lawful-Good alignment? It seems to me that a Lawful-Good character should do the "right thing", regardless of the circumstances. (I should mention here that I do understand the difference between Lawful-Good and Lawful-Stupid.) The scenario I envision is a human Paladin encountering a young orc who has fallen and broken his leg. Perhaps the orc has been lying by the side of the road for days, unable to walk, and is hungry and dehydrated, too. Would it be the "right thing" for the Paladin to tend to the orc's wounds, and give him food and water? Or, is the Lawful-Good Paladin required to kill the orc, because orcs are "evil" and evil must be destroyed? Would the act of helping the orc cause a change in the Paladin's alignment, rendering him unable to continue as a Paladin? I'm asking all this because I have an idea for a Paladin - mostly regarding his backstory and motivations - and I don't want to create the character and then have my DM tell me I can't play him that way. Anybody interested in hearing the backstory I've been tossing around in my head all day?
AramilWindwalker 02-09-05, 08:11 PM	This is just my thoughts, but if the orc was truly helpless, the paladin would care for it until it was better, and during this time preach to him about the Lawful Good way, and maybe try to get him to change his outlook on life (change his alignment). i would call it lawful stupid to just kill the poor thing. A young orc may very well be impressionable enough between the preachings and the kindness to accept the way of rightousness, and maybe even become a paladin himself (an orc paladin would have some original flavor to it). This just makes sense to me, even though I don't have much experience with LG (i'm a CN or CG or NE kind of guy). Hope this rant helps. :D
Lexarius 02-09-05, 08:23 PM	A paladin has a special ability that lets him detect evil. A member of an "evil" race is not necessarily evil itself, and he has the means to check on this. It is not "good" to kill a helpless creature, nor is it "lawful" to attack such a creature without provocation. It is also not "honorable" to perform such a cowardly act as attacking a helpless, unarmed creature. It is both lawful and good to show the orc mercy. If it is in fact evil, the paladin would do best to take the creature in and try to reform it (or take it somewhere for this purpose). If the paladin were in a rush, he could get by with a display of kindness and making the creature give its word that it will not cause trouble in these lands, with the implication that the hand that heals can become an iron fist of retribution if not obeyed.
Munchmausen 02-09-05, 11:10 PM	I totally nod agreeingly with the previous posts and would just like to add the distinction between generally evil races and automatically evil races. If it were a small demon or red dragon wyrmling on the side of the road, the paladin would still be obliged to help out (it is helpless after all) but if he had any sense he'd realize how much more futile the effort would be.
James Wildspell 02-09-05, 11:34 PM	A Paladin aiding anything helpless would be OK with me. But in game terms, there are things and creatures that are inately Evil. If the Paladin was aware of the creatures alignment, and it was Evil, motivation becomes a factor. That would be a role-playing/campaign issue you need to discuss with your DM. If unaware of the creatures alignment, a Paladin would be on safe ground. And keep in mind that the Paladin can detect evil "at will", not automatically. And alignment alone does not preclude a possibility of redemption.... :cool:
Phaseroth 02-10-05, 12:13 AM	It is both lawful and good to show the orc mercy. Thanks - that's what I was thinking, too, and fits perfectly with the nature of the Paladin I have in mind. I guess I should go ahead and describe my idea. My Paladin-to-be (I'll call him George for now) comes from a long line of Clerics. Yes, Clerics. His father is a Cleric, his father's father was a Cleric, his father's father's father was a Cleric, and so on and so on, going back at least ten generations. Indeed, even George was destined to be a Cleric. But something changed his mind, and his path. His family is well-respected and seen as beyond reproach. Tales of his forebears' good deeds, performed in the service of Pelor, have given his family almost legendary status. But as time went on, and the torch was passed from one generation to the next, the motivations of these Clerics ever-so-gradually shifted. Their status and wealth became more important than their service to Pelor. Each cleric continued to do his duty, and to perform good deeds and feats of heroism, but in time the adulation of the citizenry became more important than the blessings of Pelor. The family's last Cleric, George's father, follows the orders of the church meticulously. He does his job exactly as he is expected to do. But that's it. He doesn't go out of his way to help other people. Were he to receive a modern-day performance evaluation, his boss would say he "meets expectations". George's father combats the evil that directly threatens the church and his homeland, but ignores other forms of evil ("Not my problem!") The decline has not gotten so bad that Pelor has withdrawn his blessings, nor is there any obvious reason for the general public to change its opinion of the family. Perhaps the Clerics in the family had gradually drifted from being Lawful-Good to Neutral-Good, and now George's father is probably Chaotic-Good. It's far enough into decline that, given two or three more generations, there would be a slip to Chaotic-Neutral, and Pelor's blessings would be gone. Because of the family's tradition of Clerics, everybody expects George to follow that tradition. George has the same expectation. But, over the course of his religious studies, George is starting to realize that his father is not the paragon everyone believes him to be. All around him, he sees wrongs that his father should attempt to right, and yet his father does nothing. He begins to question his own ideals, and wonders if being a Cleric is all it's cracked up to be. The final straw comes one evening when he is walking home with his father. George spies the body of a small orc lying along the bank of the river. He and his father investigate, keeping a wary eye out for more orcs hiding nearby. They discover that the orc is alive, but just barely. It is clearly on its last legs. It has obviously come from the river - it mostly likely fell into the river far upstream, and was carried downstream and finally washed ashore near George's town. George implores his father to heal the battered and almost-drowned orc, but his father refuses. Because the orc is on the brink of death, George's father takes his son by the arm and leads him away. The father can't quite bring himself to kill the helpless orc in cold blood, but he feels no need to help it, either. Once home, George can't get the image of the dying orc out of his head. On top of that, he can't reconcile his father's decision with what he has studied in the holy texts. And so, as soon as his father is asleep he slips out and, healing kit and holy symbol in hand, returns to the riverbank. He is grieved to find the orc has died. Rather than leave the corpse on the bank of the river, he decides to give the orc a dignified burial. Being unfamiliar with orc burial rituals (indeed, not knowing if orcs even bury their dead) he offers a prayer to Pelor on behalf of the dead orc. As George makes his way home, Pelor appears to him in a vision (does Pelor do that?). Pelor tells George that he is moved by his compassion, and calls George to be a Paladin. George accepts the call. Of course, it causes something of a scandal amongst the townfolk when George announces that he has accepted the call to be a Paladin rather than a Cleric. Anyway, that's my basic idea. I'm toying with having both Pelor and Heironeous appear in the vision (maybe Pelor pointed George out to Heironeous), but I don't know if that's possible. Maybe this is a character I should save until I'm a more experienced player :)
James Wildspell 02-10-05, 12:25 AM	Go with what you have. Keep it up. I hope that your DM sees it the same way. BTW: You write well. Keep that up, as well. :cool:
Ravos20 02-10-05, 08:27 AM	yes pelor can give visions if he feels like it. and its not outrageous to say he gave your character one. :)
Korimyr the Rat 02-10-05, 06:40 PM	Paladins are allowed to show compassion, even to evil creatures, though the Paladin should try to make sure that his aid is not used to further evil-- at very least, making sure that the Orc isn't going to get right up and go hurt someone. If the Paladin could take the Orc youth under his wing and reform him, even better. I think a good rule-of-thumb is that, for the most part, racial alignments are only certain for Outsiders-- even the most powerful evil creature, as long as it was not a fiend, can be reformed. Whether or not the Paladin is up to the job is another question.
Phaseroth 02-10-05, 07:09 PM	BTW: You write well. Keep that up, as well. Thanks :) I write a lot for my own amusement, and have considered writing fan fiction (Diablo II and Shadowrun) but haven't gotten anything down on paper. yes pelor can give visions if he feels like it. and its not outrageous to say he gave your character one. :) It occurred to me after I wrote it to ask, "Would the Sun God appear in a vision at night?" :D What about my idea to have George called by both Pelor and Heironeous? I'm imagining that, at the same time George was praying for the orc, Pelor and Heironeous were having coffee together :P Pelor said, "Hang on while I take this call..." Heironeous, being there with Pelor, heard the prayer as well and thought, "Hey, I like this George fellow..." Page 43 of the Player's Handbook says, "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity -- devotion to righteousness is enough." I can see where it could be beneficial to have two gods on your side. At the very least, it would increase the resources available to George -- more churches lending support and refuge (though I imagine a paladin aligned to a specific deity would have little trouble finding aid from worshippers of other Lawful or Good deities. He's a paladin, after all.) On the negative side, I can forsee occasional, or even frequent conflicts when it comes to being "...scrupulous in observing religious duties..." Perhaps both deities expect a tithe, or both have important holy days that land on the same date. Then again, because George has been committed to Pelor all his life, perhaps Heironeous would respect that and give George dispensation to give Pelor priority when there was a conflict.
Mirikon 02-10-05, 07:29 PM	I would say that a Paladin not only would be allowed to aid a creature of an evil race if it was in the situation you described, but he would be OBLIGATED to. If the orc was concious, I would say he should offer aid to the creature, in return for the orc's word that he would not cause trouble in this area. The whole conversion type thing. If he just slayed the creature indiscriminately, that would be Neutral, at best. Perhaps evil.
Lexarius 02-10-05, 11:11 PM	It occurred to me after I wrote it to ask, "Would the Sun God appear in a vision at night?" :D Of course he would. After all, the Sun is never really gone. He is simply off crusading in far off lands, in his eternal battle with the darkness. Every Pelorian has faith that come morning, their patron shall return without fail. But when the sun is gone, it cannot protect the people from the creatures of the night. What better time than the night for Pelor to call upon those with the strength to protect the people in his absence? A Paladin of Pelor basks in the glow of the sun, but knows that his most important work happens in the darkest night. Or, it could be a vision delivered during a daydream some bright, sunny day. Whatever works for you.
randy98ss 02-10-05, 11:28 PM	You said that a paladin would help a helpless orc, even though that orc is evil. In the phb it says paladins fight evil WITHOUT MERCY. What if it was a dwarven paladin that found a helpless evil orc, would he think twice about slaughtering it? Heres another situation: What if that same orc is a baby, not evil, and you are a dwarven paladin, what do you do? Is there orcish orphanages? There is no goodly race that would take an orc baby. In your campaigns, how many orcish or any evil race orphanages have you found? Dwarves are as a whole a lawful good race. Moradin is a lawful good god. Are there such orphanages in these societies? There were just some thoughts. Me and my buddy discussed this for about 2 hours. I feel so geeky! I think I am going to go do something normal now. :D
pres_man 02-11-05, 08:23 AM	You said that a paladin would help a helpless orc, even though that orc is evil. In the phb it says paladins fight evil WITHOUT MERCY. How about reading it like this, In the phb it says paladins FIGHT EVIL without mercy. There are more ways to fight EVIL than with a sword. Turning an evil creature to a good creature is actually one of the more effective ways. Just killing an evil creature usually just reinforces the powers in the hells. And as I'm sure everybody has a chance to see, they rarely stay there. What if it was a dwarven paladin that found a helpless evil orc, would he think twice about slaughtering it? Absolutely he should. He should even offer to help it. Of course if the orc is unconvertable, I would have him spit on the dwarf and die rather accept help from a paladin. But I like to play that way. Not all orcs are irredeemable, but some are and don't want help. Heres another situation: What if that same orc is a baby, not evil, and you are a dwarven paladin, what do you do? Is there orcish orphanages? There is no goodly race that would take an orc baby. In your campaigns, how many orcish or any evil race orphanages have you found? Dwarves are as a whole a lawful good race. Moradin is a lawful good god. Are there such orphanages in these societies? Dwarves being lawful GOOD must have a respect for life. One can't have a respect for life is one is putting baby orcs on pikes. There are lots of groups that would be willing to take in "monstrous" humanoids. Monk orders for one. Also druids, let's face it when you can turn into animals and eventually turn into any humanoid, what is the flesh to you? If the dwarf paladin couldn't find anyone to take it in, he should hire a nanny and then raise the orc as his squire. Nothing like having a bunch of orc warriors getting an old dwarf surrounded only to have another orc ride up and run them down. I should say that in the game I am running the party has come from a group of people who left the material plane when things started to get really bad. The party was told that they must return and restore balance to the material plane. While there they have been trying to get as many allies as they can and turn as many people to the side of good as they can. In one session they rescued a human child and an orc child from a group of were-rats that were sacrificing them during the full moon. Later an orc joins the party as a barbarian/cleric of Kord. He had heard of Kord from some human barbarians that he had traded with. He didn't think other races could be trusted due to the teachings of the orc clerics. Yet even after his nephew was saved (the nephew was the orc child), the clerics still insisted that the elves, humans, halflings, etc. were out to get the orcs. He knew that this wasn't right, I mean why would they save the child if they were really "evil". He then allowed himself to open to Kord and was given the powers of a cleric. He is an important NPC in the party and he occured because the party with it's elf (who hate orcs just as much as dwarves) paladin had saved an orc child.
pres_man 02-11-05, 08:37 AM	There were just some thoughts. Me and my buddy discussed this for about 2 hours. I feel so geeky! I think I am going to go do something normal now. Well if you are really geeky then maybe you saw the Next Generation episode (I, Borg) with Hugh. I mean what is more "evil" then the borg? Yet they were able to cause some disruption to the borg collective by not putting in a virus as they had originally thought to do, but instead to show compassion.
Mirikon 02-11-05, 09:34 AM	Well if you are really geeky then maybe you saw the Next Generation episode (I, Borg) with Hugh. I mean what is more "evil" then the borg? Yet they were able to cause some disruption to the borg collective by not putting in a virus as they had originally thought to do, but instead to show compassion. Exactly! Sometimes, the most effective way to fight evil is to show those who are evil that there is more to good people than using steel against those they call evil. Compassion might not be as deadly a weapon, and it may not be as certain, but there are times when compassion is far more effective than the sword.
nidhog 02-11-05, 09:35 AM	No where in the core books does it talk about converting evil. The paladin is a warrior first and formost. This world we play in has inherantly evil races when orcs are described in the monster manual there alignment is what, evil. The fact is in the D&D world these inherantly evil races ofspring would not be accepted by the quote civilized inherantly good races. It is the right thing to kill this child and spare him this pain. There is only one way to fight evil without mercy and that is destroy it. Lawful Good is decribed as a crusader. Yes you would help what you consider a good civilized race but a crusader would smite an evil uncivilized savage. There past crimes shall not go unpunished. This is what a Lawful Character is about straight from the book. Not once does it mention forgiving or converting. It is the holier than thow alignment the one that would show the least mercy.
Cross Hatch 02-11-05, 09:48 AM	No where in the core books does it talk about converting evil. The paladin is a warrior first and formost. This world we play in has inherantly evil races when orcs are described in the monster manual there alignment is what, evil. The fact is in the D&D world these inherantly evil races ofspring would not be accepted by the quote civilized inherantly good races. It is the right thing to kill this child and spare him this pain. There is only one way to fight evil without mercy and that is destroy it. Lawful Good is decribed as a crusader. Yes you would help what you consider a good civilized race but a crusader would smite an evil uncivilized savage. There past crimes shall not go unpunished. This is what a Lawful Character is about straight from the book. Not once does it mention forgiving or converting. It is the holier than thow alignment the one that would show the least mercy. It depends on the GM as to whether, for example, orcs could be converted. In some campaigns, they might even become paladins. Dragonbait in Dragonlance comes from a race that is generally evil, right? Drizzt was a member of a class which could only be good, but he came from a race that was generally evil. Its really going to depend on the GM. Of course, you could go the whole "white cloak" route where a group of holy warriors is so convinced that these races can't be converted that they are in a constant state of jihad and are evil, themselves, because of it. There are countless ways to play a paladin and, as long as its good with you and your GM, play however you want.
nidhog 02-11-05, 10:13 AM	There are exceptions to evey rule when speaking of inherantly evil and good races. The paladin has a leg up in the fact he can discern this before taking action. As a warrior it is not your responsiability to convert as staed in the original post. The books do not speak of this. The Lawful Good description does not speak of this it says: Lawful Good hate to see crimes go unpunished. Showing someone mercy and converting them is not punishment. If you were to show an evil character mercy you would not be playing your alignment. You are to fight evil without mercy. The abilities given to a paladin are for destroying evil period. Lawful Good is judgemental lawful good is you shall be smited for the greater good. As written it leaves know room for mercy or forgiveness it is not in his nature you shall be punished. Again Lawful Good is described as a Crusader during the Crusades the Moors were deemed unconvertable and the attempt was to wipe them off of the earth. This is how the core books read I am not using creative comprehension to come up with these conclusions. A Lawful Good character sees only black and White you commit a crime you pay you are evil you are smited.
jagggar 02-11-05, 10:22 AM	It occurred to me after I wrote it to ask, "Would the Sun God appear in a vision at night?" :D"It became as bright as day...." Yeah, awesome background story. If it particularly matters, I'd say that George's father slid to Lawful Neutral or possibly even True Neutral since I think a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character would probably want to help the helpless orc as well. No where in the core books does it talk about converting evil. Yes you would help what you consider a good civilized race but a crusader would smite an evil uncivilized savage. This is what a Lawful Character is about straight from the book.You may be right, sorry about bringing philosophy into such a topic. What do you do with the evil civilized race and good uncivilized race? But we're talking Lawful Good. I'd agree with you that a Lawful Neutral character probably wouldn't show mercy, but you're arguing that a Lawful Good character wouldn't ever either. (I will note that I believe there are also the alignments LAWFUL Good and Lawful GOOD as well as the standard Lawful Good.) If I was dead-set on playing a Paladin and my DM thought it was overpowered and gave me the choice of losing Smite Evil or losing Lay on Hands, I'd keep Lay on Hands every time.
Cross Hatch 02-11-05, 10:32 AM	There are exceptions to evey rule when speaking of inherantly evil and good races. The paladin has a leg up in the fact he can discern this before taking action. As a warrior it is not your responsiability to convert as staed in the original post. The books do not speak of this. The Lawful Good description does not speak of this it says: Lawful Good hate to see crimes go unpunished. Showing someone mercy and converting them is not punishment. If you were to show an evil character mercy you would not be playing your alignment. You are to fight evil without mercy. The abilities given to a paladin are for destroying evil period. Lawful Good is judgemental lawful good is you shall be smited for the greater good. As written it leaves know room for mercy or forgiveness it is not in his nature you shall be punished. Again Lawful Good is described as a Crusader during the Crusades the Moors were deemed unconvertable and the attempt was to wipe them off of the earth. This is how the core books read I am not using creative comprehension to come up with these conclusions. A Lawful Good character sees only black and White you commit a crime you pay you are evil you are smited. The PhB says "Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion." You admit that there are exceptions, that an orc might be a good character. If you make that claim, but persist in saying that it is okay to kill a good character because of their race, you are arguing for an act without compassion or honor.
jagggar 02-11-05, 10:39 AM	Oh, and if you're really so fanatical about going by what the book says: This world we play in has inherantly evil races when orcs are described in the monster manual there alignment is what, evil. The fact is in the D&D world these inherantly evil races ofspring would not be accepted by the quote civilized inherantly good races. Well that's great except for one thing: Orcs aren't inherently evil. Orcs in my 3.0 MM are "usually chaotic evil". But wait, there's more, in the 3.5 SRD, Orcs are "often chaotic evil". "Often: The creature tends toward the listed alignment, either by nature or by nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."
nidhog 02-11-05, 10:54 AM	The PhB says "Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion." You admit that there are exceptions, that an orc might be a good character. If you make that claim, but persist in saying that it is okay to kill a good character because of their race, you are arguing for an act without compassion or honor. I have never said that it is alright to kill a good character because of race. Quote me on it if that was said. I find that some of the wizards material coontradicts themselves. I will explain the caption "Lawful Good is the best alighnment you can be because it combines honor and compassion" is contradicted in the description when it states that a lawful good character hates to see a crime go unpunished. Say a small poor street urchin steals to feed himself and his starving sister, by definition there is no room for mercy for this child he has to pay for his crimes regardless. Is this showing compassion to the circumstance obviously no but if you were not to turn him in than you would be committing an unlawful act. Do you see where this goes. Like I said this is a black and white alignment. Possibly a neutral good or chaotic good would see the circumstances and let the kid go but by nature a lawful good character could not do the compassionate thing with out breaking alignment.
nidhog 02-11-05, 11:09 AM	"It became as bright as day...." Yeah, awesome background story. If it particularly matters, I'd say that George's father slid to Lawful Neutral or possibly even True Neutral since I think a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character would probably want to help the helpless orc as well. You may be right, sorry about bringing philosophy into such a topic. What do you do with the evil civilized race and good uncivilized race? But we're talking Lawful Good. I'd agree with you that a Lawful Neutral character probably wouldn't show mercy, but you're arguing that a Lawful Good character wouldn't ever either. (I will note that I believe there are also the alignments LAWFUL Good and Lawful GOOD as well as the standard Lawful Good.) If I was dead-set on playing a Paladin and my DM thought it was overpowered and gave me the choice of losing Smite Evil or losing Lay on Hands, I'd keep Lay on Hands every time. This is a no brainer because you are their to smite evil. Notice i said what you consider to be uncivilized evil savages. You as a Lawful Good character. In your eyes there is no such thing as a civilized evil race they are all evil savages. Black and White. If smite evil was taken away from a paladin than he would cease to be a paladin.
nidhog 02-11-05, 11:17 AM	Oh, and if you're really so fanatical about going by what the book says: Well that's great except for one thing: Orcs aren't inherently evil. Orcs in my 3.0 MM are "usually chaotic evil". But wait, there's more, in the 3.5 SRD, Orcs are "often chaotic evil". "Often: The creature tends toward the listed alignment, either by nature or by nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common." How many nurseries of orcs, goglins, cobalds, ogres have you acroos in you elven, dwarf, gnome, hafling, human villages? It would be safe to say none. As a said these creatures would not be accepted in these comunities. How many good villages of these creatures have you come across in your world check it how many individual good goblins have you come across. This is how the game was created and played for years. Is it right probably not i guess it is up to wizards and Dms to institute a change.
Cross Hatch 02-11-05, 11:50 AM	I have never said that it is alright to kill a good character because of race. Quote me on it if that was said. I find that some of the wizards material coontradicts themselves. I will explain the caption "Lawful Good is the best alighnment you can be because it combines honor and compassion" is contradicted in the description when it states that a lawful good character hates to see a crime go unpunished. Say a small poor street urchin steals to feed himself and his starving sister, by definition there is no room for mercy for this child he has to pay for his crimes regardless. Is this showing compassion to the circumstance obviously no but if you were not to turn him in than you would be committing an unlawful act. Do you see where this goes. Like I said this is a black and white alignment. Possibly a neutral good or chaotic good would see the circumstances and let the kid go but by nature a lawful good character could not do the compassionate thing with out breaking alignment. There's more than one way to pay for such a crime. The Paladin in that case could make a personal appeal to the magistrate (using his charisma and status as a known Paladin) to have the child pay by becoming the Paladin's squire and sending the sister to become a ward of someone who can take care of her. Payment for the squire for his services could go to repay the debt that was incurred when the Paladin paid for what was stolen.
danielinthewolvesden 02-11-05, 12:09 PM	Most of the time here, mentioning real-world religion is not appropriate. But in this case, read Luke 10:30, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
nidhog 02-11-05, 01:02 PM	There's more than one way to pay for such a crime. The Paladin in that case could make a personal appeal to the magistrate (using his charisma and status as a known Paladin) to have the child pay by becoming the Paladin's squire and sending the sister to become a ward of someone who can take care of her. Payment for the squire for his services could go to repay the debt that was incurred when the Paladin paid for what was stolen. Yes there is more than one way to pay for a crime but it is not you who is to decide. If you were the magistrate you make this decision as the paladin you could only suggest this. If the magistrate decides this is not an acceptable punishment than so be it.
nidhog 02-11-05, 01:27 PM	Most of the time here, mentioning real-world religion is not appropriate. But in this case, read Luke 10:30, the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I dont have a bible with me right now and have not heard or read that parable in a long time, so i will not comment directly on that. Biblically speaking the pharacies and sagacies would be your lawful good. Jesus who broke the so called jewish laws of dealing with gentiles would be a chaotic or neatral good.
JoeX 02-11-05, 01:40 PM	I have never said that it is alright to kill a good character because of race. Quote me on it if that was said. I find that some of the wizards material coontradicts themselves. I will explain the caption "Lawful Good is the best alighnment you can be because it combines honor and compassion" is contradicted in the description when it states that a lawful good character hates to see a crime go unpunished. Say a small poor street urchin steals to feed himself and his starving sister, by definition there is no room for mercy for this child he has to pay for his crimes regardless. My GOD you can hate crimes and at the same time have mercy of a poor urchin. You hate crimes because you are LAWFULL but you temper yours reaction with mercy because you are GOOD. People who apply the law without mercy go from LAWFULL NEUTRAL to LAWFULL EVIL Nazi
Cross Hatch 02-11-05, 03:38 PM	Yes there is more than one way to pay for a crime but it is not you who is to decide. If you were the magistrate you make this decision as the paladin you could only suggest this. If the magistrate decides this is not an acceptable punishment than so be it. The Paladin is very likely going to have a tremendous amount of sway over the Magistrate considering he's more than likely going to have a higher CHA and he'll get a tremendous amount of respect as a Paladin. If, however, the Magistrate still won't be swayed, than the Paladin is well within his rights to consider the merits of following the law vs. following the good. The Magistrate may choose to go down another path which is good or he may choose to go down a path which isn't good.
Twylyght 02-11-05, 04:26 PM	A Paladin is busy making his way through the market place when he hears a cry for help. Moving to the next street as fast as possible to aid if he can, he sees a evil sorcerer standing by as a summoned demon attacks a woman. He charges in, drawing his holy avenger and smiting the demon. The enraged sorcerer attempts to cast phantasmal killer on the paladin, who resist the effect, in dire fear for his life and those around him he strikes the sorcerer, landing a critical hit killing him out right. As the paladin begins to tend to the woman injured by the demon the city guard approaches the paladin, demanding that he turn himself in. Bearing a weapon in this town is illegal, and in addition to a hefty fine, results in the destrustion of the weapon. Taking a life in the town, is illegal, even in self defense, and results in life imprisonment. Should the paladin.. a. accept his wrong doing, and spend his life in prison and let his holy Avenger be destroyed? The laws the law after all. or b. Have no mercy on himself, being a criminal now, and smite himself dead. (keep in mind smiting your self dead after being informed of the law about taking a life is a willing criminal act) remember its one or the other, being only black and white.
pres_man 02-11-05, 05:14 PM	I'm pretty sure that nidhog is a troll, but assuming that others are reading this and are swayed by the lunacy stated. Here are some quotes from the SRD (emphasis mine). “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Now there are several places where fight evil and punish offenders are mentioned, but no where does it say that a paladin must KILL. As it has already been pointed out, there are more than one way to punish someone. If you think that they only way to punish someone is to kill them then you're probably a psychopath. Some times paladins must kill, but this only when facing deadly threat from an opponent. Paladins FIGHT evil, they don't put baby orcs on pikes. If you consider killing helpless individuals "fighting" then you got some issues.
Seeker of Lore 02-11-05, 05:58 PM	A Paladin is busy making his way through the market place when he hears a cry for help. Moving to the next street as fast as possible to aid if he can, he sees a evil sorcerer standing by as a summoned demon attacks a woman. He charges in, drawing his holy avenger and smiting the demon. The enraged sorcerer attempts to cast phantasmal killer on the paladin, who resist the effect, in dire fear for his life and those around him he strikes the sorcerer, landing a critical hit killing him out right. As the paladin begins to tend to the woman injured by the demon the city guard approaches the paladin, demanding that he turn himself in. Bearing a weapon in this town is illegal, and in addition to a hefty fine, results in the destrustion of the weapon. Taking a life in the town, is illegal, even in self defense, and results in life imprisonment. Should the paladin.. a. accept his wrong doing, and spend his life in prison and let his holy Avenger be destroyed? The laws the law after all. or b. Have no mercy on himself, being a criminal now, and smite himself dead. (keep in mind smiting your self dead after being informed of the law about taking a life is a willing criminal act) remember its one or the other, being only black and white. If I had to choose in between the two options, and from a paladin's mindset... I'd definately pick A, wether or not I knew about the town's laws. The paladin chose to fight a sorceror who obviously had no compunction of the sanctity of life, and who had furthermore summoned a demon to attack an innocent person. I would accept that the consequences of my actions would cause me to lose my precious weapon and result in (possibly) the rest of my life in jail, but killing myself? Why would I do that? There was no way (in your description) to protect the woman outside of breaking the law, and paladins who has to choose in between the two aspects of their alignment will (should) always choose good over law. Anyway, that's my :twocents:
nidhog 02-15-05, 12:04 PM	I'm pretty sure that nidhog is a troll, but assuming that others are reading this and are swayed by the lunacy stated. Here are some quotes from the SRD (emphasis mine). Now there are several places where fight evil and punish offenders are mentioned, but no where does it say that a paladin must KILL. As it has already been pointed out, there are more than one way to punish someone. If you think that they only way to punish someone is to kill them then you're probably a psychopath. Some times paladins must kill, but this only when facing deadly threat from an opponent. Paladins FIGHT evil, they don't put baby orcs on pikes. If you consider killing helpless individuals "fighting" then you got some issues. I was not trolling I was simply adding another perspective. I find it humerous that would use dramatic illustrations to argue your point. Not once did I even talk about sticking babies on pikes. Pretty sick. So let me pose this if you came across a sleeping black dragon would you attack it. I hope you say no because it is helpless in its slumber. If this dragon had eggs would you smash them? Is the paladin obligated to help the injured orc no, can he yes. Characters should not be carbon copies of one another. How I interpret and play LG is obviously going to be different than how your character would be played and we would both be playing it how it is written in the book.
Phaseroth 02-15-05, 01:36 PM	Heh. I sure stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I? Sorry about that! nidhog, in my illustration, the orc is referred to as young. By that, I meant that he was a "child" - not yet an adult. Orcs are adults when? Around 12-14? Most societies assume that a child is neither good nor evil, as he or she doesn't have the capacity to know right from wrong. In the case of orcs (and I see that my question was really a two-parter: I've learned that orcs are not inherently evil, but rather that they tend toward evil), I suspect that their "evil" is due to nurture, not nature. So an orc child could potentially be directed toward good. I have to assume that there can be good orcs for one simple reason: Half-orcs. Unless we assume that every half-orc is the product of inter-species rape, some of them must be the product of loving, or at the very least consensual coupling. Particularly, the half-orcs who were raised amongst orcs. That situation suggests that it was the mother who was the orc, and I can't quite picture a human male raping an female orc. Are not orcs much bigger and stronger than humans? So, the orc in my example, being a child, has probably not committed himself one way or the other. His upbringing so far may have pointed him toward evil, but unless orcs take their children along on raiding parties he probably hasn't actually committed any evil acts of his own. So, there is still the possibility that he can be brought to the light. I liken this situation to Americans who, during the Cold War, wanted to kill Russians because they were "commies". In truth, while the Soviet government was communist and "evil", the common citizens of that country were no different from most Americans. So I kind of like the idea of a Paladin whose first line of "attack" is to attempt to convert, rather than kill.
nidhog 02-15-05, 02:04 PM	I think this was good threw this I realized why wizards alignments are debateable and not cut and dry. I believe this is so we have diversity in everything. Thanks for posing the question.
Mirtek 02-15-05, 02:14 PM	How many nurseries of orcs, goglins, cobalds, ogres have you acroos in you elven, dwarf, gnome, hafling, human villages? It would be safe to say none. As a said these creatures would not be accepted in these comunities. How many good villages of these creatures have you come across in your world check it how many individual good goblins have you come across. This is how the game was created and played for years. Is it right probably not i guess it is up to wizards and Dms to institute a change. Because all these people are not paladins. All these people can perform evil deeds from time to time and will still stay good. But a paladin can't
Mandarbgrim 02-15-05, 03:36 PM	My understanding was that the Paladin was especially GOOD not especially Lawful. A Chaotic Good character might get under his skin but there is no reason he couldn't befriend and adventure with one. But going the opposite direction..he most certainly can't group with a Lawful Evil character if he thinks he is evil. Another thing.. I don't think Paladins would be going around casting Detect Evil all the time..that would be kind of rude, really. Like carrying around a lie detector test. I imagine people would get upset about it. Borrowing from the Eberrron setting... actions are what you can judge not the alignment. Even if you know someone is evil at heart.. As long as they are acting in a manner that is good..even if for their own ultimate benefit. You can't really judge them on it. I realize this subjective attitude toward alignment is atypical, though.
shadow mage 02-15-05, 05:08 PM	I'm not sure if it's been commented on yet (hadn't read through all of the posts here) but Book of Exalted Deeds has a nice section specifically on mercy. In fact, the example it used is along the same lines of honoring love between two fiends (succubi or erinyes or whatever) or slaying the fiends because they're...well, fiends. If the paladin is a true paragon of good, then yes he'd help the orc in your example. Hell, he'd likely provide for a full recovery and ask for nothing in return except that the orc remember its treatment and that there are other outlooks in life. BoED also has a section on this about reformed monsters...much as certain material in the book makes me cringe...(-cough-ravages-cough). This, however, stems in part from my belief that no race is inherently "evil". This is proven time and time again in novels and even the Monster Manual, where it says that "Always" isn't always always. Chaotic Evil Tanar'ri can become good, or at least nonevil, just as gold wyrms can fall to evil. That said, by RAW and good judgement, the answer to your question of aid would be yes. Even if it was a red wyrmling, as someone pointed out earlier, an intelligent paladin is nonetheless a paladin and is supposed to strive to be the ideal of good and right. That little wyrmling, even if it was a young adult or has already committed wrong, is still a living creaure and perhaps by providing kindness their evil ways might change. Keep helping the same dragon out of its troubles and never retaliate any "pride-bount retributive attacks" and the dragon's likely gonna be thinking long and hard about its future. I think this was good threw this I realized why wizards alignments are debateable and not cut and dry. I believe this is so we have diversity in everything. Thanks for posing the question. This is a good reason why they had to make BoVD and BoED, and even then "alignment" isn't as black and white as many people believe it is. While I use alignments in my games, alignments for me are extremely flexible. For example, a paladin can and should help those in needs, regardless of whether or not they are good or evil, if the needy is helpless and suffering. A paladin who refuses to kill whenever possible is encouraged to use things like nets, hollowed maces, and even drow poison to subdue foes nonlethally. That's my game, however, and I'm in no manner of the mind that this is how games "should" or "should not" be played. Take that with a grain of salt...or two...where did that phrase come from anyway? Eh, hope this helps and happy gaming.
Mirikon 02-15-05, 06:14 PM	My understanding was that the Paladin was especially GOOD not especially Lawful. A Chaotic Good character might get under his skin but there is no reason he couldn't befriend and adventure with one. But going the opposite direction..he most certainly can't group with a Lawful Evil character if he thinks he is evil. Actually, that's not entirely true. A Paladin could group and adventure with a Lawful Evil character, or even a Chaotic Evil character, if they have the same goal, or the circumstances force them together, or the evil person tries (or convinces the paladin he's trying) to change. Examples: 1) The city is threatened by goblin hordes, who want nothing better than to slay all the townspeople. LE guy might not like the paladin, but he has a business in this town, and he damn well doesn't want to lose it. So he offers to help fight the goblins. 2) The Paladin, while on a mission to find the cause of <insert strange happening here>, comes across CE wizard, who also happens to be searching for the cause of the <insert strange happening here>, but for his own reasons. The two might not like eachother, and chances are that they'll have heated disagreements from time to time, but as long as the Paladin doesn't preach too much, or the wizard doesn't kill any helpless kids or something like that in front of the Paladin, there isn't anything that would keep the two from adventuring together, although once the source is found and they return to town, the partnership is likely to end. 3) The group is magically bound by some means (ex. Gaes) to work together for some goal. They might not like it, or eachother, but the magic compels them to do it. As long as none of the characters does any overtly evil acts during this time, it is possible for them to coexist with the paladin remaining LG. 4) The Paladin is honor bound to serve the Lord of a local castle. This Lord is CN. The Lord assigns a NE Sorcerer to go along with the Paladin on a quest of some kind. The Paladin might not like it, but he has his orders from his Lord, which take precedence.
Ra-Tiel 02-15-05, 06:17 PM	Just look here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=360532). It's been discussed to death. And I'm just too tired to participate again in such a discussion. Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Ra-Tiel 02-15-05, 06:23 PM	@Mirikon: No, he couldn't! (I can't believe I'm still getting involved in this...) From the SRD: Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. I put in boldprint what I want to emphazise. And no, there is NO way to interpret something into this. "Never knowingly" is just that. No matter what's the reason, a paladin would never accept an evil acts commiting evil person in his party. Just my additional :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
shadow mage 02-15-05, 07:46 PM	@Mirikon: No, he couldn't! (I can't believe I'm still getting involved in this...) From the SRD: I put in boldprint what I want to emphazise. And no, there is NO way to interpret something into this. "Never knowingly" is just that. No matter what's the reason, a paladin would never accept an evil acts commiting evil person in his party. Just my additional :twocents: _Ra-Tiel. Eh, "never knowingly" never stopped the strange cloaked "benefactor" LE warlock with an amulet that protects his alignment from being known...And then, at the end of the adventure just to prove a point to the (not always but likely sometimes) egotistical/overzealous paladin he unveils his alignment to the man, who believed he has knowingly been traveling with a strange benefactor. IN WHICH CASE (the plot thickens) the paladin's path has furthered the warlock's own goals! Does the paladin, now that he has the knowledge that he's just been adventuring with an evil dude, suddenly loose everything and has to attone? Hm...curious...
Mandarbgrim 02-15-05, 09:24 PM	Eh..my personel opinion on all this is that people should worry about playing their character and not worry about the exact alignment. Instead of..is this something a Lawful Good person would do. Is this something my Paladin would do. It is kind of odd to think of a Palidan constantly worrying if he is doing the right or wrong thing. They seem a lot more rightious than that. Do what they think is right. hmmm..perhaps this is the problem when people try to play an alignment they arne't but only have a one sides concept of. It is ultimately subjective depending on the world the players are in..therefore..basically up to the DM how society and the gods will react to stuff. I am playing in a game right now that the DM believes in the Black and Whiteness of it all. I am DMing for him an Eberron game with loose interpretations and we are coming to disagreements in both games about what constitutes good actions and evil actions.