Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DisplacerKitten 09-08-05, 11:19 PM	Presented before you is a case causing quite a rift in my gaming circle. Please peruse it and give you opinions. time 0630 place a mountain bluff 5kms outside of a small hamlet An adventuring party is walking forth upon reports of an evil presence creating a floodplain. Soon enough two goblin guards are seen partoling a gate. The archer in the party dispatches (but doesn't kill one), the party's fighter kills the other. Interrogation commences as to the goblins' purpose and their actions. The captive goblin refuses to talk or say anything. The party paladin, rather than have an enemy at their backs coup de graces the goblin. A few minutes later the pary enters the goblin lair and battle ensues (the goblins are armed with studded leather and shortswords/spears). A truce is called as the party takes heavy damage, but the goblins take more. During a talk it is discovered that a ring the goblin leader carries is creating the flooded area. The goblins refuse to give up said ring, stating that it is an artifact of their godd, but will accept if the party wants to move them. At this point the party withdrawls and discusses the situation. The cleric and human fighter want to move them peacefully, the paladin and half-orc fighter want to clear out the goblin cave. This is where we come to our disagreement. The DM has declared that the paladin, by coup de grace'ing a captive and desiring to clear out a currently non-aggressive goblin tribe, is acting chaotic evil and should have her powers removed. The paladin states that an armed party of goblins in a mountain bluffs outside of a human settlement could have no possible good motive and that the greater good could best be upheld by killing off the goblins and then disposing of the ring properly. ________________________________________ _________________________ Neither the paladin or the DM are new players, both having played/DM'd for quite a long time. This difference in morality has brought the game to a standstill however, and rule 0 isn't a good answer as it would create a definite schism in the group, and the DM doesn't want to control players too much. So we bring it to you, the D&D community, what is the right and noble action in this case? Strip the paladin of her powers, Applaud her for upholding common saftey, ignore it and mark her for future justicar/blackguard? We await your ruling.
Thalis 09-08-05, 11:24 PM	well, that whole coup de grace is kind of iffy, but as far as exterminating the goblins, he hasn't commited the evil act yet. only thought of it. so i would say that wouldn't cause him to loose his powers.
Bob Gein 09-08-05, 11:34 PM	If I were the paladin in question, I'd want to dispose of the goblins as well. I think I'd try to act honorably though. If he already killed his captive goblin that'd be frowned upon and might need minor attonement. If the captive goblin isn't dead yet, strip him of gear and send him to the leader of the goblins stating that the terms of surrender are not acceptable. However, if the goblins truely are willing to relocate someplace where they can't cause harm to anyone then I'd have to question if the goblins are really evil in the first place. If they did relocate to some barren wilderness away from civilization I'd let them go, but I'd find a local druid or ranger I could trust to keep an eye on them and make sure they fullfill their end of the agreement. If they ever broke their agreement then you know they can't be trusted and I'd have no problem wiping them out.
Thorak 09-08-05, 11:39 PM	The paladin may not be acting CE, but he's certainly not acting LG. Coup de grace-ing a helpless prisoner? Not a Good act. Wanting to exterminate a non-aggressive group of creatures based entirely on what they might in the future do? Not a Good act. And the fact that you used the term "greater good" sense chills up my spine. I have yet to see an act justified with that term that wasn't morally bankrupt.
pres_man 09-09-05, 12:31 AM	Got to agree with Thorak on this one. Now if the player playing the paladin can't accept the "greater good" is not a legitmate argument for a paladin, then he should be allowed to make a new character without penalty that isn't a paladin. Its obvious that there was some different assumptions going in and he might have picked a paladin character by mistake (as in didn't understand what lawful good meant in this particular setting).
KJW 09-09-05, 07:57 AM	Definitely not a good act to kill a prisoner, I would rule it as an evil act. The honorable treatment of prisoners is a necessity for LG. Some people are good at playing paladins, most though just can't do it. Maybe as DM you should write up a code of conduct for paladins in your campaign, this will help clarify for those PCs whose own morals are on the slippery side.
q'afuu 09-09-05, 08:11 AM	Judging from the first post, the party didn't even know whether the goblins had anything to do with this evil flooding until they killed about half of them. On top of that, the paladin murdered a prisoner who the party had attacked, not vice versa, and who hadn't admitted to doing anything wrong. Furthermore, the goblins themselves suggest a peaceful solution that avoids further bloodshed. The paladin is inclined to ignore that suggestion and to just kill everyone. See where I'm going with this? My suggestion: strip the paladin character of his powers and offer the player the choice of continuing with a fallen paladin or bringing in a new character. Just this once, because he apparently doesn't know any better.
Saerden 09-09-05, 08:13 AM	This depends on only the following consideration: are goblins supposed to be DnD-like cannonfodder that only cause trouble and are evil by default? Or are you trying to play the grey-area-game where goblins actually can be honorable and peaceful? Ask yourself: if the party lets them live, will you as the DM make sure that they wont harm anyone anymore? If yes, communicate this to the players. They need to know that evil creatures are redeemable. Wiping them out is the good thing to do in a normal DnD game IMHO.
q'afuu 09-09-05, 08:31 AM	wont harm anyone anymore? Anymore? I haven't read anything to believe they already harmed anyone so far. Being evil is not a decent argument for someone to get killed by a paladin. Doing evil is.
Ut-Napishtim 09-09-05, 08:36 AM	Now if the player playing the paladin can't accept the "greater good" is not a legitmate argument for a paladin, then he should be allowed to make a new character without penalty that isn't a paladin. Its obvious that there was some different assumptions going in and he might have picked a paladin character by mistake (as in didn't understand what lawful good meant in this particular setting). Yeah, I'm generally in agreement with this. "The ends justifies the means" is really more the philosophy of a neutral character. The Paladin isn't acting evil, but certainly not good either. I'd say this player has trouble understanding playing a Paladin requires taking the moral high ground and should be allowed a chance to select an alternate character.
DisplacerKitten 09-09-05, 08:38 AM	alright then, it does appear that the Paladin is to blame for this. The DM did not allow the characters any foreknowledge as to possible rehabilitation, but the overwhelming issue seems to be the coup de grace of the prisoner. A verdict of replace the character has been cast. ... What if the paladin had proof that the goblins were hiding weapons of mass destruction?
Morka 09-09-05, 08:46 AM	This depends on only the following consideration: are goblins supposed to be DnD-like cannonfodder that only cause trouble and are evil by default? Or are you trying to play the grey-area-game where goblins actually can be honorable and peaceful? Ask yourself: if the party lets them live, will you as the DM make sure that they wont harm anyone anymore? If yes, communicate this to the players. They need to know that evil creatures are redeemable. Wiping them out is the good thing to do in a normal DnD game IMHO. I second this suggestion. If the party met an halfling tribe, acting the way they acted should have been evil. Now, they met goblins. In your world, determine what's the difference between an halfling tribe and a goblin tribe, and tell this to the player. I wouldn't say that coup-de-gracing the goblin was evil. Sure, a LG character should treat a prisonner honorably. But was it a prisoner? The party was a scouting party, they had no prison, and no cage. Letting the goblin suffer from his wounds and eventually be devoured alive by crows is surely more evil than shortening his pain. OTOH, I use to believe that committing an evil act for the greater good is not good, it is lawful.
q'afuu 09-09-05, 09:56 AM	What if... What if the CdG'ed goblin was an undercover paladin, who (rightfully) didn't expect to be outright murdered just for being a goblin? What if the goblins were the unwilling minions of an evil dragon (mindcontrolled, blackmailed, convinced they were actually doing something for the greater good of the region, ...)? What if... "What if" is a pointless question, almost always asked when the situation is entirely different from the 'if' conditions. How things would have been under different circumstances is irrelevant to what really happened.
Melpomene 09-09-05, 10:00 AM	What if the paladin had proof that the goblins were hiding weapons of mass destruction? ... ::Starts to make some snappy and relivant comment, but then recalls the Co'C and stifles it, smiling serenly::
pres_man 09-09-05, 02:51 PM	The paladin states that an armed party of goblins in a mountain bluffs outside of a human settlement could have no possible good motive and that the greater good could best be upheld by killing off the goblins and then disposing of the ring properly. Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar, oh I know. 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. Well, there you go, seems the paladin was a bit confused as to his true alignment.
Ahira Bandyleggs 09-27-05, 04:30 PM	OK. I am at work and don't have any of my books with me, or I would bust out my copy of Complete Divine, Book of Exalted Deeds, Player's Handbook, and Deities and Demigods and start quoting like a man running for office. I don't remember exactly what the books say, but here is the best I got when I don't have access to my books. From the example given, the information given, and I was the DM: the Paladin would lose the Paladin class abilities right as the sword plunged into the breast of the helpless defender. Yes, HELPLESS DEFENDER! The goblin good, bad, EVIL AS SATAN!... still helpless. Under a strict reading of Lawfull Good and Lawfull Evil, attacking a captive is an evil act. No ifs, ands, or buts. BTW. Thank you for copying the writing of the Lawful Evil entry into your post. To reiterate this example, I believe it is in the Book of Exalted Deeds where it uses and Ilithid surrending to a Paladin and the Paladin having to care for the captive. It even gives rules on how to change an "evil" creature's alignment. I hope this makes sense, but if not I am sorry. I am tired of typing. On to the fact that the Paladin wants to eradicate the goblins when they are offering to move to another area. TOTALY EVIL ACT!
Dashmin Fleetfoot 09-27-05, 08:24 PM	Well, I may be off a little bit on this one but I am pretty sure that goblins aren't known for their ability to not cause trouble eventually. After all, even a goblin must sleep sometimes. But you can be damn sure that when he wakes up, he isn't thinking of ways to become better neighbors with the local human settlement. If it were me, I would try and rid the place of them all. And they were doing something that was endangering people. The ring was causing floods. Even though they were 'willing' to move, goblins are, at least in most D&D worlds, evil and out for their own gain. If yiou believe them, then I have some waterfront property to sell you down in Florida. (and I am Chaotic Neutral...hehe)
q'afuu 09-28-05, 03:29 PM	(and I am Chaotic Neutral...hehe) We already figured you weren't LG, and therefor not a paladin. ;) What you'd do isn't really relevant.
Solik 09-28-05, 04:09 PM	The DMG presents the treatment of prisoners as a "moral dilemma" and does not offer any concrete ruling either way. In fact, it asks the DM if he really wants to deal with these issues in his game. It then further goes on to state that, if the DM habitually punishes the characters for not killing their captives (by having them return to harm the party or commit more evil, etc), then the DM should not in turn punish them for killing the captives by doing things like taking away paladin powers. If this is a new group, OR if this is a new DM, OR if this issue has never come up before (or one similar to it), OR if the DM habitually punishes characters for leaving helpless captives alive, THEN the paladin should suffer no consequences for this action. That's a LOT of ORs there. Better make sure they're all covered. If this is a new group, OR if this is a new DM, OR if this issue has never come up before, THEN the DM should have given at least a hint to the paladin that carrying out said execution would be evil, or at least "not in line with the paladin tenents." If the DM gives such a hint, and it is ignored, THEN it would be okay to punish the paladin appropriately. As far the latter parts, the paladin could potentially still get away with destroying the goblins. Doing so, however, would require the following to hold true: * Anywhere the goblins move, they will be causing problems with this item. * The item is an artifact of an evil deity; thus, by letting them go, the paladin would be knowingly allowing evil things to occur (just elsewhere). * The paladin does not attempt to attack the goblins with no forewarning while the truce is believed to be in effect. The paladin should act honorably, stating that if the goblins do not relinquish their artifact, then combat shall resume. This would not be evil; this is simply rejecting the terms of the enemy. Paladins are not required to accept the terms of the enemy just because they offer a way to avoid killing! Otherwise, you end up with such fun cases as "Sure, I'll return the captive princess to you without us having to fight it out. First, though, let me rape her a few times. Then I'll turn her right on over!" "The ends justifies the means" is really more the philosophy of a neutral character. This is simply not true. Good, neutral, AND evil characters can all hold to this philosophy, depending on how far they take it. It is true, however, that a paladin that attempts to follow this motive is doomed, as he or she will likely commit at least a minor evil act sometime in the interest of the greater good (particularly if the DM has it out for paladins -- and based on the OP, I strongly suspect that this is the case).
Sulaco 09-28-05, 04:17 PM	Neither is entirely correct. Pre-emptively killing other beings cos you "just know" they are up to no good is certainly nto a good act, neither is killing a prisoner. However, it is also pretty far off chaotic evil. You need to be a lot more chaotic and a lot more evil than that. Put it this way: if you aren't sure of the morality of a situaion then it probably is neither LG nor CE as these are polar opposite extremes.
JTalbain 09-28-05, 05:16 PM	The reason why this is so ambiguous actually lies in the Monster Manual. The creature type for them is "Monstrous Humanoid", so are they monsters or are they humanoids? Take your pick, and let your group know. If the party came across a group of orcs and charged them, would it be an evil act? What about a minotaur? A demon? Where exactly does the morality lie? If you wouldn't consider attacking a creature on sight to be an evil act, you probably shouldn't consider CDGing one to be either. Also, if you are performing a CDG at all, the creature is by definition helpless. You should make clear whether CDG in general is an evil act. One of the things to keep in mind is that Paladins are supposed to be Lawful and Good, but they are also intended to exemplify the virtues of Lawful Good, one of which is the pursuit and destruction of evil wherever they find it. It is a Lawful Good action to kill an evil character you believe to be doing evil. You might be mistaken, and you might make a mistake by being overzealous, but the action is still Lawful Good in intent. Actually, with the Paladin and others in the party, you have all you need in order to run this from a game mechanics point of view. First off, the Paladin has Detect Evil at will. Barring magical attempts to hide alignment, he knows whether or not they are evil by nature, he doesn't have to guess. Second, have him make a Sense Motive check, something Pally has as a class skill. Using a DC20 he can get a hunch of the general sincerity of the goblin's motives. 25 or 15 detects coercion via enchantments. And he can directly oppose the Goblins' Bluff checks in order to determine if they are outright lying to the party. If the Paladin still at this point feels they are evil and up to no good, move up to step 3. There was dissent from the party. Since there was no hurry, due to the truce, and it is a moral question, the Paladin should ask the party to explain their moral decisions, particularly if they are different from his own. He's supposed to exemplify righteousness, and if he's going to have a chance of redeeming Goblins in that world, he should damn well take the opportunity to try to correct his own party members. If the Paladin still feels the act is justified, he should do it, but should not try to force the others to follow his lead. Making someone perform an act that they believe to be evil is an act of corruption, which is an evil act. Finally, decide as the GM. Was the Paladin justified? If so move on. If not, he is stripped of his Paladinhood for unknowingly commiting an evil act, but if he honestly believed he was doing the right thing, this shouldn't be permenant. He should be able to seek Atonement for his mistake, and return as a wiser, more experienced Paladin. Atonement exists for a reason. PS You can solve this debate in-game before it becomes as much of an issue with the Phylactery of Faithfulness. Suggest to the DM that one be found in the treasure of an encounter so everyone can get acquainted with how the DM defines morality. If the DM uses the item right, he can try to get the player to think more Lawful Good, but he has to be careful to avoid straightjacketing the player into playing exactly as the DM sees fit.
Slider33 09-28-05, 05:18 PM	Just my 2 cents: Dispatching of evil creatures, is a "good" action in my opinion, so what he wants to do can be considered for the greater good, as he says. But it makes it difficult since the goblins are seeking peaceful means, so it's a bit more complicated. However the method he wants to take to rid of the evil smells WAY more of chaotic than lawful. Just as an example, I would think lawful behavior would warrant more of a diplomatic solution, like take them all captive or something. But here's what I think would allow him to kill 'em all without it seeming like a meaningless slaughter. Perhaps the paladin could directly challenge them, or a goblin champion to a straight up fight, or he gives them the opportunity to surrender peacefully, or he will be *forced* to take lethal action against them. He's gotta give them a choice, an honorable choice, to live in peace or become prisoner, etc. etc, or else face the consequences of a big fight. That's my take on the whole lawful side of things. I do NOT think he should just start chopping off heads without at least a little diplomatic negotiating.
Kohdok 09-28-05, 10:44 PM	Did the Paladin give any warning of what she intended to do when she Coup de gras'ed the captive goblin? If she had merely taken her sword and thrust it into the Goblin's heart with little hesitation, that is quite an evil act, especially under the code of conduct for the Paladin. If she had raised her sword into the air so that the goblin could see it and tell it exactly what she was going to do, then the details on this are sketchy, but a little less evil, as the Goblin knew what was going to happen. Still, killing a helpless captive, no matter how evil they are, is indeed an evil act. It also says in the PHB that a Paladin usually has good judgement and tries to see the situation from every angle. This is probably a misunderstanding on the player's part when it comes to negotiating with the goblins. Someone who was experienced with Paladins would probably, warily, look at the conditions the goblins would offer and, as was suggested above, find someone to keep tabs on them. The suggestion of clearing them out is poor judgement, but not necessarily evil. I'm sure if you tell the player about how to properly play a Paladin, getting her to get "The Quintissential Paladin", or the still immesuably useful "AD&D The Complete Paladin's Handbook", which covers everything from Courtly Love to Captive Treatment. It has at least 10 pages devoted to the Paladin's code and can be found cheap at many Half-Price bookstores. (Mine was 8 bucks and felt brand new!) Get your player to peruse one of those and see if she still wants to play a Paladin. If she reads one and says she still wants to play, hope that she will understand the code better and play. I know reading The Complete Paladin's Handbook saved ME from my own "personal Paladin Pandemonium".(Say THAT three times fast)
SnowbearK 09-28-05, 11:44 PM	Here we go again... :rolleyes: "A search function, a search function, my left nut for a search function!" It's quite obvious that the Paladin's player is clueless as to what a Paladin is and what that means. To be a paladin is to be the epitome of good. When people say, "I only hope my children will grow up to be good people" the image of their child as a grown person is the paladin. Look up Good in the dictionary, poof there's a picture of a paladin. More than that they are Lawful Good. Not only are they pure of heart, wise in thought, and courageous in deed, they are also the upholders of truth, honor, and just law. They might not be nobles by birth, but they ARE nobility, justice, and good personified. They don't think about what they can get away with, they don't think about the "greater good" as it pertains to the most number of people, their only cause is that of Good itself, and their mantra is that "you cannot be Good by doing evil, no matter what the outcome." If you think about early Superman, you're not far off. Read the stories of Galahad, you're not far off. Read the stories of Arthur & Lancelot, for what happens when a paladin falls. The DM also is quite incorrect. It's not Chaotic Evil. Not every action has a specific alignment attached to it. (btw, it's a question of Morals, not ethics, the Paladin's actions can easily be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic ethically, but are most certainly Evil, and it's the Evil part that loses the Paladin their abilities)
Lex 09-29-05, 01:50 AM	This depends on only the following consideration: are goblins supposed to be DnD-like cannonfodder that only cause trouble and are evil by default? Or are you trying to play the grey-area-game where goblins actually can be honorable and peaceful? Ask yourself: if the party lets them live, will you as the DM make sure that they wont harm anyone anymore? If yes, communicate this to the players. They need to know that evil creatures are redeemable. Wiping them out is the good thing to do in a normal DnD game IMHO. Agreed. It would depend on how the GM was running the game. D&D's default campaign tends to be a bit cartoony- you "get the bad guys", and that's how you "save the day". In that kind of campaign I would say the Paladin's actions were appropriate. However, in a more realistic campaign, where Goblins are barbaric, but still people, it's more of a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral action. My personal opinion is not to punish him too badly. I don't like punishing players of Good alignment more than those of other alignments. Having played a couple "Evil" campaigns, I can tell you that "Evil" D&D is a lot like "Good" D&D, except you get to do whatever you want. I mean, this is a game where the default scenario is going into a Dungeon and killing everything that lives there. I think that a truely LN character wouldn't fly in D&D, because he'd probably be more of a pacifist who tries to educate Goblins, rather than kill them. In other words, your scenario of "go deal with these Goblins" already set him up for a moral conflict.
DisplacerKitten 09-29-05, 02:02 AM	*don;t know how this post got restarted* Anyway, I think there is also a question of culture. If you note, I am based in South Korea and the culture and religion is different. As it stands the standard D&D alignment system is straight up protestant north american christian. How does the good DM balance this? And as a note, since this post is aged...I was the paladin (became known as Anakin after awhile)
KJW 09-29-05, 07:54 AM	Actually, a good point. I agree the D&D alignment system is definitely a product of U.S. culture as is the entire game. Does this mesh with my beliefs, hardly, I personally don't believe in good or evil (Buddhist) and am more on the pacifist side of things. But I like the alignment system and D&D. Why? Because I like the D&D Outer Planes and afterlifes, I find it nifty and a great story mechanism. To me alignment and the Outer Planes are one and the same, if you take away one you should eliminate the other. Also the violence doesn't both me so much, because it's an epic like the Illiad or Odyssey, or like an action-adventure movie, no grounding in reality, but entertaining nonetheless. As for the meshing of morality, alignment, and D&D, it's easy if you have a solid understanding of your own moral beliefs. The vast majority of players and DMs do not, so it is hard to interpret the alignment system effectively. That's not a criticism but a statement of fact; years of study, contemplation, and a law degree have been needed for me to figure most things out, and I still have lots of questions. That's why alignment is so complicated for many people. Its simple as written, but the application gets complicated real fast. IMG alignments are permeable, except for outsiders and undead (though both have exceptions) few alignments are fixed in my campaign. Sure there are trends, but you could and can have good goblins. Its more realistic and creates a deeper world. This little change eliminates most of the problems with alignment, once things are no longer purely black and white then there are less alignment problems, and surprisingly players behalf closer on the ideal 'good' axis. I know that seem counter-intuitive, but its how it works from my experience.