Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cuindless 10-31-07, 03:46 PM	First, let me say that I am not trolling or attempting to start any sort of flame war, I am simply asking about a problem that is occuring in my game currently. A new player has joined wanting to play a paladin from a Nordic type culture. In his upbringing, warriors who die in battle receive a great reward in the afterlife, akin to Valhalla. For this reason, he wants his character to adopt a "take no prisoners" attitude, as he says that it would be robbing a worthy opponent of his final reward. In the SRD it says that good implies a respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. My player argues that his beliefs qualify both of these because he doesn't simply kill indiscriminately (he only kills enemies in battle) and he maintains a concern for their dignity (i.e. he doesn't mutilate the body, attempts to provide proper burial and honors last wishes). My gut instinct is to go ahead and allow it, because his arguments are sound and logical. He's not using backstory as a reason to play a murderous psychopath, nor is he trying to be some ruthless barbarian monster. I'm worried, though, that he'll start justifying abject killing with a battle cry of "No quarter!" What do you fellow DMs think? Would you allow a paladin like this?
Shiftkitty 10-31-07, 04:03 PM	Mercy, I believe is a hallmark of a paladin. "Take no prisoners" doesn't fit with the merciful ideals of a paladin. Maybe you can tweak the paladin class around a little bit and create, I don't know, a "Holy Warrior" or something. Take away the healing features like "Lay On Hands" (after all, he's ultimately a killer for his god, and healing doesn't jive with that) and replace them with more combat oriented features. "Smite Evil" might easily be chaged to "Smite Infidel", which would be effective against the faithful of a god who is opposed to his own god (not merely an unbeliever, that would be too open to interpretation). Just a seed of a thought. There may be some other tweaks to seperate this guy from being simply an over-eager cleric. He can't turn undead, but he gets an extra bonus in combat against a creature or being his deity finds particularly abhorrent, etc. I'd even give him a d12 hit die because of his verve and the extra boost he gets from being his god's sword arm. Why does he specifically want to play a paladin if he wants to be awash in the blood of his enemies?
Tequila_Sunrise 10-31-07, 04:06 PM	I think that if you allow LN paladins, his code would work. I don't think that "honor killing" makes a good CoC for any Good character because any such character would realize that not everyone shares his idea of glorious battle-death and the eternal reward of Valhalla. Sure, a Good paladin dueling a person with similar beliefs would be justified in killing a defeated opponent, but if the opponent would rather live then killing them would be a disregard for their life and dignity.
CipherTheory 10-31-07, 04:07 PM	Yes, I'd allow it. As long as the players sticks to the values you mentioned (i.e. not using it as an excuse to go monkey-poo and slaughter everything in sight), he ends up acting more LG than a lot of paladins I've heard described on these boards (i.e. the ones who DO go monkey-poo and slaughter everything once the get a ping on their D.E.-dar). From what I've heard, most paladins don't take prisoners unless they need to anyway, so it's a mute point. In fact, I'd say the average paladin acts quite a bit like your player intends to play his. The difference is that your player is announcing his intent ahead of time. Anyway, I say give it a shot. If worse comes to worse, have a rock fall on the pally and make his player start a new character. :D
Cuindless 10-31-07, 04:12 PM	Mercy, I believe is a hallmark of a paladin. "Take no prisoners" doesn't fit with the merciful ideals of a paladin. Maybe you can tweak the paladin class around a little bit and create, I don't know, a "Holy Warrior" or something. This was my exact argument at first, but he argued that, from his cultural perspective, mercy is actually evil. By sparing your enemies, you deny them the paradise of dying in battle. A quick, painless death, on the other hand, spares them the pain of bleeding to death while still sending them on to his final reward. Take away the healing features like "Lay On Hands" (after all, he's ultimately a killer for his god, and healing doesn't jive with that) and replace them with more combat oriented features. "Smite Evil" might easily be chaged to "Smite Infidel", which would be effective against the faithful of a god who is opposed to his own god (not merely an unbeliever, that would be too open to interpretation). Just a seed of a thought. There may be some other tweaks to seperate this guy from being simply an over-eager cleric. He can't turn undead, but he gets an extra bonus in combat against a creature or being his deity finds particularly abhorrent, etc. I'd even give him a d12 hit die because of his verve and the extra boost he gets from being his god's sword arm. I initially offered this as an option as well, but he believes that healing isn't necessarily at odds with the doctrine of his character's cultural belief. What about friends who were wounded in combat but not mortally so? Shouldn't they be healed? What about himself? And he doesn't simply want to play a "killer for his god", he wants to play a just and holy crusader battling the forces of evil. Why does he specifically want to play a paladin if he wants to be awash in the blood of his enemies? For the reasons stated above. He views the character as a holy crusader battling the forces of evil who just happens to believe that only through death does a warrior earn his final reward. I warned him that this means he's opposed to resurrection, and he agreed.
SirGeshko 10-31-07, 04:17 PM	My gut instinct is to go ahead and allow it, because his arguments are sound and logical. He's not using backstory as a reason to play a murderous psychopath, nor is he trying to be some ruthless barbarian monster. I'm worried, though, that he'll start justifying abject killing with a battle cry of "No quarter!" You've just answered your own question. Provided the paladin ONLY kills worthy combatants, and doesn't start running around at level 10 slaughtering entire warrens of goblin women and children, he stays a paladin. If he's a good roleplayer, he'll try to play up that aspect of 'Glorious Battle', preferring a frontal assault; not engaging in ambushes unless the enemy knows the party's out there somewhere, etc. As a DM, I warn three times, then change alignment. Cautioning a player that their proposed action is against their moral code equals a warning. My players haven't lost any class features yet! ^_^
Cuindless 10-31-07, 04:24 PM	I think that if you allow LN paladins, his code would work. I don't think that "honor killing" makes a good CoC for any Good character because any such character would realize that not everyone shares his idea of glorious battle-death and the eternal reward of Valhalla. Sure, a Good paladin dueling a person with similar beliefs would be justified in killing a defeated opponent, but if the opponent would rather live then killing them would be a disregard for their life and dignity. See, that's a slippery slope that I'm not sure I agree with. If a paladin has to honor the fact that not everyone believes as he does, then he has to honor the blackguards belief that demons are cool creatures and people dying is great. He has to respect Hitler's belief that Jews are useless wastes of flesh that should be purged for the greater good of Germany. If he's fighting an enemy and they're trading lethal blows, why is he obligated to save that persons life just because they believe differently? If the enemy drops his weapon and begs for mercy, maybe, but if he fights to unconsciousness I just don't see it...
pres_man 10-31-07, 04:30 PM	If your player makes it a requirement that his character never accepts a surrender and always kills anyone that fights him, then that creates a huge mess in a case where a non-evil foe may, accidentally be at odds with the party. Let's say that a bunch of humanoids have been attacking a town. The town is on edge and gotten a little trigger happy. The paladin and his party come up on the town at night, hard to make out their exact races but are clearly armed heavily. The guards of the town scream, "Leave us alone!" and fire bolts at the party. Now your paladin is forced to kill them due to his code. I think instead that your player should have a code for the character that doesn't require he always accept surrenders. That way he can choose to do so if the situation is reasonable (see above), but a blackguard trying to surrender is more likely to meet the "merciful" edge of his Holy Avenger.
Crash_00 10-31-07, 04:32 PM	My issue with it is pretty simple. The only way I can see it working with his code in D&D would be killing them when they drop (basically below 0). Until then they arn't really mortally wounded and saying that letting them live is robbing them is just like saying living himself is robbing him of his final reward. If the character truly believed his own code, then when he's lost any hit points at all and is wounded he would hand the enemy his sword so that he wouldn't be robbed of HIS final reward. Likewise, when his friends are wounded to the point of needing healing, why would he not kill them and let them claim their final reward? It seems that he wants the final reward to only be for his enemies. It's not good enough for him and his allies?
HermitIX 10-31-07, 04:41 PM	I would say he can be a paladin with this “take no prisoners” code. But if an opponent does surrender, he has to honor that. After all if they throw down their weapon and stop fighting they are no longer engaged in “honorable combat.” I would also see about getting a list of combat morality rules from him. For instance, no magical enhancement like bull strength, he needs to win or loose with his own capability. He can use magic weapons he takes from warriors he vanquished, but not weapons that he found or bought. He also can’t sell a weapon ether, it must be given to a worthy warrior. All this could apply to armor too. The men and woman he fights with are his tribe. They are of supreme importance to him, second only to his God. This loyalty goes both ways and he expects the same regard from them. Magic is distasteful. While he under stands that some weak individuals will find strength where ever they can, he makes sure to tell the wizard never to interfere with the opponents he is currently fighting. These rules make a paladin more than a fighter. He has a moral code that he won’t breach. They are inconvenient, but they shouldn’t break the game for the paladin. Edit: Cash_00 has a point...
Cuindless 10-31-07, 05:27 PM	My issue with it is pretty simple. The only way I can see it working with his code in D&D would be killing them when they drop (basically below 0). Until then they arn't really mortally wounded and saying that letting them live is robbing them is just like saying living himself is robbing him of his final reward. If the character truly believed his own code, then when he's lost any hit points at all and is wounded he would hand the enemy his sword so that he wouldn't be robbed of HIS final reward. Likewise, when his friends are wounded to the point of needing healing, why would he not kill them and let them claim their final reward? It seems that he wants the final reward to only be for his enemies. It's not good enough for him and his allies? I believe this is exactly what he had in mind, he wouldn't heal/take prisoners if they dropped below zero (i.e. were mortally wounded). Otherwise nothing else would make sense. As for "handing him their sword", that doesn't make any sense because then he isn't engaged in battle, he's allowing himself to be executed. In other words, if you're standing and will recover after the battle, a "mercy kill" is also robbing you of your final reward. After all, you didn't die "in battle" anymore.
wrecan 10-31-07, 06:02 PM	I would say no. Morality may be subjective, but alignment is not (well, beyond the DM's own subjective interprettaion of the rules). If a non-Norse paladin can kill everyone with whom he fights, then so can this guy. If a non-Norse paladin cannot, then he cannot either. Now, I need a clarification. If an enemy drops his weapon in the midst of battle screaming "I surrender!" What does his code dictate? Is the guy going to go to Valhalla now? If it just means the paladin is never going to bother with nonlethal damage, I have no problem with the code. If it means killing people who are willfully surrendering to him and are not evil, then there would be a problem.
Man in the Funny Hat 10-31-07, 07:43 PM	In his upbringing, warriors who die in battle receive a great reward in the afterlife, akin to Valhalla. For this reason, he wants his character to adopt a "take no prisoners" attitude, as he says that it would be robbing a worthy opponent of his final reward. [snip] I'm worried, though, that he'll start justifying abject killing with a battle cry of "No quarter!" What do you fellow DMs think? Would you allow a paladin like this?No. Or maybe yes. It's good that the player is thinking along these kinds of lines but not all concepts are intended to mesh together. If he wants to "take no prisoners" that's fine, but it isn't something that the paladins code and LG alignment is going to allow him to do with "My culture and honor says it's okay" as an excuse. BEING A PALADIN MEANS RESTRICTIONS in what you are allowed to do - regardless of what your characters upbringing and culture says. If you choose to be a paladin you MUST accept that you might need to DEFY your culture - even actively disrupt it, disobey its dictates and norms, etc. THAT IS THE COST OF BEING A PALADIN. Now, having said that it doesn't mean that taking no prisoners is inherently DISallowed for paladins - particularly as regards combat. By rights, anyone the paladin is fighting with deadly weapons is someone the paladin has ALREADY determined should forfeit his life. It is actually difficult to see how a paladin could see that such opponents DESERVE being treated with honor - but when an opponent in round 3 is trying his level best to kill you and then begs to be spared in round 4 even a paladin is under no obligation one way or another to accept/deny that request. That the paladin ALSO thinks killing the opponent is doing him a favor for allowing him an honorable death in battle is only tangental to the fact that by being IN battle the paladin intends to kill him ANYWAY. The real interest in such a character might be in seeing the player attempting to reconcile the two worlds his character has. On one hand his cultural sense of honor might say he should kill his opponent. On the other hand the dictates of REMAINING a paladin might force him to act otherwise on occasions. Which will he choose?
Malcaor 10-31-07, 07:52 PM	I don't think a Paladin is the best class to represent what your player wants to create. Tell him this if you agree. A excellent class for this character would be the Favored Soul from Complete Divine. I would recommend your player to take a look at this class, since it while likely fit his idea better.
Lokathor 10-31-07, 08:08 PM	Crusader is more like what your player wants. But in all honesty, if the terms of the "battle death" are that you finish off people who fight below 0 and you still accept surrenders from people who surrender, then you should be completely fine (assuming you're fighting for a good reason in the first place).
calronmoonflower 11-01-07, 02:44 AM	This was my exact argument at first, but he argued that, from his cultural perspective, mercy is actually evil. By sparing your enemies, you deny them the paradise of dying in battle. A quick, painless death, on the other hand, spares them the pain of bleeding to death while still sending them on to his final reward. The character's prospective matters not. Champions of Ruin page 6 under I AM NOT EVIL philosophy of evil as an example of an evil organization (the Eldreth Veluuthra) that thinks all their actions are good. It says quite clearly A character with this philosophy must still be assigned his correct alignment, no matter what he thinks of himself, for the same reasons as characters who believe in the Tradition/There Is No Evil philosophy. Either the player or DM should assign alignment according to the preponderance of the character's actions. I suggest that he play a crusader instead of a paladin.
navar100 11-01-07, 03:02 AM	See, that's a slippery slope that I'm not sure I agree with. If a paladin has to honor the fact that not everyone believes as he does, then he has to honor the blackguards belief that demons are cool creatures and people dying is great. He has to respect Hitler's belief that Jews are useless wastes of flesh that should be purged for the greater good of Germany. If he's fighting an enemy and they're trading lethal blows, why is he obligated to save that persons life just because they believe differently? If the enemy drops his weapon and begs for mercy, maybe, but if he fights to unconsciousness I just don't see it... Godwin in 7.
Cuindless 11-01-07, 09:40 AM	Okay, I've discussed options with the player and here's what he came up with for his "code": First, he is morally obligated to accept surrender. Killing an opponent who is no longer in battle is murder. If the enemy drops his weapon and cowers, he is no longer "fighting" and will not be rewarded in death. Therefore, killing him serves no purpose. Second, if an enemy goes down fighting, the character is in no way obligated to heal/save him. He fell in honorable combat and will be rewarded in the afterlife. If someone else attempts to heal the fallen enemy, the character will inform that person of his moral code and his feelings, but will not interfere. Third, he will not heal friends who have fallen in combat nor seek their resurrection. That is against the morality of his religion. He won't interfere with others doing so, though. Fourth, he will not expect to be healed if fallen below 0 hit points, nor will he expect to be resurrected. He's made those wishes known to the party (but with a CG cleric we'll see if those wishes get followed...). Fifth, enemy spellcasters will be considered "disarmed" after giving up their holy symbol and/or spellbook and submitting to being bound and gagged. Enemy monks will require restraints as well. Until such a time, those combatants are still considered dangerous. This is what we have so far, but now we're wrangling about the morality of a coup de grace. He thinks that he should be allowed to deliver them to end his opponents suffering (i.e. slowly bleeding to death). I think that if he's going to leave everything else in the hands of the gods, he should leave this one alone as well. If the enemy dies from his wounds, then he fell in battle and deserves his reward. If he lives, the gods have further need of him. What do you guys think of both this code and of the coup de grace scenario?
Cuindless 11-01-07, 09:41 AM	Godwin in 7. I didn't understand this reference. [EDIT] Okay, I just read some articles on Godwin's Law and now understand the reference. Point taken.
wrecan 11-01-07, 10:33 AM	I think that if he's going to leave everything else in the hands of the gods, he should leave this one alone as well. If the enemy dies from his wounds, then he fell in battle and deserves his reward. If he lives, the gods have further need of him. What do you guys think of both this code and of the coup de grace scenario? I was actually thinking that killing an unconscious man is akin to killing a man who surrenders. Once unconscious, he is no longer in combat, and so you're robbing him of Valhalla. I would think he needs to die of his combat wounds and not from a wound inflicted after combat. Moreover, whose to say someone who is unconscious is in pain anyway?
Cuindless 11-01-07, 10:57 AM	I was actually thinking that killing an unconscious man is akin to killing a man who surrenders. Once unconscious, he is no longer in combat, and so you're robbing him of Valhalla. I would think he needs to die of his combat wounds and not from a wound inflicted after combat. Moreover, whose to say someone who is unconscious is in pain anyway? That's a good point. I've been unconscious a couple of times and didn't remember a thing. With both of our points in mind, I think I'll disallow the coup de grace of unconscious opponents. Let them live or die by the mercy of the gods, so to speak. Where can I find the Crusader class that everyone's talking about?
Vharuck 11-01-07, 11:05 AM	The good thing about D&D versus reality is that there is such a thing as objective goodness. Heck, good even breathes and moves in the cases of angels and archons. He may think he's right, but that doesn't change the objective cosmic force of Good.
icuall 11-01-07, 11:25 AM	Cuindless... once your player creates the code and you agree, go ahead and let him follow it, but he must adhere to it, or lose he abilities. Asided from the SRD, Paladin codes vary from game to game and DM to DM based on interpretations. I've been in games (not the Paladin myself) where the Paladin attacks all evil onsight, others where the evil has to be in the act of evil, and how it all fits and interpreted by the code in respect to the interpretation. Whose to say which is wrong? It's all subjective while many people have their opinions. As long as your Paladin is following HIS code. Then let him run with it. It might prove harder to follow than what he expects. But I'm sure it will be fun for you and him which is the point.
pres_man 11-01-07, 11:53 AM	The good thing about D&D versus reality is that there is such a thing as objective goodness. Heck, good even breathes and moves in the cases of angels and archons. He may think he's right, but that doesn't change the objective cosmic force of Good. Whether there is in reality an objective goodness and whether in reality anyone knows what that is, are two separate issues. In reality we have no way to prove an objective goodness, that doesn't necessary prove it doesn't it exist. It might not, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Cuindless... once your player creates the code and you agree, go ahead and let him follow it, but he must adhere to it, or lose he abilities. Techinically he should only fall if he violates his code grossly, not just any old small violation. With both of our points in mind, I think I'll disallow the coup de grace of unconscious opponents. Let them live or die by the mercy of the gods, so to speak. The only problem I can see that is that it can take hours to die by bleeding to death. Recovering without Help A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. Even once he becomes conscious and is disabled, an unaided character still does not recover hit points naturally. Instead, each day he has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, he loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, he is no longer in danger of naturally losing hit points (even if his current hit point total is negative). My concern would be is it respectful to leave someone out in the elements to die off perhaps a few hours, or when an animal came and started feeding on them. What if they are dying in a populated area? Should a paladin leave this person out in the road? Should the paladin have to sit there and watch over them until they die (so they can get a decent burial) or recover?
Nephlite 11-01-07, 12:01 PM	According to the Sage, a Paladin can Coup De Gra so CDG aren't evil. Whether they are murder, who knows, but: Paladins don't fall for it.
Master_Vega 11-01-07, 01:17 PM	Cuindless - I'd suggest the Crusader class you're looking for, as it fits this character like a glove (he can even heal nearby friends WHILE bashing the enemy with his sword). It's in the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. 'Tis an awesome, and very flavorful book. I'd suggest that you read this supplement closely because many DM's view it as unbalanced... when in reality it is VERY balanced, and many players (or DMs) misread one or two things and accidentally break the game.
Cuindless 11-01-07, 02:28 PM	According to the Sage, a Paladin can Coup De Gra so CDG aren't evil. Whether they are murder, who knows, but: Paladins don't fall for it. No, but he would fall because it would be part of his CoC.
Cuindless 11-01-07, 02:30 PM	Cuindless - I'd suggest the Crusader class you're looking for, as it fits this character like a glove (he can even heal nearby friends WHILE bashing the enemy with his sword). It's in the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. 'Tis an awesome, and very flavorful book. I'd suggest that you read this supplement closely because many DM's view it as unbalanced... when in reality it is VERY balanced, and many players (or DMs) misread one or two things and accidentally break the game. Thanks. I own that, but haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. I'll check it out.
Gedrin 11-01-07, 04:12 PM	*puts on hat* Surrender is dishonorable. Yet, if it takes being at the brink of death for a man to admit he has been fighting for a dishonorable cause, so be it. Let him accept that shame and the consequences of his errors for the rest of his days. If a man feels in his core that he fights for the right, let him fight until the end and be rewarded for the loyalty to his cause in whatever way his cause rewards loyalty. In being true to those beliefs, he will be rewarded in acordance to the truth of those beliefs. If a man lay bleeding on the battlefield, eyes open, I will come to him and ask,"Do you still fight me?" Shoudl he say yes, I will strike the final blow. Should he accept the shame of surrender, I will take him as prisoner to face the justice that comes. If a man lay bleeding on the battlefield, eyes closed, his fate is his own struggle with the gods. Should he wake, I will ask if he is still my foe, and if so, I will place his blade in his hand that he may cary it with him to the afterlife. For myself, I wear the badge of the Paladin openly for all my foes to see. I say to all who serve evil causes,"I fight you unto death!" I do not surrender my principles and when I fall in battle, having slain many servants of death and darkness, I will enter the halls beyond with a clean heart, knowing that no pain or suffering could sway me from the righteous cause. *hat off* So long as the character acknowledges that the glorious death in battle is something that a person must choose, this doesn't seem against the concept of being a paladin. I mean, he wouldn't want to grant the great reward of a battle-death to a coward. After all, people who beg to live, and surrender the fight, aren't WORTHY of the rewards that come with dying sword-in-hand.
Cuindless 11-02-07, 01:39 AM	*puts on hat* Surrender is dishonorable. Yet, if it takes being at the brink of death for a man to admit he has been fighting for a dishonorable cause, so be it. Let him accept that shame and the consequences of his errors for the rest of his days. If a man feels in his core that he fights for the right, let him fight until the end and be rewarded for the loyalty to his cause in whatever way his cause rewards loyalty. In being true to those beliefs, he will be rewarded in acordance to the truth of those beliefs. If a man lay bleeding on the battlefield, eyes open, I will come to him and ask,"Do you still fight me?" Shoudl he say yes, I will strike the final blow. Should he accept the shame of surrender, I will take him as prisoner to face the justice that comes. If a man lay bleeding on the battlefield, eyes closed, his fate is his own struggle with the gods. Should he wake, I will ask if he is still my foe, and if so, I will place his blade in his hand that he may cary it with him to the afterlife. For myself, I wear the badge of the Paladin openly for all my foes to see. I say to all who serve evil causes,"I fight you unto death!" I do not surrender my principles and when I fall in battle, having slain many servants of death and darkness, I will enter the halls beyond with a clean heart, knowing that no pain or suffering could sway me from the righteous cause. *hat off* So long as the character acknowledges that the glorious death in battle is something that a person must choose, this doesn't seem against the concept of being a paladin. I mean, he wouldn't want to grant the great reward of a battle-death to a coward. After all, people who beg to live, and surrender the fight, aren't WORTHY of the rewards that come with dying sword-in-hand. Thank you. :weep: That was the most elegant and beautiful expression of the code I've heard. That is the code I'll have him take.