Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vlight 01-13-05, 01:20 AM	Here’s a question for all DMs and players alike about an incident that occurred in the campaign in which I DM. One of the characters is a paladin who has often wavered on the edge of committing an evil act, although has never done anything outright that would require atonement. I am going to present to you what occurred and want to know what you all think of the situation. Some back-story is necessary to provide the best perspective of what caused the player to choose to do what he did. First off, the character – we’ll refer to him as M – has had a long time adversary in the form of a monstrous half-ogre berserker/war hulk we’ll refer to as V. V is the very epitome of evil, mercilessly slaying his enemies, committing vicious acts of murder and destruction on all those he came upon, and even having slain all the residents of his hometown in his past. Now, although V is a really bad guy it is not because of his choice. He is currently under artifact possession by a talisman imbedded in his chest – an artifact of the god of murder in my campaign – that grants him superhuman strength, resistances to magic, and a hunger for destruction and death. If the artifact was somehow destroyed or nullified, V would have reverted back to his normal alignment of chaotic neutral – not a good guy by any means, but certainly no longer evil. In any case, M and V have been fighting for some time, and both hate each other with a passion. Tonight, they came to blows for the final time. V got the upper hand on M quickly, and began to choke him to death via a grapple. M, calling upon his deity for aid, began to strike the talisman on V’s chest. V reacted instantly, shielding the talisman with his hands and appeared to be wounded. To make a long story short, M, using his holy powers granted to him by his deity, smashed the talisman, rendering V bleeding profusely, prone, and helpless on the ground. V couldn’t even attempt to stand, barely conscious of his surroundings as he lay dying from the open wound where the talisman once rested. By this time, M had retrieved his sword, and when asked what he intended to do now that V was disabled on the ground, the player who controls M replied verbatim, “Coup de grace – I’m cutting his m*****f***ing head off!” Being the type of DM that allows players to do what they will, we rolled out the coup de grace where V unfortunately rolled a 1 on his Fortitude save. His head flew off and rolled away, leaving M to stand over the body. There was discussion amidst the players and I about the action. My stance is that a lawful good character isn’t the type to kill someone who is helpless, regardless how evil they might be. From my understanding of alignment, lawful good characters requires an enemy to yield before vanquishing them, or even show mercy in the hope to redeem them. In fact, paladins can detect evil, and if M had done so he would have found that V was no longer registering as evil. Some of the other characters said that he was slaying an evil character that had killed hundreds of innocents, and that he was just doing what lawful good guys do – slay bad guys. Anyway, I’m curious as to your opinions. My current stance is that it was indeed an evil act, and that atonement will be necessary for M to regain his lost honor. All comments are welcome. Thanks. Vlight
Vharuck 01-13-05, 01:37 AM	Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's out! *jerks back thumb like an umpire* Killing a helpless person that is not irredemably (sp?) evil for no reason than pure vengeance and anger is not evil. However, it does break the Paladin code, which does not allow neutrality either.
Shadow DM 01-13-05, 01:38 AM	Wow nice. I love a good questioning of moral. Lets see... So the bad guy was only evil because he was under the influence of this artifact. The paladin knew this...yet he still went ahead and killed the downed opponent. My first question would be...What God does the paladin worship? Now, there is no real right answer here. This is one of those DM call type things. But I will tell you how I would approach it. In my world, good and evil are in the eye of the beholder and in most cases based on intent. What was the paladin's intent in killing the foe. Did he believe there was a danger that this foe might become powerfull again and cause more innocence to die...I would venture to say no that was not his fear since he knew the talisman made his opponent evil. More likely his motivations were based on revenge for all the evil things the foe had done, both to himself and other good people. Now, depending on his god some might view revenge as a justification to destroying a helpless for, the eye for an eye theory, balance, yadda yadda. Most of the good gods however see revenge as a selfish thing. This foe was freed from his evil madness, the perfect chance for him to be brought back to the light and made into a tool of good where he might spend the rest of his life doing good to attone for his bad deeds. The paladin was only human...this monster had taken so much from him and the rage and adrenaline of combat was still effecting his judgement (from a pure role-play point of view), so he steps up and ends this creature's life. I would say at the very least he would have to do a quest for atonement. It's one thing to slay an evil enemy who is consumed by the darkness and is only a tool for destruction, but it is another thing entirely for someone to kill an enemy under the dark control of an evil magic item...a Paladin nonetheless. Now again it's your world your call. Alignment is something very hard to defign with precision, but I am pretty sure that paladins are not supposed to do things like that anyway. Good luck. "Spell checking is for Trolls."
Talmariel 01-13-05, 01:40 AM	Alignment change against a player's wishes is always a weighty subject, especially when there's disagreement. Your story begs one question, however - did M know that the artifact was the source of evil? The players all reacted as though they believed V was evil regardless of the artifact, which leads me to think that M thought this as well. I understand your position, in that V was helpless, however. Regardless of what M may have thought, a helpless foe should normally be offered quarter by a paladin. The paladin's code does not specifically state that they must offer quarter, but I believe it implies it. Another important part in this equation is what deity M worships. A god that espouses kindness and a gentle hand would certainly revoke paladin abilities. A warlike god may give pause to such an action, but possibly not revoke abilities. A god of justice... that would depend on if the church has dogma regarding trials before executions. My opinion would be to move ahead with the atonement plan, but make it as quick as possible, perhaps lasting one adventure. If the deity is particularly warlike, you might only want to revoke spells instead of all the paladin abilities. Make sure you find an in-game way (preferably through the cleric casting atonement) to explain why one is needed, since the player disagrees. I think that when placed inside the game context it becomes easier to understand. Consider the act carefully, and weigh it against the dogma of M's deity rather than any notions about what a lawful good character should or shouldn't do. Deciding action so strictly based on alignment is folly. There are countless shades of lawful good, even among paladins.
Callista 01-13-05, 01:47 AM	I sure hope you had the paladin's player write out a code of conduct... because the matter of finishing off an unconscious enemy is really a matter of what is said by his specific deity and organization. Killing an unconscious enemy is a neutral act; for a Lawful character, it is not "killing a helpless person"--it's an execution, simply the end of a battle that began with the intent to kill the person the paladin is fighting. If your paladin is of a god of justice or war or something of that sort, he may have been perfectly within his rights to proceed with such an execution, assuming that he had no idea that the artifact, and not the person, was the source of the evil. In this case, if being a paladin of whatever deity he is a paladin of gives him the right to judge and condemn evildoers, then he was within his rights to kill V--though, as it may turn out later, he made a terrible mistake. If, on the other hand, the paladin knew quite well that it was the artifact and not V who was evil, then he's just committed an evil act. Atonement time, and big-deal atonement, IMO.
penchant 01-13-05, 02:13 AM	yeah, if that was an absolute it would be evil to kill anyone that went into negatives but not -10. Finishing off an opponent after a life and death struggle shouldn't give a paladin even an unpleasant dream. If there had been previous signs that the BBEG had tried to redeem himself despite artifact possession or was suffering some visible internal struggle against the thing, then MAYBE there would be cause for question. Random thought... can you detect evil on an unconcious non-supernatural being (and get an accurate reading)? I know under 2e you could only detect active intent, but they jsut made it a spell like ability. If someone is not evil by nature but only by choice and personality, shouldn't an uncouncious (not dreaming) person radiate as neutral?
BW0222 01-13-05, 02:21 AM	>My stance is that a lawful good character isn’t the type to kill someone who >is helpless, regardless how evil they might be. Not true. Lots of societies have the death penalty and most will use it when survival and/or life is at stake. Most laws apply extremely differently to animals, beasts, evil humaniods, and known monsters. If a policeman sees someone attacking another, he tries to arrest them. If he sees a dog tearing a child apart, he shoots it. The questions get complex. However... * Did the paladin honestly know that the creature was under the influence of something else? * Is the creature honestly dead anyway? I.e. if he dragged it to town and they had a trial, would the creature be hung anyway? Also, does the paladin have authority to "carry out" the law. Is he working for the lord of the area, a church, etc. which has authority. * Are there any risks in trying to bring the creature back alive? i.e. could it get free, be freed, etc. and go on another murdering spree. Nothing says that lawful good people can't be practical. Laws tend to be more swift. If the king says someone is a traitor, he don't have to add a two year trial to confirm it. If you run into a lunatic with a plan to destroy the village in the middle of the chanting, if it is honestly "safer" to just flamestrike the room and end the chance than to try to subdue the guy, then there really isn't any problems. The real issue is intent. Why is the PC coup-de-gracing the fellow? A good roleplayer is going to say something like "Never again shall I allow you to murder the helpless folks of the village." prior to delivering the strike ok. Now, his choice of language doesn't make him any less lawful nor good, if he is honestly killing this creature because he wants to prevent further deaths.
DrMorganes 01-13-05, 02:32 AM	Assuming there was no character knowledge regarding the possessing effect of the artifact, I see nothing wrong (aside from what may have been an out-of-character remark by the paladin's player) with the paladin's actions. We're talking about the culminating moments of the final battle between two bitter enemies with polar opposite alignments. The paladin was close to death himself, having survived only by the "holy powers granted to him by his deity". This was a fight to the death, and the paladin triumphed. How was he to know the ogre didn't have some unholy trick up his sleeve, something that would allow it to recover his strength and strike the paladin unaware? Let's review the PCoC: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. Acting with honor often means given a defeated opponent a swift death. Insofar as the PCs knew from the information given, this ogre was pure evil incarnate. Keep in mind as well that in a Core D&D game the goodness or vileness of an act is judged on the ACT itself, not the the intent of the perpetrator. The very fact that it was AN OGRE (which is an evil race by nature to begin with) is quite enough to justify the paladin's actions. That this ogre performed horrible acts only serves to justify its death. Paladins are expected to purge such abominations from the land; death is the only acceptable "punishment" for such a creature. Consider: would you be asking this question if the creature had been a devil or a demon?
DrMorganes 01-13-05, 02:39 AM	Nothing says that lawful good people can't be practical. Laws tend to be more swift. If the king says someone is a traitor, he don't have to add a two year trial to confirm it. If you run into a lunatic with a plan to destroy the village in the middle of the chanting, if it is honestly "safer" to just flamestrike the room and end the chance than to try to subdue the guy, then there really isn't any problems. This actually touches on another point. Many people make the mistake of imposing modern ideas of "law", "trials", and "fair treatment" onto a fantasy realm. For the most part, these concepts are totally alien in most FRPG settings. The law of the land is whatever the local monarch says it is. If the monarch deems that a theif caught in the act should have his hand chopped off, so be it. If an ogre souped-up on the powers of an evil deity is rampaging through the countryside, you don't dispatch a few paladins to subdue it, clap it in irons, and bring it home for trial. You send them off to KILL IT.
ThePo 01-13-05, 03:41 AM	It really depends on the church the paladin serves and the dogma of his god. Player knowledge about whether he was evil or not due to the artifact is secondary. In many cultures if your foe is unable to continue the battle it is the honorable and just thing that the final conclusion be death. You might also argue that the paladin was sending this person to a better resting place. After all, who would want to live with the memories of evil committed under the influence of an item like that. I know you say he might have attoned for it by becoming good but such individuals are not found on every street corner. It takes an iron will and determination to do such a thing. Most likely he would have gone insane with his memories in a post traumatic war type scenario. If his church and god is one of mercy and good this was a minor infringement. If he was one of war there is no infringement i see that would revoke abilities. But maybe a minor celestial would show up to express concern about his actions and "ask" for a favor as penance.
Aeromus 01-13-05, 04:17 AM	This is simple.. The paladin will follow legitimate lawful authority. In this case and point it was HIS GOD. The one that gave him the divine power to shatter the artifact. The artifact alone is not a reason to re-nig all the crimes the person has completed. SO the Paladin carried at a swift, just sentence to the crimes I'm sure the person that hated him admits to having done. All in all the Paladin made the right choice.
Darastin 01-13-05, 07:36 AM	From M's point of view, je just defeated a superior foe by destroyig his source of power, the talisman. There was no reason for M to assume that V was not evil. V's deeds have clearly proven that he was indeed evil, no need for M to rely upon detect evil here. Mental control, especially by an artifact, isn't something you're supposed to expect behind every corner. So M ended the whole conflict by executing V for the crimes he committed. That's sufficiently Paladin-esque IMO. What else should he have done? Drag him to the next authority that would have condemmned him to death anyway? What reason did M have to suspect that the talisman was the root of all evil and not merely a source of great power? Thus, assuming M didn't actually know beforehand that V was controlled by the talisman, he did nothing wrong. It was his right, perhaps even his duty, to end V's life. Just my two €-cents; Darastin
Vlight 01-13-05, 08:43 AM	First off, I'd like to thank everyone who has replied thus far - all very good reads. To clear some things up that I apparently left out, here is some additional information concerning the incident. - M's god is a rather generic "all-in-one" God that classic christianity or islam practices, thus there isn't any distinction (war, nature, etc) - M didn't technically know that the talisman that V wore was the source of his evil alignment, although I had made mention out of game that V hadn't always been that way - that something had occurred long ago. - As another character had suggested, if M had taken a moment to pray for advice, or use his detect evil on V after he had fallen, he would have sensed an alignment change. I guess the only thing left to consider is this: I had told the character that while I didn't think it was an all out evil act, it certainly seemed like a malicious one - one of vengence instead of retribution. From where I stand, a lawful good paladin will offer his conscious enemy to concede before simply striking him down. It would be one thing if his final strike would have killed him, but a coup de grace on a fallen foe who is helpless? Anyway, continue forth with your replies - many thanks for them. Vlight
Ty 01-13-05, 09:19 AM	I'd disagree with a general statement that a paladin would not execute an evil opponent who surrendered. Again, to paraphrase some prior posters, if your paladin was from an asian theme, the honorable thing to do would have been to behead a noble enemy. Letting him live out in shame would have been much worse than death. If you force your paladins to play some sort of death before dishonor code, expect them to execute vanquished foes. The sword cuts both ways. As for the evilness of the villain in this case, yes, it's true that the paladin could have used detect evil. Let's look a little deeper at possible motivations for the paladin to not use the detect evil but rather, just act. First, there is a razor-thin margin between vengence and justice. If this villain had caused unprecedented suffering, death, mayhem, and misery, justice would require a punishment. As a hulking hurler "beast", there is the distinct likelihood that no conventional jail could hold the monster as a form of imprisonment. I think personally, a paladin executing a monster like you've described, without specific knowledge that its evil acts were caused by an artifact, committed an act of justice for the country/area as a whole. On the same token however, M's god is likely to recognize that while the villain had free will with respect to stupidly using and becoming bound by an artifact of ultimate evil, that the Paladin could have chosen a different course of action or perhaps investigated the source of the evil. Weak argument however. Of course, this mamby-pamby line of reasoning will almost always lead to Lawful Good and Paladins being played as lawful-stupid so I discourage it's use in my games. Fact is, I'd toss him a bone, make him lose a few of his abilities, describe slight displeasure with him from his god, but nothing that would require an atonement or stripping of his powers permanently. Penance could include charity work for the local orphanage, fasting, weeks of prayer, etc. Just my 2 pence.
Shadow DM 01-13-05, 04:28 PM	Er, well that would assume he is using an asian theme...he didnt say he was though. In a western theme the enemy would probably be captured, tortured, and put to death regardless of his innocience or guilt, or if the paladin had killed him, the paladin would have been praised as a hero for slaying the evil force. But in D&D it gets a little more complicated with the presence of a god. If the god is supposed to be related to the modern day Christain god(old or new testiment?) then he would probably reprimand his paladin for acting so hastily to pass judgement on a foe (let he without sin cast the first stone). Maybe make his atonement quest something like save the bad guy's family from being put to death or help out the victims of the villages the badguy had attacked. "Spell checking is for trolls."
delroland 01-13-05, 08:13 PM	The actions taken by the paladin IMO do not warrant the removal of his paladinhood. He didn't know that the ogre could be redeemed. Otherwise, you could argue that a paladin has to try to redeem a balor before slaying it. DnD doesn't work that way. It is not a game of sissy pacifists and happy bunnies. Death is always lurking, and can be only a saving throw away. If you want to really hit home with the fact that he did a major Oops!, write a series of adventures where he has to go to the Abyss, rescue the soul of the ogre, and bring it to some consecrated site, fighting demons the whole way. Once there, the ogre can be reincarnated as some sort of outsider, forever an ally of the PC's for the ending of his curse and the redemption of his soul. OR, use this as the perfect opportunity to introduce the Order of Illumination to this campaign (from Complete Adventurer). Perhaps the order is so impressed with the paladin's unwavering quest to slay evil and destroy corruption that they offer him membership to the Shadowbane Inquisitor PrC. He would need to take a level in rogue, but the PrC I think might just have the right flavor for the kind of character he plays.
MrkGrismer 01-14-05, 03:17 PM	Giving mercy to a defeated foe would be an Exaulted Deed, not a Good one. Especially in this instance. A foe is, by definition an enemy, and so if the Paladin is not in jeapordy fighting a foe, the Paladin is not in jeapordy killing the foe once defeted. If the Paladin knew the Talisman was responsible for the evil acts then it would be different. If the Paladin's god gave the Paladin the power to break the Talsiman, and said god wished the foe to be spared then that power should have came with a vision or feeling to spare the poor sod. Detect Evil takes three rounds to 'lock on' and fully reveal, it is often not practical during a life-and-death battle. Sometimes I think people are a little too strict on Paladins. This is unfortunate because it has lead to the development of a stereotype such that the D&D Paladin is often equated with a fanatic. This means players don't want to play them, and don't even want them around. A Paladin strives to be good and honorable in all things, but like all good people they have to temper that with rational thought.
ManinDarkness 01-14-05, 04:44 PM	:whatsthis :thinks: Hmmm, Killing a downed foe is not a good act, BUT It is not an evil act either. If the paladin continues in this path, he should end with an alignment change to LN, but that should be in the long run and with the player aware of it.
delroland 01-14-05, 07:18 PM	Killing a downed foe is not a good act, BUT It is not an evil act either. If the paladin continues in this path, he should end with an alignment change to LN, but that should be in the long run and with the player aware of it. So you're saying that a paladin can't kill a downed balor? Give me a freaking break! :rolleyes:
ManinDarkness 01-14-05, 07:32 PM	No. I'm saying that it is not good, but still not evil. A paladin is not condemned by making neutral acts.
Callista 01-14-05, 08:04 PM	Yes, exactly. A PC who commits mostly Neutral acts is Neutral... a PC who commits Neutral and Good acts is probably Good.
Cymraegmorgan 01-14-05, 08:32 PM	Here’s a question for all DMs and players alike about an incident that occurred in the campaign in which I DM. One of the characters is a paladin who has often wavered on the edge of committing an evil act, although has never done anything outright that would require atonement. I am going to present to you what occurred and want to know what you all think of the situation. ....... By this time, M had retrieved his sword, and when asked what he intended to do now that V was disabled on the ground, the player who controls M replied verbatim, “Coup de grace – I’m cutting his m*****f***ing head off!” Being the type of DM that allows players to do what they will, we rolled out the coup de grace where V unfortunately rolled a 1 on his Fortitude save. His head flew off and rolled away, leaving M to stand over the body. Anyway, I’m curious as to your opinions. My current stance is that it was indeed an evil act, and that atonement will be necessary for M to regain his lost honor. All comments are welcome. Thanks. Vlight First off, wavering on the edge of commiting evil acts often is a neutral PC at best, no longer a paladin. Killing a helpless enemy is evil, no longer a paladin. A Paladin must be proactive in the cause of Good. You have apparently allowed a player to give lipservice to the Paladin's Code, acting neutral, nay even Chaotic. Has the player read the paladin material in the PHB? You should have long before warned that overt neutrality is a no-no for a paladin. You have failed as a DM.
Callista 01-14-05, 09:06 PM	You have failed as a DM. Don't be so harsh... No one is perfect. This DM, in your opinion, made one mistake--and you immediately say he's "failed as a DM"? Come on!! Sure, Paladins have a high standard. But they can commit Neutral acts--they just have to do Good as well. It just depends on what the paladin could've done rather than make that Neutral choice. For example, letting the city militia handle a kidnapping is a Neutral act... but the LG act--getting involved--is the better choice. Atonement for a paladin who makes this choice would be warranted; one who makes this choice repeatedly changes alignment to neutral and loses his paladinhood. However, the Neutral act--killing a downed, Evil enemy--has as its alternative taking that creature into custody to stand trial. There are going to be situations where the outcome of both decisions will be the same. If the enemy is evil and the paladin is the representative of justice in that particular situation, why shouldn't justice be carried out then and there? And if the judge is the kind you can bribe; or it's impossible to imprison the enemy without great risk, killing them then and there may even be a wise move. I think we're listening too much to the modern mindset, where police and such have enough of a presence, and enough power, to manage most criminals; and where an extensive legal system prevents them from doing a lot of things. But the Paladin isn't the donut-eating cop of today (my apologies to any police officers...). He's more like the Wild West sherrif who knows he's got to take out the bad guys at high noon, or there'll never be any order in the town. The D&D world is a rough neighborhood; and the good guys have to be tough on evil, within the bounds of justic, of course; or nothing will ever get done. Exalted characters are, of course, an exception; but that discussion moves to the proper forum.
Obiwho? 01-14-05, 09:37 PM	Killing a helpless enemy is evil, no longer a paladin. I applaud this statement. Many of the posts above defend the paladin based on what he knew or had reason to know. This assumes a subjective standard of good and evil. Evil if he should have known the enemy could be redeemed, not evil if not. D&D is based on moral absolutes. Truths. It is wrong to kill a helpless innocent. The half-ogre was not himself "evil." The tailisman was. The fact that the paladin didn't know he was killing a helpless innocent is irrelevant to whether killing a helpless innocent is evil. You have failed as a DM. Oh come on.
Vlight 01-14-05, 10:12 PM	First off, wavering on the edge of commiting evil acts often is a neutral PC at best, no longer a paladin. Killing a helpless enemy is evil, no longer a paladin. I agree for the most part, which is the perspective most miss out on. It doesn't matter whether the opponent is good or bad; your treatment of him/her is what determines your morality. A Paladin must be proactive in the cause of Good. You have apparently allowed a player to give lipservice to the Paladin's Code, acting neutral, nay even Chaotic. Has the player read the paladin material in the PHB? You should have long before warned that overt neutrality is a no-no for a paladin. I agree about a paladin being proactive for the cause of good - that is the basis of the oath they take and the lives they live. I don't, however, agree with your comments on being given "lip service" by my player in regards to the Paladin Code. First off, the Code of Conduct for a paladin is laid out in the Player's Handbook pg 44 quite clearly, although their is in fact some loose interpretation there. In once instance, a paladin loses all class abilities if they willingly commit an evil act. What constitutes "willfulness"? I mean, was he in the in the right because his intention was to slay what he perceived to be a monstrous denizen of evil, or in the wrong for not investigating the matter further while in the heat of battle? Also, the Code states that the paladin must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Well, as I pointed out earlier this opponent had certainly done a great deal of harming. In many ways, even the Code of Conduct presented in the PHB isn't exactly clear. I know you'll probably say that I should have outlined my expectations with the player before starting, and you'd be right for the most part, but of course I was completely shocked by his actions; I assumed what he did was a given no-no. You have failed as a DM. Hmm - if you say so, although the reasoning behind that escapes me. But hey, you know what they say about opinions...
Lokiyn 01-15-05, 12:16 AM	i wouldn't penalize the guy. helpless isn't the term to use here, V was defeated not helpless, by most of your (apparent) definitions everyone becomes helpless right before they are slain. Now if he had found V tied up in a room and snicked off his head thats one thing. But as the culmination of a life or death battle? Uhh uh, we've got an adrenaline charged rightous fury built up and any sort of pleading after the guy was doing his level best to kill him would be ignored as the (probable) trick it is.
Talmariel 01-15-05, 12:39 AM	Wow, this is still going on? Few things are as interesting as moral and ethical debates on a message board. :rolleyes: "Killing a helpless foe" does not have enough information to decide whether or not it is an evil act, and for a very simple reason. So you're saying that a paladin can't kill a downed balor? While this was a pretty sarcastic comment, it points at the crux of the moral debate over killing in D&D. A balor is evil. There's no alternative here, no questions of redeemability or offering quarter out of a kind and good heart. They're just plain evil, and good characters kill evil ones. Why? Because this is heroic fantasy adventure, and it involves winning via overpowering the enemy and defeating them by force. So as an act unto itself, killing a helpless foe is not evil. Killing a helpless foe who isn't evil is an evil act. Thankfully, D&D has a very structured alignment system to identify who is evil. In our poor paladin's case, I'm sure his detect evil had been off the chart whenever he used it in the past. Paladins have the ability for a good reason, to pick out who they can and can't kill. The issue of the paladin's code, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with the good aspect of alignment. The code is a product of the lawful aspect. What makes a paladin a paladin is their unswerving devotion to the dogma of a deity. That just happens to also entail that the deity is good, or allows good followers. For alternatives we've got the blackguard and the variant paladins from Unearthed Arcana. My opinion of the matter is one of dramatics. An adventure is a story told collectively among friends. That story led in a decisive direction towards a climax. The DM has a job to steer the story in a particular direction. If the DM had this knowledge in advance, he was obligated to impart it to the players in some fashion. The players undoubtedly watch plenty of movies and possibly even read books, and know how to follow a story. If the ogre was continually identified as evil with no doubt cast on this, than it stands to reason that the ogre is evil. This isn't a fault of the paladin or the player. If the DM wanted events to transpire towards the redemption of the ogre, it was his job to plant the right seed. Now, if the DM did plant the appropriate seeds and the paladin ignored them, then there's a case of a clear violation, not because of the act itself or circumstances, but because it's dramatically appropriate. The "audience," as it were, knew the truth, and knew that the paladin intentionally ignored it. As the story was presented, it seems clear that the rest of the party agreed with the paladin's course, which says to me that the DM did not plant the needed seeds of dramatic exposition. If that is the case, the DM has the unfortunate duty of putting his tail between his legs and moving the story in a different direction. Even if the ogre's good nature was the big reveal at the end, the ogre could have easily taken a free action to say something, even to yield or swear an oath or any other dramatic confessions. Once again, if the DM chose another course I don't believe it's fair to fault the player. Was the ogre good? Yes. Was it wrong of the paladin to slay a good creature? Yes. Is it possible that the paladin's dogma would dictate that the paladin kill the ogre, regardless of good or evil? Yes again. Regardless, is it fair to shove such unforeshadowed events onto the hapless player, who had apparently been relatively cooprative with the course of the story? Absolutely not. Take the notions of good and evil and bring them to the gaming table instead of the game world. The ethical decision lays in the hand of the DM. The best course is to take the player aside and discuss the situation with him. If clues were dropped, ask about how they were received. Such a dramatic change to a character is something to consult democratically, not arbitrate. Players are part of the game, too. Yeah, this will keep going on. Nobody's going to win. Such is the internet. Rest assured, whoever you're arguing with will eternally disagree. While there may be truths to good and evil, in game and out, odds are you don't know them. Odds are I don't, either. That's why I'm leaving my argument where it is. Enjoy the debate, perhaps it will go better than I foretell. Heh, yeah... right. :rolleyes:
Vlight 01-15-05, 01:16 AM	Wow, this is still going on? Few things are as interesting as moral and ethical debates on a message board. :rolleyes: "Killing a helpless foe" does not have enough information to decide whether or not it is an evil act, and for a very simple reason. While this was a pretty sarcastic comment, it points at the crux of the moral debate over killing in D&D. A balor is evil. There's no alternative here, no questions of redeemability or offering quarter out of a kind and good heart. They're just plain evil, and good characters kill evil ones. Why? Because this is heroic fantasy adventure, and it involves winning via overpowering the enemy and defeating them by force. So as an act unto itself, killing a helpless foe is not evil. Killing a helpless foe who isn't evil is an evil act. Thankfully, D&D has a very structured alignment system to identify who is evil. In our poor paladin's case, I'm sure his detect evil had been off the chart whenever he used it in the past. Paladins have the ability for a good reason, to pick out who they can and can't kill. The issue of the paladin's code, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with the good aspect of alignment. The code is a product of the lawful aspect. What makes a paladin a paladin is their unswerving devotion to the dogma of a deity. That just happens to also entail that the deity is good, or allows good followers. For alternatives we've got the blackguard and the variant paladins from Unearthed Arcana. My opinion of the matter is one of dramatics. An adventure is a story told collectively among friends. That story led in a decisive direction towards a climax. The DM has a job to steer the story in a particular direction. If the DM had this knowledge in advance, he was obligated to impart it to the players in some fashion. The players undoubtedly watch plenty of movies and possibly even read books, and know how to follow a story. If the ogre was continually identified as evil with no doubt cast on this, than it stands to reason that the ogre is evil. This isn't a fault of the paladin or the player. If the DM wanted events to transpire towards the redemption of the ogre, it was his job to plant the right seed. Now, if the DM did plant the appropriate seeds and the paladin ignored them, then there's a case of a clear violation, not because of the act itself or circumstances, but because it's dramatically appropriate. The "audience," as it were, knew the truth, and knew that the paladin intentionally ignored it. As the story was presented, it seems clear that the rest of the party agreed with the paladin's course, which says to me that the DM did not plant the needed seeds of dramatic exposition. If that is the case, the DM has the unfortunate duty of putting his tail between his legs and moving the story in a different direction. Even if the ogre's good nature was the big reveal at the end, the ogre could have easily taken a free action to say something, even to yield or swear an oath or any other dramatic confessions. Once again, if the DM chose another course I don't believe it's fair to fault the player. Was the ogre good? Yes. Was it wrong of the paladin to slay a good creature? Yes. Is it possible that the paladin's dogma would dictate that the paladin kill the ogre, regardless of good or evil? Yes again. Regardless, is it fair to shove such unforeshadowed events onto the hapless player, who had apparently been relatively cooprative with the course of the story? Absolutely not. Take the notions of good and evil and bring them to the gaming table instead of the game world. The ethical decision lays in the hand of the DM. The best course is to take the player aside and discuss the situation with him. If clues were dropped, ask about how they were received. Such a dramatic change to a character is something to consult democratically, not arbitrate. Players are part of the game, too. Yeah, this will keep going on. Nobody's going to win. Such is the internet. Rest assured, whoever you're arguing with will eternally disagree. While there may be truths to good and evil, in game and out, odds are you don't know them. Odds are I don't, either. That's why I'm leaving my argument where it is. Enjoy the debate, perhaps it will go better than I foretell. Heh, yeah... right. :rolleyes: Very nice response, and I appreciate your viewpoint. First, a theme was indeed dropped about the nature of evil in this campaign - not that evil exists, but that sometimes those who attempt to do good get lost along the way. So, while they had intended on achieving a cause for the greater good, their shortcuts and arrogance enviably lead them down a path of evil. There are the balors and pit fiends, but there are also those who fell victim to evil, such as the classic example of Darth Vader. In any case, a theme for this paladin was to face such evil and realize that repentance is within the nature of good; that empathy and understanding go a long way in the world of men who would sin and only become aware of it in hindsight. And believe me, I haven’t been vitriolic to the player, nor do I intend to. We did discuss it, and after the others and I had presented our perspectives, the player of M admitted then he thought his actions were wrong; that he had been overzealous in the moment, and done a wrong not only to V but also to himself. Whatever I decide to do in way of atonement will be done in conjunction with the player. One incident shouldn’t be enough to unravel the weave the campaign is comprised of, and I don’t intend to allow this moment to be wasted. I mean, this is good roleplaying material if you ask me. Vlight
BW0222 01-15-05, 01:41 AM	Folks, Killing a downed foe is not a good act, BUT It is not an evil act either. If the paladin continues in this path, he should end with an alignment change to LN, but that should be in the long run and with the player aware of it. Wrong. Not killing an evil creature is an evil act. If someone is going to kill dozens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people and you have the power to stop them, it is a good act to do so. Allowing such things to continue is evil. If an act does more good than evil, it is good. Not killing a demon -- and risking the chance that the demon will get loose and kill more good people -- is more of an evil act than killing the creature. Putting a bullet in Hitler's head in 1936 would be a good act. Tossing the ring into Mount Doom was a good act. Destroying the Dark Lord is not a neutral act. Folks are seriously mistakingly assuming that today's laws and moral code are the basis of good and evil in a fantasy game. If killing evil people makes you neutral, then all evil needs to do is start a war with a good nation, and all the good soldiers become neutral. Sorry, Hilter was evil. The allied soldiers who defeated the Nazis remained good.
Talmariel 01-15-05, 01:52 AM	Vlight, I commend you. :clap: It sounds like you handled things with an exceptionally level head, and reached an accord with your players amiably. I congratulate you, sir. That's also good to hear that you dropped the appropriate dramatic clues, and the player agreed that he played M against them. An atonement is very appropriate (rather than full alignment shifting or somesuch extreme), and I for one have faith that you're going to come up with something suitably dramatic and appropriate. As to where this thread goes, that's another story entirely. :rolleyes:
Obiwho? 01-15-05, 10:12 AM	If an act does more good than evil, it is good. I think you mean it may be useful, or understandable, or even socially desirable to do an act that does more "Good" than "Evil." This is different from whether the act is "Good" or "Evil". It's often useful, understandable, and even socially desirable to do "Evil", but that does not suddenly make an "Evil" act "Good". Also, presumably there is some other standard you are using to determine whether the act's consequences are "Good" or "Evil". (You have to be able to judge "Good" and "Evil" before you can decide which an act caused more of.) That standard, against which you are judging the consequences of the act, is the absolute "Good" and "Evil" of D&D. In the absence of such moral absolutes, this definition of "Good" would be hopelessly self-referencing.
Derren S. 01-15-05, 11:00 AM	I assume you have houseruled paladins, because paladins don't get their powers from a god and even when they choose to follow one the dogma is secondary. So the god of a paladin is irrelevant in such discussions (To those who say that this should be the first question. It should be no question at all). You said that the paladin didn't know that the amulett controlled V so it is not evil to kill V when downed, only neutral. Not even very careless. So no, the paladin wouldn't have to atone as he didn't know that V changed after the amulett was destroyed and it also wasn't something to be expected. He only would get some serious headaches etc. because he killed V out of revenge, but not enough to loose his powers. If M knew that the amulett controlled V then it would be blackes evil making an atonment nearly impossible.
DInDenver 01-15-05, 12:11 PM	Hi! I think the Paladin is fine, reasons: 1 ) He didn't know that the character was not still evil 2 ) Self defense - If this character was not defeated now, who knows how powerful it would grow the next time he faced him 3 ) Protection of society - If this creature had survived to fight another day, how many more innocents would it kill? No, I will admit, I am not familiar with your campaign. I do not know if there are more soliloquy's in your game so that the two characters in question would have spoken enough lines to have a seen like in Return of the Jedi, so barring some heavy RP oppurtunities, the player did alright. On a completely side note, if the monster was unconscious, or barely conscious, would it be able to ask for mercy or beg for forgiveness?
Vlight 01-15-05, 12:15 PM	I assume you have houseruled paladins, because paladins don't get their powers from a god and even when they choose to follow one the dogma is secondary. The power granted to him was indeed a "special event' scripted into the story, so it doesn't pertain to anything but my own campaign.
BW0222 01-15-05, 12:59 PM	Also, presumably there is some other standard you are using to determine whether the act's consequences are "Good" or "Evil". (You have to be able to judge "Good" and "Evil" before you can decide which an act caused more of.) That standard, against which you are judging the consequences of the act, is the absolute "Good" and "Evil" of D&D. In the absence of such moral absolutes, this definition of "Good" would be hopelessly self-referencing. In the D&D fanasty game, there is no absence of moral absolutes. Folks don't have to sweat out whether someone is good and/or evil. A simple detect evil spell determines this as does know alignment. If you are evil, you are evil. Absolute. People in the campaign also know this. They know that certain creatures are evil. No doubt, no question. Beyond the fact that the MM says "Chaotic Evil" next to the creature, folks know that trolls live under bridges and eat fat merchants. They know red dragons live to burn villages to the ground. They know vampires look for young women on the streets at night in order to kill them in sick rituals. Evil creatures do evil acts. You can be practical and assume that a demon is just evil or that a goblin group roaming the countryside killing people is evil. Asking someone to try subdual every troll, wraith, goblin, etc., then cast detect evil then agonize over whether they can be redeemed, is impractical. It risks them getting away and continuing to do evil things. In most cases, laws don't apply to goblins anyway and if some lord had to write a law for demons, I'm sure it would state "Being an evil monster (... list from MM...) is a death penalty offense." As for the moral uncertainty of whether an action leads to more good or evil, yes that is subjective. However, evil creatures do evil things. Killing an evil creature obviously leads to fewer evil things being done in the world. I honestly doesn't see why it wouldn't be good to stop evil actions from happening. Now, you could be wrong -- maybe you've come across the one demon in a million who if you talked to them nicely would lead a life or virtue handing out food and clothing to street orphans, but let's assume that the paladin has at least as much brains as a gopher and allow him to assume that 99.999% of the time, the demon will continue in it's evil ways -- likely ending up murdering the orphans instead!
Vlight 01-15-05, 01:52 PM	Hi! On a completely side note, if the monster was unconscious, or barely conscious, would it be able to ask for mercy or beg for forgiveness? I suppose the best way to answer that is with a better question: If you were unconscious or barely conscious, and was about to be put to death by your enemy, would you ask for mercy if you so wished to live? The point being is that V was semi-conscious due to 1) currently in the -1 to -10 range and dying, 2) had just had an evil artifact that had been merged to his body for years purged from it, affecting him physically such as one might think of an addict going through severe withdrawl. I suppose one thing I've failed to make clear is that I literally described V as "being completely helpless and barely conscious, bleeding with abandon and gargling on his own blood." At this point, the player of M coined his now famous (or infamous) quotation concerning cutting his head off. I can still recall the look on another player's face and see the sheer shock of that moment as it unfolded. That same player would later recount the tale back to me from his persepective, and say that my mouth literally dropped agape as the player of M made ready to roll his coup de grace damage.
Obiwho? 01-15-05, 03:35 PM	As for the moral uncertainty of whether an action leads to more good or evil, yes that is subjective. However, evil creatures do evil things. Killing an evil creature obviously leads to fewer evil things being done in the world. I honestly doesn't see why it wouldn't be good to stop evil actions from happening. I think you may have missed the point (or were trying to make a different one). No one said killing an Evil creature was wrong. Look over the OP and post 13: the half-ogre was not Evil when the paladin killed him. The paladin killed a helpless defender who was not evil. Modern (and ancient) law might excuse the Paladin's action (based on his prior detect evil, the half-ogre's overt actions, etc.), but that goes to whether the act was Lawful, not whether it was Good, and does not change the fact that the Paladin killed a helpless defender who was not evil. This is the confusion that comes from equating Lawful with Good. Some Evil things are Lawful; some Good things are unLawful. Otherwise, you couldn't have Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good. Note that I am not saying I would be harsh with the Paladin, but he does have to acknowledge that he committed an Evil act (and it sounds like he did - see post 28) and seek forgiveness.
Callista 01-16-05, 02:31 AM	Yep, he did; but unwittingly. The Atonement should be something accomplish-able. Unlawful... Hmmh. That might make sense, if his code had something to say about capturing, rather than killing, downed enemies. Depends on his deity, I suppose. (Speaking of which... what is his deity?) Still, not much of an Atonement. So far as the paladin knew, this guy was evil incarnate; killing something like that while it's unconscious, after it's been trying to kill you, is very, very minor chaotic act; and only if it's against his code in the first place.
Shard of Suzail 01-16-05, 11:05 AM	I had some sympathy with creature until i saw the words "chaotic neutral". There is a paladin prestige class out there in forgotten realms called the justicar of Tyr i think it is (he being the god of justice) that gives the paladin an aura against chaos, detect chaos and smite chaos. Chaotic neutral is as bad as chaotic evil in many ways and paladins should have no sympathy for such types. After all, if we let this fellow get up, dust himself down and go about his business, he`ll probably wander off and kill some farmers in order to get his supplies. Or at the very least he`ll steal the food he needs and take a few extras that look nice, because he can. It's interesting to note that the artifact didnt really change the way he was aligned. An urge for destruction and so on is perfectly fine for a chaotic neutral barbarian mountain type. There are more than enough pillaging wild tribes who have CN in their alignment bracket. Now, if the artifact made him want to torture folks and mutilate them, then thats evil. Just making him go on a rampage is chaotic thing. And who is to say that he didnt stick the thing in his chest on purpose. A liche has a phylactery and would protect that if a paladin came swinging at him, though the circumstances are entirely different. Bobby paladin is dispensing righteous justice on ogre X and we`d all be screaming for his blood if he let ogre x "touch his imbedded rune of teleport" and flee the scene, say. It's a sad thing when someone is possessed by an evil artifact and goes on a rampage for years, yes, but its not the paladins fault. Its also not the paladins gods concern. I dont see knowledge on the domain list of most law gods, but i usually see judgement and war. Even if it isnt the ogres fault, he has still been made a tool of evil and is going to die for it. Fair enough if, in the afterlife, *his* god forgives him and doesnt punish him further. Having someone judged *after death* is a perfectly valid thing in the d and d cosmology. A paladin is not built as an investigator. They dont get know arcane to solve these problems, they dont get investigative skills. They fight things and they put down those wild dogs that are too sick to live (though they may be rabid and not intentionally evil). Fine example, from the film "to kill a mockingbird" where the noble lawyer, pillar of fairness, Atticus finch, who defends black men from racists, has to shoot a rabid dog dead in the street. Sometimes the just and good have to end something's existence for the good of all, no questions asked. By all means, as has been said by previous posters, if the thing had a better alignment and had previously made great and obvious efforts to overcome the device in its chest, then the circumstances are different. As they stand, however, its dog time.
Callista 01-16-05, 12:44 PM	I had some sympathy with creature until i saw the words "chaotic neutral".... Chaotic neutral is as bad as chaotic evil in many ways and paladins should have no sympathy for such types. After all, if we let this fellow get up, dust himself down and go about his business, he`ll probably wander off and kill some farmers in order to get his supplies. Or at the very least he`ll steal the food he needs and take a few extras that look nice, because he can. An urge for destruction and so on is perfectly fine for a chaotic neutral barbarian mountain type. There are more than enough pillaging wild tribes who have CN in their alignment bracket. Now, if the artifact made him want to torture folks and mutilate them, then thats evil. Just making him go on a rampage is chaotic thing. You're too used to Chaotic Insane players, aren't you? (Yeh, I know "Chaotic Insane" is a cliche. So sue me.) CN characters do not go on rampages and kill people. They do not kill farmers for their supplies or pillage towns (killing innocents along the way) for their goods. That is Chaotic. Evil. and don't you forget it. CN characters might have a taste for destruction, but if they do, it'll be for barfights or explosions (and no intent to kill anyone, negligently or otherwise), instead of mass slaughter. LG versus CN? Killing is just not allowed unless there are real mitigating circumstances--say, a CN who is truly insane, whose insanity is about to force him to kill someone, and you can't subdue him for whatever reason. Or it's a matter of being in the middle of a battle; and the CN guy is on the other side (battle is sort of an unspoken agreement... you're going to kill people who don't deserve it; they know it and you know it; and more or less accept it). Like if there's absolutely no other way, and you have to get past him (there usually is--such as smacking him with a sap and tying him up--but I digress). I already said I understand why the paladin, due to lack of knowledge, killed a CN creature he could've subued--he figured on CE, and pretty bad CE at that. But if he *had* known, killing it would have been an evil act instead of just "inadvertently evil act, your conscience hates you, now go get Atonement". Chaotic creatures commit Chaotic acts, sure; but I've yet to see a CN (not CE) act that is deserving of death. Pilfering people's pockets deserves the death penalty? Starting fistfights? Disregard for the local customs? Nope. Killing such people is not LG; it's LE. Any paladin in my campaign who killed CNs at random would have the Blackguard PrC strongly suggested to him, because he certainly isn't acting like a Paladin. As for the Justiciar of Tyr: Essentially, he's a beefed-up policeman. You *do* realize you can smite Chaos with subdual damage, right?--and, in the case of CN/CG, should?
ManinDarkness 01-17-05, 12:44 PM	Wrong. Not killing an evil creature is an evil act. If someone is going to kill dozens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people and you have the power to stop them, it is a good act to do so. Allowing such things to continue is evil. Wrong to you. Not acting is a neutral act. No-one is responsible for the acts of another person. And killing is not the best answer always.
Thoronmir 01-17-05, 12:58 PM	Wrong to you. Not acting is a neutral act. No-one is responsible for the acts of another person. And killing is not the best answer always.While I agree that failing to act is generally not evil, your assertion that refraining from acting is "neutral" overlooks one important circumstance. When the non-actor has a duty to act. For example, if someone was drowning in the pool and you walked by and saw them, you have no duty to act ... unless you happen to be the lifeguard paid to monitor that pool. In that case, you remain culpable for your failure to act.
ManinDarkness 01-17-05, 02:18 PM	While I agree that failing to act is generally not evil, your assertion that refraining from acting is "neutral" overlooks one important circumstance. When the non-actor has a duty to act. For example, if someone was drowning in the pool and you walked by and saw them, you have no duty to act ... unless you happen to be the lifeguard paid to monitor that pool. In that case, you remain culpable for your failure to act. Yet my not-action is not evil, is chaotic.
Callista 01-17-05, 03:57 PM	Hmmm... no, I'd say CE. Killing of innocents is evil; allowing it when you could prevent it by simply going to the nearest temple of (insert Good deity with high level paladins here) and telling someone about it is also Evil. That dependins on whether the evil creature knew you knew about it, and could rat on it, in which case it's just a very self-interested save-my-own-butt CN.