Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Josheva 06-07-06, 09:06 PM	A paladin PC of mine is playing his character very strangely and I am going to take away his powers. While they were adventuring I noticed the paladin's odd, merciless behaviour so I decided to test him. While they were travelling through a mine shaft to get to an orc outpost they were hired to destroy, they found a bunch of rooms dug out by orcs; indicating that they were reaching the surface. As he scouted ahead, the rogue came accross a sleeping orc. He reported back to the paladin who told him to kill it. The scout then found a crippled orc (broken arm) and reported to the paladin. The orc dropped its weapon by accident when he upset the splint on its broken arm so they tried to interrogate it. The orc spit in the paladin's face so they tried to gag him. When he fought, the paladin stepped on his broken arm so he would submit. They eventually killed him. At this point I began seriously thinking about taking his powers away so I put him to the ultimate test. The scout came accross an orcish nursery (a dozen babies and 3 female caregivers). The paladin proceeded to enter the room and slaughter everyone; babies and mothers. The session ended around there so I am going to take away his powers next week. My questions to you are "Why is this evil/not evil," and "At what stage did he cross the line?" If there are any specefic passages you can quote to support either side that would be great.
Neratos 06-07-06, 09:15 PM	The paladin oath is a tricky thing. Could you answer a few questions Did he Detect evil in the nursery/prisoner/sleeping guy? Did he give the orc prisoner a warning before breaking his arm? Did he take pleasure in torturing the orc? What info was he trying to get out of the orc? Depending on the answers i could go either way
CryoSilver 06-07-06, 09:40 PM	What deity does he follow? If he's, say, a paladin of St. Cuthbert, I'd say let him keep his powers, though if he's a paladin of Pelor, bring on the power-taking.
Josheva 06-07-06, 09:55 PM	He did not use detect evil on anything. If he had, I would not have made the babies glow (to me, alignment is not determined until age 6, and even then its shaky until age 12). He did not break the orcs arm, they found him like that. He just used the situation to cause the orc pain so he would stay still. No warning was given before they attacked him or before they hurt him further. He didn't sing songs of glee or take visual pleasure but he showed no restraint in hurting the orc. I don't rightly know what info they were trying to get, but it was likely about the layout of the tunnels considering the situation they were in. They have a map of the above ground of the camp. They also might've wanted to know who their leader was, but the truth is that I don't know; my players like to "wing it." They likely did not know themselves and would just let the questions come to them in the heat of the moment. He is actually a paladin of St.Cuthbert and was saying that his savagery was retribution for the crippled orc spitting at him. By the way, the reason I reacted the way I did to the first two was because of the paladin's, while short, merciless history. Last session they fond a goblin camp and the paladin insisted on killing a goblin that turned himself over to them and begged for history. While the party monk tried to protect the goblin, the paladin kept taking swings at it. After the paladin proved that hiding behind the monks legs wasn't enough, the goblin dove under a tent that they collapsed like a kid under his bedsheets. The paladin listened to the goblins whimpers as he set fire to te tent and let the goblin burn to death (he did do a detect evil this time and the goblin did glow, thats why i didn't reprimand him).
Archmage_Vall 06-07-06, 10:21 PM	I don't think St. Cuthbert would have a problem with the way he handled the situation with the crippled orc, but the nusery would be a different story. What crimes did those kids and their caretakers commit to deserve the retribution the paladin dispensed?
Reversefigure4 06-07-06, 10:33 PM	Ah, ye olde game of "Spank the Paladin". It strikes me as a bit harsh to suddenly shout "Ah haha, you lose all your powers!", particularly when you delibrately set the situation up assuming he'd do that. Is he breaking his code as a Paladin of St Cuthbert? Does Cuthbert give a code to your Paladins in your world? Does it say "Don't kill babies, even monstrous babies, because alignment doesn't kick in until age 6" ? I'm betting you're the only one that knows that. I'm not saying what the Pally is doing is good, but yanking all his powers without the slightest warning is just harsh. Go for something a bit more medium - St Cuthbert's herald appears to him in a dream, and cautions him against his rash actions (also conviniently outlining the code he is to follow, which you and the player should set up together), and he loses his powers for a day or so. When he keeps ON torturing and killing, even when St Cuthbert tells him not to, then it's goodbye powers.
Drachasor 06-07-06, 10:43 PM	At first I thought he might of just gotten carried away with hacking and slashing. That happened with my brother's Paladin in the first session we played of a campaign. Similar thing with slaughtering a bunch of defenseless goblins. It only happened once though and we retconned it since it retrospect it was more than a little bizarre. Sounds like this guy is justifying his behavior (whereas my brother was embarrased when it was latter pointed out). It sounds like you've talked to him out of the game on numerous occasions about this sort of thing which is good. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like he is taking to any of the talk. Killing prisoners and babies is not cool. The player doesn't think that those races are irredeemably evil, does he? (I have had DMs that have considered goblinoids such, and therefore didn't bat an eye at their young dying). Anyhow, try talking to him one more time. If he doesn't budge then you'll have to take his powers away. Perhaps you should ask him if he'd rather play a different character? Seems like a Barbarian might be more up his ally (perhaps). -Drachasor
AZNsupermarket 06-07-06, 10:47 PM	2 things: give the player warning either in game as his diety talking to him or out of game privately, so he's not surprised and angry when it happens. You might want to go over with him out of the game what oaths his particular paladin has taken. Ideas for if he breaks his oath: maybe he'll become a variant corrupt paladin from Heroes of Horror or He'll become a variant LE or CE (probably not CG) paladin from Unearthed Arcana.
Neratos 06-07-06, 11:27 PM	He did not use detect evil on anything. If he had, I would not have made the babies glow (to me, alignment is not determined until age 6, and even then its shaky until age 12). He did not break the orcs arm, they found him like that. He just used the situation to cause the orc pain so he would stay still. No warning was given before they attacked him or before they hurt him further. He didn't sing songs of glee or take visual pleasure but he showed no restraint in hurting the orc. I don't rightly know what info they were trying to get, but it was likely about the layout of the tunnels considering the situation they were in. They have a map of the above ground of the camp. They also might've wanted to know who their leader was, but the truth is that I don't know; my players like to "wing it." They likely did not know themselves and would just let the questions come to them in the heat of the moment. He is actually a paladin of St.Cuthbert and was saying that his savagery was retribution for the crippled orc spitting at him. By the way, the reason I reacted the way I did to the first two was because of the paladin's, while short, merciless history. Last session they fond a goblin camp and the paladin insisted on killing a goblin that turned himself over to them and begged for history. While the party monk tried to protect the goblin, the paladin kept taking swings at it. After the paladin proved that hiding behind the monks legs wasn't enough, the goblin dove under a tent that they collapsed like a kid under his bedsheets. The paladin listened to the goblins whimpers as he set fire to te tent and let the goblin burn to death (he did do a detect evil this time and the goblin did glow, thats why i didn't reprimand him). The problem i see is that he is killing those who are in his way, and just doing ethnic clensing. Which is not St Guthberts M O. The killing of the inocent children is the major break in ethics. A child is a child, if they had radiated evil then he is okay in doing it, Shadowbane Inquisitor would get away with it in either case. Perhaps you should suggest that Prc for him, since he is almost playing one now.
Gedrin 06-07-06, 11:45 PM	1. Specifically creating an "alignment trap" is generally a bad move. Making one up on the fly is definately not the thing to do. 2. Be sure your player understands that your Orcs are not the same as Tolkien Orcs. In Tolkien, Orcs are actually wholely corrupted and spawned of evil. In your game, I assume, there might even be good orcs out there. 3. If you plan to take his powers, I'm going to assume that you've exposed the characters to the orcs in your world that are good or at least neutral. I mean, it would be wrong if every single time they met an orc it attacked them with murderous intent...and then suddenly the PC's found the one group of orcs that just happened to have a hope for a non-evil future. Certainly, after meeting some of these noble orcs, no one could assume that all orc children are doomed to evil. What's that? You've never had the PC's encounter a single orc until now that wasn't trying to kill them all in a murderous fury? Oh...
Neratos 06-07-06, 11:52 PM	Actually Greyhawk orcs are usually evil if remember right, Eberron orcs can be anything, don't know about faerun. But on average it is a good idea to detect evil on the baby humanoids, humanoids are usually taught their alignment rather than born with it.
Amon_WinterfallIV 06-08-06, 02:08 AM	Invariably, problems with paladins and their codes emerge because of the following: THE DM DIDN'T TELL THE PALADIN WHAT EXACTLY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AS PART OF THEIR PALADIN CODE! The alignment spiel is moot, because this is a communication issue. You, the DM, need to decide: Are Orcs irreedeemably evil? If they are, slaughting infant orcs is fair game. If not, do the players understand this? They are supposed to be living, breathing people in your world, missing something like "Orcs are always evil" is a BIG ERROR on the DMs part. If you can honestly answer that the Paladin KNEW better (on both counts), then you grounds for permanent de-paladinification. Otherwise, warn and inform the player. He's in your world, so act accordingly.
Atirakis 06-08-06, 02:35 AM	Gods dont care about whether you KNEW better then to do something or not. They care about your actions and nothing more. If they further the Gods cause then you are rewarded, if they hinder or contradict the Gods cause then you are punished, perhaps irridemably.
pres_man 06-08-06, 02:39 AM	He did not use detect evil on anything. If he had, I would not have made the babies glow (to me, alignment is not determined until age 6, and even then its shaky until age 12). I agree with others, is this common knowledge in your games or is this something you consider "common sense"? Frankly since you didn't cause any difficulty with killing the goblin, in a pretty horrible fashion by the way, you basically told the player that anyone that is not on his side is fair game. And thus the game has gotten here. My suggest give him nightmares about being covered head to toe with blood and dead children of various races around him and a sword in his hand covered in their blood, a devil is laughing in the background telling him, "Well done my new apprentice." As for taking his powers away, I wouldn't yet, but if he has a mount, his mount won't answer his call until he gets atonement (with a quest no less, something with saving some "monstrous" people from some danger). Talk to him out of game, before any of this, state your concerns and his behaviour. Make it clear he is going to fall should this behaviour continue. You may find out that he had a wrong impression of the game (all non-allies are fair game), or perhaps he even wants to fall (wants to become a blackguard or something) and is wondering why you haven't shifted his alignment, who knows until you talk to him. By the way if anyone else in the party worships a good god and were present for the killing of the children, then they should have dreams too. Having said all of that, if you intend your players to not kill all of the creatures they come across then you had better put in place a means for them to deal with them besides killing them. "Don't kill helpless evil prisoners!" "Ok, where can we take them to turn them over to someone to be cared for?" "Oh, nobody wants them as they aren't citizens of the other lands or even doing anything in them, if the other lands took them, they would just be killed anyway." "So we can't kill them, but there is nothing else we can do with them." "Yup." "Right, well I didn't want to be good anyway, ex-paladin CN rogue here I come!"
Vaelan 06-08-06, 04:09 AM	This is the basic conflict Good characters experience. On one hand, you're supposed to protect the innocent. This means killing "monsters". On the other hand, you're supposed to respect sentient life. This means not killing "monsters". You need to figure out which aspect of Goodness is more important. Both choices are equally justified in reason, with preference, or sometimes ignorance and tradition, being the determining factor. If you decide that respecting sentient life is more important than protecting the innocent, then have someone warn him that his past deeds have been less than ideal, saving a loss of powers for a future offense. Personally, I opt for a moral code that is unlike the one my players practice. This tends to make them think about the morality of their actions a bit more and introduces themes that are usually left untouched in your average game.
lokilowkey 06-08-06, 05:41 AM	There was a captured kobold in my campaign who needed to be interrogated. The CN character used torture to do so. The pally was an inexperienced player who responded to my hints that torture is a nono resolved this by going for a walk, ie he couldn’t stomach it. Of course this is not good enough, but this was a new player. So, between sessions, I wrote up a ‘dream’that he had and gave it to him (was about a page). The dream focused on the kobold and his family, his wife warning him that she had a bad feeling, the male saying that he had no choice for fear of punishment, and them parting in tears. This a- showcased the ‘other side’ and made it clear that this kobold did not deserve torture and might even have been good, and b- gave me a nice way to introduce some info about the kobold command structure. The pallys deity then took away the detect evil power until it was clear that both the player and his character understood that actions have consequences, but more importantly nonactions also have consequences. So, I would suggest the same. Have the deity take away a power temporarily as a warning, no need to take away everything the first time. And of course talking to the player, a lot.
terrainmonkey 06-08-06, 08:22 AM	okay, i'll bite first off, You as a DM need to really stop and consider this before you take his powers. the paladin can justify everything he did here, by the rules, and within the context of his god, Saint Cuthbert. Here's how. The tenets of the faith of saint cuthbert are justice, devotion to duty, and the destruction of evil and chaos. Orcs are chaotic evil. they demand no mercy at all. whether they register on the evilmeter or not makes no difference to the paladin who is charged with destroying evil. Sure, stepping on the guys arm was a little much, but hardly worthy of having powers stripped because the orc was a chaotic being and is undeserving of kindness. Now we get on to the orc younglings. perfectly fine. i would have done the same. A dead orc child is one i don't have to fight later. like i said, orcs are vermin and under no circumstances should any of them in a tribe be allowed to live. That's how i would see it as a player, and as a DM, and a Player of paladins for a while now. i would have no problem with a pally in my group doing the same. I don't think you should strip his powers at all. he remains lawful good, but yes, show him the shadowbane inquisitor because that sounds like it would be more to his liking and there are far fewer alignment problems with it. the goblin incident, that's something else, though. a goblin who surrenders to you is good for information. maybe you can take him under your wing and make him change his evil ways and show him the errors of evil. the orc young and mothers? vermin, exterminate them. its the only way to be sure they don't come back and become foes later on.
wrecan 06-08-06, 09:30 AM	I decided to test him.... I began seriously thinking about taking his powers away so I put him to the ultimate test.... Okay, here's my advice. Talk to your player about what behavior you expect his paladin to follow. Clearly you did not do this and now you're in a jam. This is your jam and your fault because it's your game and your responsibility. Do not punish a player's character because you screwed up. If the player doesn't like the restrictions you're placing on his character after the fact, allow him a free rewrite of his character. Again, this could have been avoided if you had actually talked to him about his character before approving it for play. You didn't and now you have to make it right. If he agrees to play the paladin the way you explain it to him and then he violates your rules, then and only then may you yank the palaidn's players. This is not about alignment or the rules. This is about being a good DM and communicating with your players.
LouSapphire 06-08-06, 09:36 AM	Stepping on Orc's arm = Torture. Doesn't matter that the creature was evil as wilful torture is an evil act. It's not nuetral, it's deffinately not good. Killing a prisoner (somone who has surrendered) = Evil. It could be argued a neutral act, but never a good act. He is showing no compassion for sentient beings, nor any mercy or kindess. As a good person he is meant to do so. The tenets of the faith of saint cuthbert are justice, devotion to duty, and the destruction of evil and chaos. Orcs are chaotic evil. they demand no mercy at all. whether they register on the evilmeter or not makes no difference to the paladin who is charged with destroying evil. Sure, stepping on the guys arm was a little much, but hardly worthy of having powers stripped because the orc was a chaotic being and is undeserving of kindness. Now we get on to the orc younglings. perfectly fine. i would have done the same. A dead orc child is one i don't have to fight later. like i said, orcs are vermin and under no circumstances should any of them in a tribe be allowed to live. That's how i would see it as a player, and as a DM, and a Player of paladins for a while now. i would have no problem with a pally in my group doing the same. For a LN Cleric/Fighter I could maybe agree with the above, but for a LG Paladin, charged with upholding GOOD there is no way I would let it slide. Where do you draw the line? Massacreing Half Orcs in towns? Picking Orc Babies up and beating them off walls? The above justification would be really good for someone wanting to roleplay the fall into Blackgaurd, but not for someone that expects to stay as a paladin. As a Leaving note I would like to quote the 7 Cardinal Virtues, the traits that good people are meant to uphold and encourage other people to adhere to. And the 7 Contrary Virtues, which are the direct conterpart to the 7 deadly sings. Cardinal : faith, hope, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance, prudence Contrary : humility, kindness, abstinence, chastity, patience, generosity, and diligence
danielinthewolvesden 06-08-06, 10:53 AM	A paladin PC of mine is playing his character very strangely and I am going to take away his powers. While they were adventuring I noticed the paladin's odd, merciless behaviour so I decided to test him. At this point I began seriously thinking about taking his powers away so I put him to the ultimate test. The scout came accross an orcish nursery (a dozen babies and 3 female caregivers). The paladin proceeded to enter the room and slaughter everyone; babies and mothers. The session ended around there so I am going to take away his powers next week. My questions to you are "Why is this evil/not evil," and "At what stage did he cross the line?" If there are any specefic passages you can quote to support either side that would be great. He didn't cross the line, you did- when you created a trap for him, without telling the Player what you expected from a paladin, and without having Cuthbert tell the paladin in dreams and during moring prayers what Cuthbert wants. Since you have a strong concept of what it means to be a Paladin (bordering on Exalted), here's what you need to do: 1. Talk to your player and explain what you think paladins should do and how they should act. 2. Have Cuthbert explain the same in a dream, and with a warning. 3. Get a Phylactery of Faithfulness into that Paladins by any means possible, including waking up with one in his hands, and then using it as a DM tool. Thus, the paladin will never have to worry about conforming to your ideas of Good, the Phlyactery will warn him before he does anything off alignment. In fact, for most DM's with strong ideas of Good their Paladins all need one of those handy items- either give one out for free, or require it be bought- or require the Feat which duplicates it, or even give that feat for free to new paladins.
bitnine 06-08-06, 11:06 AM	You know, there was a very long and involved thread about nearly this very subject a while ago, and it's right here if you want to take a read.
Cantankerous 06-08-06, 11:22 AM	I really don't like alignment traps. They're juvenile for the most part, but even before the trap this guy was acting almost as paladial as Dirty Harry. The Paladin is the paragon of Lawful GOOD. Period. A single evil act, and killing a being that is not Evil, without great need, is just plain and simple Evil, Evil, Evil. I do NOT agree with "alignment tests" anymore than anyone else here, less so than most, but this yahoo needs a good wake up call. A decent Atonement would be to seek out an orcish family known to be Good of Alignment and act as their menial servant for a period of six months as a sort of "metaphysical weregild", in penance for the first Evil act, torturing the Orc who spat in his face. If he had slugged the guy back, non-lethal damage, just halled off and punched a few of his teeth loose, that would have had ZERO Alignment conflict. At worst such an act would be morally Neutral. Stepping on the broken arm though...torture, period and end of discussion, and torture is NEVER acceptable to Good. Whether the supposed reason is Good or not (and here the Paladin couldn't even have claimed that) torture is ALWAYS beyond the pale; it's plain and simple, an act of Evil. End of Paladial status until he had Atoned right there. Do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred hossanahs. The "nursery bit" only high lights ONE THING, that BOTH of you, not just he, need to figure out what a Paladin is before one gets in the game. Then you as DM need to figure out what your job is and quit with the Daddy act. Isshia
terrainmonkey 06-08-06, 12:00 PM	okay, here's the thing. while i agree that the orc arm breaking was a bit torturous, the guy did spit in the pally's face, thus insulting his honor. that's fine and dandy. With the younglings, they're vermin. what part of chaotic evil do you not understand. it's the eternal fight between diametrically opposed alignments. throw a bunch of alchemist fire in the nest and destroy them like the rats they are. i see no problem with this at all. hell, set up a wall of fire at the entrance and burn them out. anyone who survives, put to the sword. it's the only way to be sure. but i agree with most. setting up alignment tests for paladins suck. they should come out during the game in a normal manner, not thrown at the character to "test" what he should do so you can strip his powers. that's wrong, and as a DM you should be ashamed of yourself.
pres_man 06-08-06, 12:15 PM	what part of chaotic evil do you not understand. it's the eternal fight between diametrically opposed alignments. This part: ORC Alignment: Often chaotic evil and this part: Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.
LouSapphire 06-08-06, 12:19 PM	okay, here's the thing. while i agree that the orc arm breaking was a bit torturous, the guy did spit in the pally's face, thus insulting his honor. that's fine and dandy. 2 Points. A good character should turn the other cheek, not turn round and run the cripple through. Secondly spitting in the face is equates to getting killed? Only if the Orc had concealed a weapon and attacked the paladin could he have killed him with no consequences. Killing him for spitting in his face is way above acceptable reactions for a GOOD character. With the younglings, they're vermin. what part of chaotic evil do you not understand. it's the eternal fight between diametrically opposed alignments. throw a bunch of alchemist fire in the nest and destroy them like the rats they are. i see no problem with this at all. hell, set up a wall of fire at the entrance and burn them out. anyone who survives, put to the sword. it's the only way to be sure. A bigot might agree with you, an exemplar of good who shows Mercy, Compassion and believes in Redemption would shake his head sadly and leave you alone, hoping that when you grew up you would realise that all life is sacred. As a good character you are expected to offer people the chance to surrender and redeem themselves, their race and alignment shouldn;t come into it. Note this does not mean that they should always be nieve and gullable, given someone a chance is ok, there is no 2nd chance. but i agree with most. setting up alignment tests for paladins suck. they should come out during the game in a normal manner, not thrown at the character to "test" what he should do so you can strip his powers. that's wrong, and as a DM you should be ashamed of yourself. Agreed it's a bad idea, nut I don;t think he should be ashamed off himself, putting players into situations is a DM's Job, hell in and white wolf or Ravenloft game this type of thing is encouraged :) PS. I'm not going against your directly, just trying to put my point accross and you seem like you want to debate this topic :)
terrainmonkey 06-08-06, 12:39 PM	PS. I'm not going against your directly, just trying to put my point accross and you seem like you want to debate this topic and i completely understand. now, let me give you some background on why i feel the way i do. IMC, there is a massive, and i mean MASSIVE, invasion of orcs in the main dominated goodly country. basically, these creatures are despoiling the land, enslaving the populace, and killing those who don't fall into line, or fight them in some way. they live without honor, and they expect none in return. The queen of the realms, ElDona, has instructed all good peoples to fight and destroy these orcs in ANY form they may take. They are to be given no quarter, even younglings. those orcs who are disabled in some way should be slain immediately, and if this happens from the sword of a paladin, so be it. there are no alignment penalties with this at all. Now, having said that, i realize this is not my world. so i would have to change my position and agree somewhat about the kililng of the helpless orc with the broken arm. If he surrendered, he should be given the opportunity to do whatever the Pally wishes to do with him. toture is right out. now, on to the younglings. if the DM has set it up that the young were not evil, and were non combatants, therein lies the slippery slope. what do you do? kill them and end the possibility of them rising as warriors later to kill and destroy the populace, or leave them be and worry about the consequences of thier actions later. surely, suggesting that the pally take them all under his wing and try to raise them as good peoples is not going to work. he can't leave them because they will now turn evil and go on to the slaughter of the nearby townsfolk. there's really no right answer. the easiest approach is to kill them all and if your god has any problem with it, maybe you can go to the church and see if your god wants you to attone for it. that's the problem with this eternal debate. if you leave them it's a bad idea. if you kill them, you may end up having to attone. that's why you only make this mistake once as a DM and from that point on never have youngling of any race in a game unless they are a good race and are not potential combatants. IMC, i let pally's get away with a lot of things that most people wouldn't let fly. the youngling killing would be no problem in my world. "do it to them before they do it to us" is the motto of most of my good guys anyway. i have on epaladin in my game as a player right now and he's doing okay so far. he's accepting surrender, he's being diplomatic, he is using non lethal damage to take down bad guys that are running away, and in a town he is tieing people up and giving them to the guards, as befits a warrior with honor and all that jazz. i wonder what he would do in the case of the younglings. i may have to try it out and see.
LouSapphire 06-08-06, 01:09 PM	and i completely understand. now, let me give you some background on why i feel the way i do. I didn't think you were the type to take offence, but I've found it's best to include a disclaimer when debating with someone on these forums, some people can take things far to personally :rolleyes: IMC, there is a massive, and i mean MASSIVE, invasion of orcs in the main dominated goodly country. basically, these creatures are despoiling the land, enslaving the populace, and killing those who don't fall into line, or fight them in some way. they live without honor, and they expect none in return. The queen of the realms, ElDona, has instructed all good peoples to fight and destroy these orcs in ANY form they may take. They are to be given no quarter, even younglings. those orcs who are disabled in some way should be slain immediately, and if this happens from the sword of a paladin, so be it. there are no alignment penalties with this at all. In that situation you're dealing with a war, in war you don;t have the time for niceties that you would usually have. I personally believe that in a war it's up to them to surrender, not up to you to offer. Unless you have a large prison that is capable of holding the amout of orcs it's not feasable. Non combatants I still feel differently about, if when encountered they raise arms and attack then they die, if they surrender immediatly I don't think they could be killed without an ethical dilema. Now, having said that, i realize this is not my world. so i would have to change my position and agree somewhat about the kililng of the helpless orc with the broken arm. If he surrendered, he should be given the opportunity to do whatever the Pally wishes to do with him. toture is right out. We're in agreement :) now, on to the younglings. if the DM has set it up that the young were not evil, and were non combatants, therein lies the slippery slope. what do you do? kill them and end the possibility of them rising as warriors later to kill and destroy the populace, or leave them be and worry about the consequences of thier actions later. surely, suggesting that the pally take them all under his wing and try to raise them as good peoples is not going to work. he can't leave them because they will now turn evil and go on to the slaughter of the nearby townsfolk. there's really no right answer. the easiest approach is to kill them all and if your god has any problem with it, maybe you can go to the church and see if your god wants you to attone for it. that's the problem with this eternal debate. if you leave them it's a bad idea. if you kill them, you may end up having to attone. that's why you only make this mistake once as a DM and from that point on never have youngling of any race in a game unless they are a good race and are not potential combatants. I agree that's it's a bad situation to be in, chances are if you leave them are are going to grow up hating the humans that killed their fine parents who were only defending their families etc.. But what do you do with them? Stick them in a bag of holding and open an orc orphanage? Give them a holy book instead of their "100 ways to cook humans" colouring books and hope for the best? I can honeslty say I have no idea what I would have done, IC no char of mine that wasn;t evil would have killed the youngsters, tbh I would prolly have left them unless I knew I had somewhere I could take them so they wouldn't die. I know I would have been worried about them being a future problem, but I would have also hoped that they would have grown up and not been "evil" IMC, i let pally's get away with a lot of things that most people wouldn't let fly. the youngling killing would be no problem in my world. "do it to them before they do it to us" is the motto of most of my good guys anyway. i have on epaladin in my game as a player right now and he's doing okay so far. he's accepting surrender, he's being diplomatic, he is using non lethal damage to take down bad guys that are running away, and in a town he is tieing people up and giving them to the guards, as befits a warrior with honor and all that jazz. i wonder what he would do in the case of the younglings. i may have to try it out and see. I'm the exact opposite, I hold Paladins to an almost Exalted lvl of goodness in my games, except in extreme circumstances will I allow a player to do something questionable without making a note on my notes. This doesn't mean I strip Paladinhood easily though, a good god should hold the same virtues that he expects the Paladin to. The first infraction will result in dreams, if the Pala shows he is genuinely sorry about the act it's scrubbed. 2nd infringment is a -1 to his divine grace until he performs a minor act of attonement (left to the character to decide), 3rd time is removal of Divine Grace until a major attonement (can be spell induced), 4th (or a Major infringement ie Massacreing innocent people that are known not to be evil) is immediate removal of powers and a quest to get them back. That paladin in your game is playing the way I would expect a Paladin to play, would be interested in knowing how he would handle the situation myself.
The man they call Boxhead 06-08-06, 01:39 PM	The pallys deity then took away the detect evil power until it was clear that both the player and his character understood that actions have consequences, but more importantly nonactions also have consequences. I'd recommend something like this solution, only I'd remove his smite ability for a couple of days. Removing the detect evil ability is just going to cause more problems.
Molitor 06-08-06, 02:46 PM	I'll tell you how I handle it in my game. Any critter that has 'evil' in it's alignment is fair game for the Paladin. Anything more than that and you are asking for trouble. It's best to just simplifiy it.
Lord Ian Stark 06-08-06, 02:56 PM	Josheva, obviously you and the Paladin never sat down and talked about what you both think a Paladin is and come to terms on a certain play style. Does he have a code other than the vague PH one? It seems that you and the player weren't really ready to have a Paladin in your game as you've done what you've done. Instead of testing/screwing the Paladin player, perhaps you should've sat down with him after the first "odd" or "questionable" act and asked what he thinks a Paladin is and tell him how you want a Paladin played in your game. My advice is have the player make a new character that's not a Paladin and be done with it. An alternative is actualy talk with your players and let them know how you think they should be played so they can decide if they want to play like that or make another classed character.
wrecan 06-08-06, 03:54 PM	What he said. (Since it's basically what I said. ;) )
Cantankerous 06-09-06, 02:02 AM	Paladins are NOT expected to simply "turn the other cheek". These guys are warriors. Warriors for Good, yes, but still warriors. If you're stupid enough to spit in ones face, you will find yourself on the business end of a heavily knuckled fist. That is a proportionate response. Torturing the guy is not. I find NO WHERE in the RAW where it is supported AT ALL that a Paladin may comit Evil acts if someone insults his honor. That is the lamest excuse imaginable. Of course, that's what is being taught to young people nowadays; use the lamest excuses imaginable and all is ok, as long as you have it ready to hand, shout it loud enough and maybe wave the flag a bit while you do it, ANYTHING is permissible, but I digress. Paladins, thank god, are not elected meglomaniacs. They are held ALWAYS to a single standard. They may do NO Evil. None. Not even once. Not if they have their faces spat in; not if they have their mothers faces spat in, not if they catch a CE Orcie taking a dump on beloved old grand mama's grave. It is NEVER ok to commit an act of Evil, by the RAW, for a Paladin. Torture is an Evil act. It's a definably Evil act. The Paly who pulls it isn't one any more. Not until he Atones... and that Atonement should be heavy. At the same time, a Paladin is NOT a Ghandian Pacifist. A Paladin is a warrior. Short of an Evil act, he's free to do whatever he feels is apprpriate to the situation. If popping Mssr le Spitter in the mouth with a hard swung fist pops to mind, he should bloody well feel free...and the DM who questions THAT response needs to reread the defintions for Good, Evil, and the Paladin class. Isshia
LouSapphire 06-09-06, 02:47 AM	Paladins are NOT expected to simply "turn the other cheek". These guys are warriors. Warriors for Good, yes, but still warriors. If you're stupid enough to spit in ones face, you will find yourself on the business end of a heavily knuckled fist. That is a proportionate response. Torturing the guy is not. I find NO WHERE in the RAW where it is supported AT ALL that a Paladin may comit Evil acts if someone insults his honor. That is the lamest excuse imaginable. Of course, that's what is being taught to young people nowadays; use the lamest excuses imaginable and all is ok, as long as you have it ready to hand, shout it loud enough and maybe wave the flag a bit while you do it, ANYTHING is permissible, but I digress. Paladins, thank god, are not elected meglomaniacs. They are held ALWAYS to a single standard. They may do NO Evil. None. Not even once. Not if they have their faces spat in; not if they have their mothers faces spat in, not if they catch a CE Orcie taking a dump on beloved old grand mama's grave. It is NEVER ok to commit an act of Evil, by the RAW, for a Paladin. Torture is an Evil act. It's a definably Evil act. The Paly who pulls it isn't one any more. Not until he Atones... and that Atonement should be heavy. At the same time, a Paladin is NOT a Ghandian Pacifist. A Paladin is a warrior. Short of an Evil act, he's free to do whatever he feels is apprpriate to the situation. If popping Mssr le Spitter in the mouth with a hard swung fist pops to mind, he should bloody well feel free...and the DM who questions THAT response needs to reread the defintions for Good, Evil, and the Paladin class. Isshia So if someone is restrained and spits at a Pala they are justified in hitting them in the face? Personally I disagree, but as I've pointed out I expect paladins, being the exemplars of Good, to play to an almost Exalted lvl of goodness. This means they have to show certian virtues, Temperance being one of them. Someone one promoting that virtue should not lower himself to strike someone for spitting on them, a harmless yet irritating act. But I agree with your last statement, they are not pacifists, they are holy warriors charging with protecting good from Evil and promoting good behavior whereever they go. I do disagree that they can preform any act that is not evil, they should always look for the good option and only resort to violence when it's unavoidable (note to anyone wanting to be ****, this does not mean that the paladin should walk away from ppl if a fight might start, just that he should look for other options other than violence if there is a chance). But yea, this is mainly due to me having a very strong view on what I consider a Paladin, and I can fully understand other peoples reasonings.
Traevanon 06-09-06, 07:52 AM	I love just watching these threads float by but at the same time I cant resist jumping in. I have just one question: What did this band of orcs do that caused someone to hire the PCs to kill them?
Cantankerous 06-09-06, 08:27 AM	A couple of points: What did this band of orcs do that caused someone to hire the PCs to kill them? Answer: It doesn't matter one whit. Why not? Sir Bhaerven: "They are outlaws, theives, murderers. Thrice just since that unholy band arrived in the Silanthere Wood there have been folk gone missing. One farmstead near the border of the wood is emptied of people. All of them , four men and older boys, three women and the farmers grand mother, old beyond the count of years; all are gone. Dreasden, a hunter in my service, found the tracks of half a dozen orcs right near by, and you know what murderous bastards orcs are. Great circumstantial evidence. It might even seem to the contracting party as though the orcs are repsonsible. Maybe they even are, or some of them anyway. Again though, it doesn’t matter one whit. I know, again, recently our world leaders have been attempting to teach us that it’s all well and fine to cluster bomb suburbs where “terrorists” are supposedly located to get the “terrorists” and if a few children get themselves shredded, well, they should have had the good sense not to be born in such a horrible country. Of course, with those “terrorists”, were the shoe on the other foot and were they good mom and pop citizens in Iowa or Dresden, or Nottingham Shire then they’d be called freedom fighters, or patriotic citizens instead of terrorists, or, if the press is being kind, “insurgents”; but forget about that too. This thankfully is D&D, a place where it IS Evil to slaughter even ONE innocent child, irregardless of who his parents are. Period. Point two on the Paly. Hi Lou, What you should do and what you can do are two different things. But even SHOULD do is very open to interpretation. The Judeo-Christian mindset Paladin is NOT the only one possible under the D&D rules. Turn the other cheek, however, is a corner stone of the IDEAL of that mindset. The dharmayuddha ideal though would demand a physical repsonse and it is FULLY in line with the Paladial Code as per the RAW. Is the RAW that needs consideration here, not SOLELY the Judeo-Christian mindset. Isshia
LouSapphire 06-09-06, 08:51 AM	Hi Lou, What you should do and what you can do are two different things. But even SHOULD do is very open to interpretation. The Judeo-Christian mindset Paladin is NOT the only one possible under the D&D rules. Turn the other cheek, however, is a corner stone of the IDEAL of that mindset. The dharmayuddha ideal though would demand a physical repsonse and it is FULLY in line with the Paladial Code as per the RAW. Is the RAW that needs consideration here, not SOLELY the Judeo-Christian mindset. Isshia Hey :) Good point. As in everything else in DnD this comes down to a difference in interpretation and a difference in what we expect. While in game I would not penalise a player immediatly for attacking the orc for spitting on him, I would make it clear that repeated behavior will be frowned apon. But again I digress, you are indeed correct, this should be about the RAW and not personal interpretation (and one that is admitable bias and harsh) of the Paladin Code. Was so much easier in 2e when looking at an old lady funny would loose you your paladinhood :P I'm gonna do a bit of research into dharmayuddha as it may sit better with the players in my games (and the DM's in games I play in).
Traevanon 06-09-06, 09:12 AM	Of course it matters. - If they (as a group) have been pillaging the villages and burning the fields of local farmers for fun then the Orcs (as a group) are evil. - If a new Duke wants to build a castle on land where orc tribes have caves, then the Orcs (as a group) are neutral. - If the Orcs have been trying to free their relatives from slavery at the hands of this new Duke who is using them to build his castle, then the Orcs (as a group) are good. The paladin has taken on the mission to destroy the Orcs as a group. I simply want to establish the relative moral compass of this society of orcs. Actually tribe of orcs is not merely a group of individuals, it is a society. When societies are at war there are usually combatants and non-combatants. It is okay to eliminate a combatant on the other side of the conflict regardless of their alignment. Non-combatants must of course not take up arms, and it is expected that they will be not be eliminated by enemy combatants. The issue of whether non-combatants are protected in the alignment section [Good and Evil] of RaW is debatable, but it does at least exist in the Paladin's Code section. Since we are dealing with Paladins, the combatant/non-combatant issue becomes relevant. Back to what the Orcs did, it comes down to the question of local authority, another part of the Paladin's Code. Is he fighting for a good cause against others of evil cause, is he fighting for evil against good or some mixture of the two? And here is another question for you: In D&D when a Cure Light Wounds spell can take a normal orc from unconscious to fully healed what is the relevence of the crippled orc? Lastly, I find this quote interesting:This thankfully is D&D, a place where it IS Evil to slaughter even ONE innocent child, irregardless of who his parents are. Period.Essentially you are saying that it is Evil to kill Good in an Evil manner, which is a bigtime straw man. This nice black and white statement becomes a bit more questionable though when you remove the morally colored words. Try defending this one instead:This [...] is D&D, a place where it IS Evil to kill even ONE [...] child, irregardless of who his parents are. Period.
pres_man 06-09-06, 11:15 AM	Cantankerous: Your crazy is showing, please keep it in check. Nobody wants a thread locked because you can't control your crazy. Also nobody wants to discuss RL issues about how the invention of the catapult allowed armies to target areas indiscriminate of combatants or non-combatants present. As for the real topic. It makes no difference what the orc group is doing, what matters is how a paladin conducts himself in his interactions. Does he act in a lawful good manner? Does he act with honor (sooo much honor in putting baby orcs on pikes isn't there?), honesty, and respect for life? Of course the DM should keep in mind the motivations of the orcs so as to have them act appropriately. How does two good parties not hurt each other when one has been decieved about the intentions of the other? Let's say a paladin has been told and convinced that there is a group of child murderers in a building and they are holding children and going to kill them. Inside is really a group of good heroes that are going to overthrow the evil lord of the land who uses magic to decieve others into believing him good. The paladin breaks in and is faced with armed foes, does he start hacking into them? Do they start hacking into him, an armed agent of the evil lord? Good rarely sees killing as a desired outcome, thus both groups would attempt to find some non-lethal option and that is how it becomes known that both are actually good. Now if neutral was involved, death still might have to happen, since a common neutral stance would be, "Don't take the chance." Certainly killing someone for spitting on you can be argued to be an honorable act, but that doesn't make it a good act. LE characters can be quite honorable even to the point of killing their companions for displaying a lack of honor.
Clawhound 06-09-06, 12:43 PM	Most paladin issues are communication issues. I fully support the folks who say, "The DM and Player need to talk." The paladin's code is not binding on the party. Paladins are paladins, and non-paladins are non-paladins. There is no expectations that the party rogue will act in a moral an upstanding ways of a paladin. After all, that's what makes a paladin and paladin and not a fighter. A paladin does he best to influence his party to good, accepts that sometimes they will choose a gray course, but refuse to go in any direction that is clearly evil. A paladin SHOULD choose the most good, but is under no obligation to always choose the most good path. The only obligation that he is under is to NOT choose the EVIL path. As long as the paladin is not doing evil, he's gold. Paladins are also not dumb. If they are going to do something stupid, have them make a "knowledge (religion)" roll. If they succeed, they spot themselves about to do something questionable. For instance, killing babies should be a CR 5. A paladin should have no trouble knowing what he should and should not kill. That's the the knowledge skills are there for!!! Also, remember that this is a world where good people kill evil people. That's the job of a paladin. He's got a license to kill evil, and special powers to do it.
Syd_Galion 06-09-06, 01:05 PM	ok I like the paladin. Players taking up this class should be warned at the start that this is a hard class to play if you are not willing to change your style a little. The PHB states that you cant just simply become a paladin. You either have what it takes our you dont. That's why I dont like to baby my players with warnings nor do I want any when I am a player. You should just try to do the best you can and roll with the punches. Should you feel that as a DM your paladin player did something questionnable then strip the bastard!. He can still attone for his sins our seek out a deity more inclined with his views.... hello blackguard! Also I'm still looking for the passage that says the paladin has to kill evil people and things. It does mention that a paladin has to defeat evil but that can always be done w/o anyone getting killed over it.
Josheva 06-10-06, 12:03 AM	I really had no idea how much I missed saying about this, so here goes... -The orcs were raiding nearby farms outside the village and the town got sick of it. -The alignment test was not a trap as I gave him no incentive whatsoever to kill the babies or anyone else. Of course their job was to eliminate the outpost, but there was nothing immediate. The entire reason it was there was actually because the mine shaft they were in lead to the *residential* part of their camp. -The player and I have been playing together for 4 years now. By now he should know what is expected out of paladins in our group. -I did actually talk to the player immediately after the baby slaying session and he said that that is the way he plays and sees his character. When I asked him why he chose to play a paladin he simply stated that he had never been one before. I'm sorry I neglected to mention this but I didn't see relevance at the time, I was simply asking about peoples views on the evilness/goodness of the act. -In our games all humanoids or otherwise intelligent beings can be of any alignment (although they lean towards the suggested one in the MM) -The actual situation was very brief and I have stated everything that happened. There is no context to understand because they were just arriving in the orc camp. -The characters do not have much of a history because they are level 2. -We have played these characters for a total of 4 or 5 sessions. The reason I reacted the way I did is because the paladin has made more acts of evil (torture, hostage burning, baby slaying) than acts of good (he didn't lie to the mayor about the state of the camp when they returned very unsuccessfully from a direct, frontal attack on the camp). Thank you all for these replies, they are very interesting. So far I've decided I won't yet take his powers away. Instead, the next time he tries to smite evil he will see a vision of burning babies with broken arms (or something) and take the same amount of damage as whatever he hits (within reason ;) ) If anyone else has needs to know anything about the situation or has any thoughts on the subject post away.
Valkyrie 06-10-06, 12:33 AM	Every paladin show be required to put into writing His Paladin Code. If the Dm and player have agreed on this code before the gaming begins then there would be no question as to wheither something is Good or not for the paladin to do. That would solve all of these paladin problems. Also, if you play a paladin then you better be prepared to take the hard road. That would mean that innocent orcish/goblin/kobold children would have to be brought somewhere (no matter how much trouble it cost you to do it) to be raised in a rightious way. If that means that you have to give out of your pocket to pay someone to raise these orphans then you must. In my world, there is a city that the latest rulers have decended from a paladin who attacked orcs with a vengeance and left many orphaned orcs. The town now has a high orcish/half-orcish population that are lawful good/lawful neutral because of the orphanages that the paladin funded.
Cantankerous 06-10-06, 02:00 AM	Crazy is as crazy does... or something. Is it crazy to decry that which you find utterly detestable, or is it crazier to stick ones head in the sand and ignore it? But that said, I'll now agree though about leaving present day politics out. It's bloody sad though to see their outcome in action but it really is just too damned depressing for general discussion anyway. But strawman my zarrutzi. It does not matter AT ALL what "over all alignment" a society has. Not in the least. No where does it say or even in any vague way imply that it is the societal over all alignment by which EVERY INDIVIDUAL in it shall be judged. There is a bloody reason why the Alignment descriptor for Orcs is "Often chaotic evil". Notice the bloody "often" there. Under the more debauched Ceasars Roman society would definately have qualified the same way. Yet there were good (and often persecuted) Christian Pacifists that were part of that society. By the idiotic statement that it is the society as a whole that determines the relative Alignment of all of it's members these self same good and persecuted pacifists within that society would be as open to being slaughtered by a Paladin as the noblemen who rapes a new virgin slave at the new moon each month in pseudo.celebration of Dionysus. Sorry, but if the opponent is not Evil, killing him without great need is just plain Evil in and of itself, as per the RAW, period. Isshia
Traevanon 06-10-06, 08:16 AM	You are missing my point 'Tank. If we were trying to determine *just* whether the paladin committed the "One Evil Act" then we can look at the individuals, but in that case it is only clear by RaW that the Paladin should *not* kill the Good ones, and *should* kill (or some say capture) the Evil ones. What is done with the Neutral ones is a judgement call. If you are dealing with the Paladin's Code instead, then there are issues of respecting Local Authority, acting Honorably, helping the Needy and Punishing those who Harm or Threaten Innocents. Unfortunately for the orcs they did this:-The orcs were raiding nearby farms outside the village and the town got sick of it.So they require punishment. Not only that, but if the Paladin *didnt* punish them, he would be breaking his code. In implementing this he doesnt have to go around asking each individual orc whether they participated in the raids or not. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is not a part of RaW. All he has to do is *believe* that they did. However, he cant just put on the blinders and kill them all because if later he is confronted with evidence that some of them were innocent, he may have a problem.
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-10-06, 08:48 AM	The OP said nothing about the Paladin stepping on the Orc's broken arm as vengeance. It said that the Paladin did it when the Orc was fighting, and as such, it's no difference than hitting him or kicking him or, hell, even stabbing him. Securing a struggling prisoner who's using violence isn't pretty, and it's downright unfair to set up an impossible position where a Paladin falls for not taking someone prisoner, but then also falls for keeping that person imprisoned. As far as the Orc babies... Well, to me, I'd never do that, but then it comes down to whether the player was under the assumption that Orcs were all evil. Unless you've made it clear that's not the case, then you can't really blame him.
terrainmonkey 06-10-06, 09:02 AM	Also, if you play a paladin then you better be prepared to take the hard road. That would mean that innocent orcish/goblin/kobold children would have to be brought somewhere (no matter how much trouble it cost you to do it) to be raised in a rightious way. If that means that you have to give out of your pocket to pay someone to raise these orphans then you must. In my world, there is a city that the latest rulers have decended from a paladin who attacked orcs with a vengeance and left many orphaned orcs. The town now has a high orcish/half-orcish population that are lawful good/lawful neutral because of the orphanages that the paladin funded. now this is a fabulous idea. really, in all honesty, this solves the problem. while at the same time keeping with the paladin code, and raising an army of loyal lawful orcs that you could use as an army. i like this idea. you just have to make sure they are loyal to you in case you ever have to send them against orcs. there might be a problem with one or many turning to join the orcs, so geas, or charm person, etc. would have to be used on them.
Lokathor 06-10-06, 09:58 AM	The tenets of the faith of saint cuthbert are justice, devotion to duty, and the destruction of evil and chaos. Orcs are chaotic evil. they demand no mercy at all. whether they register on the evilmeter or not makes no difference to the paladin who is charged with destroying evil. Here's a thought, and I'm just going out on a limb here... If they don't show up on the "evil meter", then they aren't evil! Sure, stepping on the guys arm was a little much, but hardly worthy of having powers stripped because the orc was a chaotic being and is undeserving of kindness. Now we get on to the orc younglings. perfectly fine. i would have done the same. A dead orc child is one i don't have to fight later. Because the high forces of good care nothing for redemption, kindness, mercy, or compassion. It's all about just killing the other guy who doesn't agree with your world view, even when they're too young to even understand the idea of a world view! Definately. like i said, orcs are vermin and under no circumstances should any of them in a tribe be allowed to live. That's how i would see it as a player, and as a DM, and a Player of paladins for a while now. i would have no problem with a pally in my group doing the same. You're effectively saying that because a creature might do bad things if you don't step in, then you get to step in and kill it? You're not going to even TRY to convert them into peaceful creatures!?! What happened to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"!? What happend to innocent until proven guilty? Would you kill every civillian in an opposing nation just because their soldiers are at war with yours? terrainmonkey, you don't seem to quite get what it means to be a paladin. You're supposed to take the high road, not just go around killing and murdering anything that moves that might be evil. Charming up an army for yourself out of otherwise peaceful civillian townsfolk is not exactly the highest of LG action. Hells, the very idea of magically dominating innocent people to risk their lives on your behalf should be abhorrent to someone such as a paladin, defender of the weak. The ends do not justify the means. EDIT: Blast it all you shouldn't even be making an army out of the converted orcs! If the entire reason for your army is simply "to go kill orcs" then you just missed the entire point of being a paladin. It's evil to just go out and kill people! It doesn't matter if "they're evil", it doesn't matter if "they did it first", it doesn't matter if they're "in your base and killing your d00dz" in fact it doesn't matter if anything. Making a city out of orphins just so you can turn them into an army for any purpose at all is not what a paladin should be doing. A paladin should be trying to create as much peace as possible, not pulling other people in to fight for him. But on a side note: orcs fight off other orcs all the time in inter-tribe wars (or even intra-tribe wars). The City Orcs likely wouldn't have much of a problem killing other orcs.
Cantankerous 06-10-06, 11:00 AM	Heya Trae, You are missing my point 'Tank. No man, I'm not missing the point. The point is where the Evil act was committed, or were committed in this case, since we have multiples. The first was torture. Guys, you don not simply step on someones broken arm in combat the way combat works in D&D. That was, whether directly explicated or not, an out of combat action, and thus, torture. Evil act number one. If we were trying to determine *just* whether the paladin committed the "One Evil Act" then we can look at the individuals, but in that case it is only clear by RaW that the Paladin should *not* kill the Good ones, and *should* kill (or some say capture) the Evil ones. What is done with the Neutral ones is a judgement call. Not "should kill" the Evil ones, but rather, is "free to kill" the Evil ones without any alignment entanglements. Outside of those though (which, yeah sure, was probably damned near all the actual raiders) there is no judgement call. If he is attacked while chasing down those Evil ones by "Neutral ones", they are liable and open to being woofed in return; that is simple self preservation and a Paladin IS charged with preserving the lives of all worthy (read here: Good) beings. But if they are non-combatants, they are STILL just plane and simple NOT open to being slaughtered simply because they are Orcs. Again, as per the RAW, period. If you are dealing with the Paladin's Code instead, then there are issues of respecting Local Authority, acting Honorably, helping the Needy and Punishing those who Harm or Threaten Innocents. Absolutely. No where in there though does it provide fiat for acting in an Evil manner. An Evil manner is one which "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" and with the obvious proviso, without need. It simply is NOT needful to slaughter non-combatants who are not Evil. Again, as per the RAW, this is point blank and period. To engage in the slaughter of such folk, be they Neutral or Good in moral fiber, is just Evil, period. Unfortunately for the orcs they did this:So they require punishment. Not only that, but if the Paladin *didnt* punish them, he would be breaking his code. Just, no. The raiders "require" punishment. The non-combatants, and without any doubt, the children, do NOT! Again, as always, as per the RAW. The Paladin basicly does have a license to kill...Evil beings, IF it is in the service of Good to do so. In implementing this he doesnt have to go around asking each individual orc whether they participated in the raids or not. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is not a part of RaW. All he has to do is *believe* that they did. Absolutely NO!" If has to be relatively sure they did. The warriors in the tribe he can be relatively sure of. The four month old that is still dirtying his swathings regularly can be pretty freely excluded from that. Period. Paladins are advanced RP. They are all about Good first, and Justice, Honor and the other "Lawful Virtues" second. They can simply NOT simply throw caution to the winds and slaughter to their hearts content. If in clearing the orc encampment a pregnant female in the final stages of her pregnancy, even if she's armed, who does NOT attack, but backs away holding her weapon defensively before her, comes upon Sir Paladin, what then? THESE are the kinds of things that playing a Paladin is all about. Obviously she wasn't taking part in the raids in such a condition, she's armed, but she's obviously scared and she's not agressive. But maybe if you turn your back she'll try to stick that boar spear in it. What do you do Mssr Holy Knight? (And of course, why?) Isshia
terrainmonkey 06-10-06, 01:09 PM	Would you kill every civillian in an opposing nation just because their soldiers are at war with yours? terrainmonkey, you don't seem to quite get what it means to be a paladin. You're supposed to take the high road, not just go around killing and murdering anything that moves that might be evil. okay, remember we are talking about orcs here, right? not humans, not civilized races, but orcs, vermin, chaotic evil creatures who sho no mercy and rape and pillage the CIVILIZED realms. we aren't talking about commoners in a town here. we're talking about creatures in a cave that pillage and loot and despoil the countryside with thier filth. These creatures under no circumstances can be hled to anything higher than that. to call them anything else is doing them a service. these creatures are nothing but enemies to be put to the sword and destroyed. if i as a paladin, see them as my enemy, then ALL of them are my enemy, warriors and children and mothers alike. the entire friggin' tribe needs to go. end of story, period. If it takes 1000 deaths to expunge the tribe from my lands, so be it. all of them are my enemies, and all of them must go. under no circumstances should you allow one of them to survive, as it will eventually cause problems for your nation, city, town, etc, later on. nip this in the bud early, and you won't have these problems. Now, on to the "you don't know what it means to be a paladin" remark. First off, i've been DMing and Playing this game since pre-1st ed. i have palyed well over 10 paladins in my day. i have never fallen as any of these characters. sure there have been times where i have been warned by a DM, but i justified my actions after discussing it with him. in one case there were goblin children in a cave, and i walked away. i said, "i don't know what my god would do to me here, so i a mgoing to pray about it." when i was out of earshot, could no longer see the children, the party fighter and mage killed all of them and took care of the problem for me. out of sight, out of mind, i always say. if i don't see it happen, it didn't happen. That's what i would have done as a paladin in the case of the orc younglings. walk away and let the other party members take care of the problem. done. that's how you play a paladin in that case. no harm, no fall.
archcomponent 06-10-06, 01:18 PM	okay, remember we are talking about orcs here, right? not humans, not civilized races, but orcs, vermin, chaotic evil creatures who sho no mercy and rape and pillage the CIVILIZED realms. Right on the money. People need to remember that these are evil creatures. They aren't misunderstood, or naughty, or anything less than that. They are evil, and they deserve to die. And it's a paladin's duty to rid the world of evil. If this paladin managed to get a few of them before they had a chance to have their first pillaging and raping spree across the countryside, that's a good thing. A paladin tries to relentlessly fight evil - they are a holy warrior, not a therapist or a jailer.
Drachasor 06-10-06, 01:24 PM	Seems like you let Paladins take easy roads in the games your are in Terrain Monkey. Here are a few points: 1. Orcs are not all chaotic evil. The plurality (NOT MAJORITY) of Orcs are Chaotic Evil. There are neutral orcs and good orcs. So saying "all Orcs are vermin" is not true, and a Paladin certainly doesn't have a right to kill Orcs willy-nilly. 2. The goblin baby incident is something that should of gotten you stripped of your Paladin-hood. A Paladin cannot simply walk away and let other people do a massacre. If necessary you should have fought to the death to prevent such a slaughter--assuming the game was RAW and goblins are not inherently evil. "Out of sight, out of mind" is not something you can follow and keep your Paladinhood unless you have a lax DM. 3. You can play 10 Paladins and still not be playing them following the rules. Seems your group has defacto house rules they use to let Paladins get away with murder (literally). -Drachasor
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-10-06, 01:27 PM	archcomponent, terrainmonkey, perhaps you need to re-read your Monster Manual. Orcs are 'Often chaotic evil'. That means that they're not autmatically evil as far as the rules are concerned. You can change this in your campaign setting, but then unless you make such a change clear, you can't use it to dictate the morality of the actions of players. Even if they were listed as 'Always evil', that wouldn't actually mean that they have to be evil, just that the vast majority are. Also, terrainmonkey, are you aware that when you bring 'civilization' into an argument, you're opening up a whole new can of worms? Who defines civilization? If you're using the western definition, then you're saying that the native americans were evil and wrong for fighting against the Europeans who were trying to civilize them (or the aborigionals, in Australia). If you're not using the western definition, then by what standard do you judge orcs to be uncivilized? They do have a culture; so much has been documented in Toril and Oerth literature. It's just very different to more technologically advanced societies (and keep in mind that I'm loathe to even use that in a setting where magic beats technology hands-down, and Gruumsh gives just as much power to his Clerics as Correlon [sp?] to his). Edit - Just to be clear, this post is not me showing any real feeling regarding either side of the debate. It's be attacking nonsensical beliefs whereever I see 'em.
Cantankerous 06-10-06, 01:30 PM	Alignment: Often chaotic evil Main Entry: of·ten Pronunciation: 'o-f&n, ÷'of-t&n Function: adverb Etymology: Middle English, alteration of oft : many times : FREQUENTLY Yeah, here's the problem. Orcs are NOT Evil. They are OFTEN Evil. They are not vermin. They are OFTEN vermin. They are not uncivilized. They are OFTEN uncivilized. And there in lays all the difference in the world. I've been doing this since pre-1st edition myself and DAMN, am I ever glad that the designers of the game FINALLY grew up and put in that little proviso; "Often" and the ones like it when talking about the humanoid races. It's less mindlessly silly than the old stand by of "okay, remember we are talking about orcs here, right? not humans, not civilized races, but orcs, vermin, chaotic evil creatures who sho no mercy and rape and pillage the CIVILIZED realms." :nonono: :nonono: :nonono: Oh well, they're only Orcs. On one side we have those nasty Orcies: Orcs, Chaotic Evil creatures who show no mercy and rape and pillage the CIVILIZED realms. On the other we have those paragons of virtue, the Paladins, who when they encounter an orcish encampment slaughter indiscriminantly. They show THEIR sophistication and civilization by cutting apart infants in their mothers arms. They show their mercy by slaughtering every breathing orc in sight. Then, of course, they leave any and all of the possessions of the orcs where they lay, whether it be gold coins (looted ones no doubt!) or magic items that the Paladins themselves might want so they can't be accussed of pillaging, right? Isshia
Blackrazor 06-10-06, 01:36 PM	This is from a Q&A with Gary Gygax. PLAYING PALADINS Q: I'd like your view on the Paladin class and the features that make is supposedly "Unplayable". A: First, many a Paladin PC has been played, and that done successfully generally following the rules for the class as written. Lawful Good does not equate to stupid or foolish, it means the PC must follow the Law as determined by the deity the Paladin acknowledges, and thus promote Good according to that Law. As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their souls, prevents them from slipping back into error. A Paladin will not normally sacrifice himself, fight needlessly, unless it is a situation where honor and duty demand that. Such sacrifice would have to be demonstrably for the betterment of his deity, or else based on an oath the character made prior to the dire situation. While in general a Paladin can not lie, that does not mean he must say anything, or can not answer evasively or mislead--if that is according to the tenents of his avowed LG deity. A Paladin played by someone that does not understand the basis of the Code of Chivalry taken to the extreme and attached to religion is likely unplayable, but that's the fault of the player, not the class.
Lokathor 06-10-06, 01:37 PM	okay, remember we are talking about orcs here, right? not humans, not civilized races, but orcs, vermin, chaotic evil creatures who sho no mercy and rape and pillage the CIVILIZED realms. USUALLY Chaotic Evil!! 40-50% of the time!! The rest of the time they could be CN, or even TN! The point of being good is that all life is precious! not just the life that you personally happen to like. we aren't talking about commoners in a town here. we're talking about creatures in a cave that pillage and loot and despoil the countryside with thier filth. These creatures under no circumstances can be hled to anything higher than that. to call them anything else is doing them a service. these creatures are nothing but enemies to be put to the sword and destroyed. if i as a paladin, see them as my enemy, then ALL of them are my enemy, warriors and children and mothers alike. the entire friggin' tribe needs to go. end of story, period. If it takes 1000 deaths to expunge the tribe from my lands, so be it. all of them are my enemies, and all of them must go. under no circumstances should you allow one of them to survive, as it will eventually cause problems for your nation, city, town, etc, later on. nip this in the bud early, and you won't have these problems. So Paladins are allowed to commit MINDLESS GENOCIDE?!?!?! ....I must have missed the memo. Now, on to the "you don't know what it means to be a paladin" remark. First off, i've been DMing and Playing this game since pre-1st ed. i have palyed well over 10 paladins in my day. i have never fallen as any of these characters. sure there have been times where i have been warned by a DM, but i justified my actions after discussing it with him. in one case there were goblin children in a cave, and i walked away. i said, "i don't know what my god would do to me here, so i a mgoing to pray about it." when i was out of earshot, could no longer see the children, the party fighter and mage killed all of them and took care of the problem for me. out of sight, out of mind, i always say. if i don't see it happen, it didn't happen. That is the EXACT opposite of what a paladin is supposed to do! By your argument orcs aren't evil because you didn't personally watch them kill anyone. Lawful Stupid isn't an alignment, it's just stupid. That's what i would have done as a paladin in the case of the orc younglings. walk away and let the other party members take care of the problem. done. that's how you play a paladin in that case. no harm, no fall. No! no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. That isn't acceptable for a real world person who's just averagely good, why in the circles of baator would it be acceptable for a paladin being held to supernatural and holy standards of good?
Cantankerous 06-10-06, 01:41 PM	And thank god the EGG man is long gone from D&D and belongs to the bad old days when everything was black or white, and there was no in between. Thank god that somewhere along the line, the game grew up a bit and stopped being mindless and that now, in 3.x D&D humanoids aren't all murderous imbeciles. Nowadays we leave that to the earlier iteration Paladins. Isshia
Cantankerous 06-10-06, 02:11 PM	Heck, to go on with Lokathor's point the Orcs aren't even Usually Chaotic Evil, just Often. In the PRESENT iteration of D&D (and really, who gives a flying pile of donkey dung how the earlier iterations handled things) they are CE, get ready for it, LESS often than usually. Since all that usually means is more often than not, ie: more than 50% of the time, our Orcs are CE LESS often than that. By simple extension this means that while they may also often be Lawful Evil, or Neutral Evil, they ALSO may often be Lawful Good. There is no mindless fallback position. Any moral superiority on the part of the non-humanoid races is simply thematic for the individual DM. In the present campaign my group is playing in they just ran across a world where the Elves (not Drow, but Elves that basicly had their genesis as Wood Elves) are usually Chaotic Evil and often Neutral Evil and the Orcs are Usually Neutral, often Neutral Good. It's a thematic thing. I introduced it because I wanted to see if the Players were above making idiotic assumptions based solely on appearances... and god bless them, they did me proud. The encampment they first came across was an Orc encampment, a small wooden pallisaded fort with the cleaned and heavily painted skulls of dozens of orcs topping various of the pallisade logs. All the PCs knew was what they saw and that they had nearby found the remains of a week old battle wherein some few dozen elves had been beheaded and their bodies left to rot. STILL, they did not simply tear in, fireballs flying, and decimate the little pallisade, which they certainly could have easily done. They carefully approached the pallisade with one of their number having Dimension Door ready for a quick withdrawl if needed and while on first sighting them, some few of the females working in the fields near by the pallisade walls screamed and ran inside and the PCs were met by a dozen armed and partially armored Orcs who were heavily scarred and rather hideous of appearance who certainly did NOT look peaceful and who shouted at them only a few words they could understand, among which was "murderers". STILL they held back and using pigeon sign language, patience and perserverance they TALKED first. The skulls on the posts were part of their belief that these skulls held the spirits of their revered ancestors who would watch over them and guide them. The scarring was part of rights of passage, the proving that the person was unafraid of pain. The taking of the heads of the enemy dead was their way of insuring that the Elves, who were expert Necromancers, didn't raise them...and so on. The particular enclave they walked in to was Neutral with Good tendencies as a whole. They were definately uncivilized. They practiced ritual scarring. They had skulls mounted on the pallisade posts. They were ugly and practiced lower standards of personal cleanliness than was usual for the PCs. On the PCs home world Orcs USUALLY, not just often, but usually, WERE Evil. Yet, thank god, my Players aren't the type to be taken in by appearances, and as such, their characters didn't start the slaughter that would likely have followed. They made friends instead and thus had a base to operate from to search the surrounding woods for the first part of an artifact, long parted, that they needed for their own purposes. Again, as was posed as a question earlier: If in clearing the orc encampment a pregnant female in the final stages of her pregnancy, even if she's armed, who does NOT attack, but backs away holding her weapon defensively before her, comes upon Sir Paladin, what then? THESE are the kinds of things that playing a Paladin is all about. Obviously she wasn't taking part in the raids in such a condition, she's armed, but she's obviously scared and she's not agressive. But maybe if you turn your back she'll try to stick that boar spear in it. What do you do Mssr Holy Knight? (And of course, why?) Isshia
Immurmodi 06-10-06, 02:54 PM	It is interesting to see the infinite variations of "I kill the child and incinerate its remains" that paladin players manage to entangle themselves in. I agree with all those that have said that a DM and a paladin player should work out a code of conduct for the player before the paladin enters play this is also nice to do with other characters that have roleplaying restrictions. Paladins are not as some people have said lawful stupid(Or at least they do not have to be) but a paladin is bound to far higher standards than the other base classes, They have to be both lawful and good and it does not matter what alignment their god is, A paladin of cuthbert will actually have to behave better than his god usually does or he WILL fall from grace, Cuthbert is LN the paladin must be LG. Simply put a paladin that does exactly as cuthbert would have done in any situation will stop being a paladin. Even more interesting is the simple fact that paladins operate directly linked to the (somewhat shaky) alignment structure in the game and is forbidden from ever commiting any evil act no matter what the excuse is : War, Ignorance(particulary when the ignorance is easily remedied), Impulsiveness or just plain stupidity is no excuse he is still forbidden from doing evil. As mentioned earlier Orcs in D&D 3.5 are not a force of monolithic evil they are simply a species that is slightly tending towards evil just like elves and dwarves are slightly tending towards good. As others people have mentioned the biggest problem is the killing of the orc babies, Not only did the paladin kill 60%-50% nonevil beings among the babies but he also killed beings that actually never have comitted a crime that posed no threat whatsoever (and would not do so for a decade or more) and he did not even bother to turn on his handy EVILDAR that every paladin comes equipped with by default from level 1. In short if this behavior is defensible then the paladin might as well start entering random townhouses in nations that are known to have an evil bent and start killing everyone that lives there without expecting any censure from the DM.
pres_man 06-10-06, 03:44 PM	when i was out of earshot, could no longer see the children, the party fighter and mage killed all of them and took care of the problem for me. out of sight, out of mind, i always say. if i don't see it happen, it didn't happen. That's what i would have done as a paladin in the case of the orc younglings. walk away and let the other party members take care of the problem. done. that's how you play a paladin in that case. no harm, no fall. Yes! Yes! And when the party captures a female evil cleric and that won't answer their questions, the paladin leaves. And when he returns the rogue is pulling up his pants and says, "I got the info." While the female cleric hundles in the corner attempt to cover herself with the rags that are the remanents of her clothing, weeping to herself. No harm, no foul! You have a wonderful understanding as to the true nature of what it means to be good. I applaud you my friend. **Try not to slip on the sarcasm.**
Immurmodi 06-10-06, 04:02 PM	I agree with Pres_man that pretending not to notice while annoying burdens conveniently "disappear" in not so mysterious ways is in no way in accordance with a paladins code, After all this is nothing other than allowing evil to flourish because it is convenient to your character.
Raum_ul_Amon 06-10-06, 05:35 PM	LouSaphire, pres-man you rock !! Seriously. Whether it's the cleric's spell, the druid's wildshape, or the paladin's holy sword, divine magic is tied to devotion. If your D&D character is devoted to some higher authority or cause - often but not always a god - he can draw a measure of power from that connection. Such power generally comes with a price - by accepting the power of divine magic, he generally agrees to abide by a set of principles. He's voluntarily limiting his behaviour in exchange for power. Quoted from the Complete Divine pg. 5 The problem that I see in most instances of the dreaded Paladin posts is twofold. The DM first and foremost has the majority of responsibility to communicate to the player clearly and concisely what is expected of them so that they don't get into too many problems in this area. The Player also has a responsibility to follow the spirit of the game when making the decision to play his or her character class. One of the biggest problems that I see, and am facing that in a campaign that i am playing in but not running is that some players conveniently gloss over the limits on behaviour when playing these classes. The most difficult player types is the one who has no ability to, or in most cases desire to curb behaviour to follow a code of conduct that is not of their own making. They are usually selfish and self-centered and conflict is inevitable. What usually happens is the player adamantly refuses to admit wrongdoing and the discussion becomes antagonistic for the most part because the player believes that there is some sort of 'control' issue involved. In fact they are right. The DM, representing the Diety is asking the player to curb their behaviour. Frankly some players can't, they are unable or unwilling to do this and for those players I hold the greatest amount of contempt. Ethical tests and situations designed to test a players ability to 'toe the line' in an ethical and moral sense are COMPLETELY acceptable in light of the nature of these classes and I have never had any problem in setting up troublesome characters to 'fall from grace'. I do not go out of my way to trap the PC and in fact believe that done properly on both fronts leads to excellent roleplay.
terrainmonkey 06-10-06, 05:43 PM	you know i kind of expected this level of flame directed at me. allow me to explain. I follow mr. EGG there with the paladin code thing. i always have. IMC Alignments ARE in fact black and white. Good is clearly good, and Evil is clearly EVIL. If a race, by and large, is listed as Evil, then a majority of them are, like 98%. This goes for orcs, which can be considered evil 100% of the time, including women and children. But, i don't wish to get into an alignment debate, this is how i play the game. It works for me. As a paladin, i tend to think long term, and ask myself how my actions would affect the world in the long run, not then and now. A paladin's duty is to protect the innocent and law abiding citizens of the realm from all threats foreign and evil and against his godly ethos. Orcs of all colors and stripes fall into the category of Evil and against his godly Ethos. Now, letting the orc children live would have, in the long term, meant more deaths of innocent people who abided with a paladin's code of protecting them. so, end the problem right now, protect the innocent i have been sworn to help and get rid of the rest. sorry, orc children need to go. As gary said, you aren't lawful stupid. lawful stupid paladins save the orc children, take them back to the town and present them before the town mayor, magistrate, ruler, etc. here's the conversation: Sir Brightstone marched confidently and with honorable head held high into the mayor's office of the town of Greydawn. "I have brought prisoners from the recent raid against an Orc camp that was causing problems for your town." "Prisoners?" the mayor asked, "Why? i thought i said i wanted the problem taken care of and all the orcs gone." "It is my duty as an honorable man of my god to bring them to justice and uphold my code. During the raid, i found a cave of children and the mothers bearing them. as i felt they were not evil, perhaps you could do something with them, to turn them to the true path of nobility and righteousness in the name of our lord Cuthbert." The mayor looks at him perplexed. "You mean you brought orc children back to town? What for? Why didn't you get rid of them right then and there?" Brightstone looks at him as if he's been slapped. "I felt it was my duty to bring them here, for the town to raise as good and productive countrymen." The mayor calls for the captain of the guard. "There's a bunch of orc children out there, go take care of them." he turns back to lord brightstone, "sir, i don not mean to demean your status as a holy WARRIOR of your god, but these are just orcs, and orc babies are just as bad as the creatures that spawned them. you jeopardize innocents with bringing them back here. sure, you did the honorable thing, but leaving me and my men to do it was idiotic and foolish. even if one of them managed to escape and harm one of the townspeople, that person's blood would have been on your hands. Also, i believe i charged you and your group with the destruction of the orc camp, and that, Sir, is what you should have done, children or no. Part of your code is to follow the directives of the people in charge of you, and i believe i was that one. you haven't fulfilled your oath to me by bringing these hated destroyers into our town. you have endangered the lives of innocent townfolk and disobeyed my orders to expunge the tribe from the earth. I wonder what your god would say about that." Then, the captain of the guard walks in, wiping the blood from his sword, and says, "Job's done." "Thank you, captain, you'll get a raise." says the mayor. he throws a bag of gold coins on the table to Sir Brightstone. "Here's your payment. don't spend it all in one place. now you are free to go. And next time i give you a job to do, by all means, follow your honor and DO IT!" Sir Brightstone then walks out of the mayor's office, goes outside and sees the dead bodies of the orc children being thrown into a fire on the outskirts of the town. People dance gleefully, knowing the orc menace has been taken care of and they can live thier innocent lives in peace knowing the greater evil has been defeated. Next time, Sir Brightstone vows to do his duty to his lord and country and take care of the problem swiftly, instead of letting others do it for him.
pres_man 06-10-06, 05:57 PM	I should be noted that killing or bring them back and caring for them are not the only choices, or perhaps even the best choices. A common "punishment" for undesirables was expulsion by force if necessary.
Lokathor 06-10-06, 06:17 PM	Terranmonkey::: Orc: Alignment: Often chaotic evil Alignment This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole. OFTEN IS NOT ALWAYS. White people often speak english, but not always. Can you wrap your head around that idea? The idea that a sterotype isn't always true? Elves are actually more prone to being Chaotic Good than Orcs are to being Chaotic Evil. Does your game have nothing but CG elves running around mucking about with the LG dwarves plans to make a good ale?
Immurmodi 06-10-06, 06:17 PM	While we all owe at least a little gratitude to Gygax for starting the roleplaying genre it have been quite some time since he was the one who defined what and how an paladin ought to behave. In the current edition of the game it is simply not true that orcs are universally evil or that a paladin is merely an divinely ordained butcher, However you are of course free to play it as you want in your campaign. Nonetheless the current rules do indeed insist on upholding the base class with the highest moral and ethical demands to a slightly higher level than "I butcher their children and feign ignorance while my companions commit evil that i myself cannot do without loosing class abilities". Actually as you present the paladin and his abilities he is little more than a hatchetman for his superiors that is entirely ready to commit brutal acts of evil as long he is told that his enemies are evil with little reason or thought beyond that, Actually what would your paladin do if he faced a human/elven/dwarven kingdom that is known to be evil ? Say that his realm and that of his enemies have been hostile to each other for centuries, Say that the character and his church and his lord all consider the inhabitants evil. Would he still be running around in a childkilling rampage ? While the paladin as a class do not have to be lawfull stupid he MUST be good, If a paladin have to choose between foolishness or evil behavior for some reason he must choose foolishness unless he wants to loose his class abilities. Finally i must ask just what do the villains in the campaign do to differentiate themselves from the heroes? If the lawful good paladin in the party makes a habit of indulging in infanticide just how do you convey their opponents evil? Do they perhaps eat their freshly killed babies ? Just so the paladin can point at them and say "well sure i kill kids but i dont eat them..... well raw anyways"
Raum_ul_Amon 06-10-06, 06:34 PM	Terrainmonkey The 'heat' that you described could have easily been avoided had you come forward with this rationalization (and according to 3.5ed a houserule) earlier. IMC Alignments ARE in fact black and white. Good is clearly good, and Evil is clearly EVIL. If a race, by and large, is listed as Evil, then a majority of them are, like 98%. This goes for orcs, which can be considered evil 100% of the time, including women and children. I would add that I agree with your underlying assumption that alignments in D&D are indeed objective moral positions. They are Black and White, Evil is evil, and good is good absolutely, objectively and irretrivably. They are only objective, definable and absolute moral positions because of supporting game mechanics IMO and it is up to the individual to define what is good and what is evil. The fact that you and quite posssibly the DMs you've played with are a bit old school is undeniable but not overly negative. The DM still has the ability to define what good and evil are in his or her campaign world. Perhaps evil itself is a bit 'grey' and good is a bit 'grey'.
pres_man 06-10-06, 11:21 PM	Another problem with running a "standard" game with paladins acting as if all "monster" humanoids are evil (orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc), besides the fact that they aren't anymore is the way that the alignments are described. Take a paladin that kills orcs for merely being orcs (killing orc young for example). Well this behaviour is not descriptive of LG, but instead of LE. 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. Now there certainly is historical evidence of "holy warriors" who killed based solely on religious and racial lines, but under the current rules this is appropriate for LE, not LG.
Blackrazor 06-11-06, 12:43 AM	And thank god the EGG man is long gone from D&D and belongs to the bad old days when everything was black or white, and there was no in between. Thank god that somewhere along the line, the game grew up a bit and stopped being mindless and that now, in 3.x D&D humanoids aren't all murderous imbeciles. Nowadays we leave that to the earlier iteration Paladins. Isshia Go back to playing your Half-drow/Half Illithid Paladin Wizard Psi-Monk that has the feats to do so much damage it could crack an entire planet in half. WOW YEA IT GOT SOOO MUCH BETTER :rolleyes:
Cantankerous 06-11-06, 02:32 AM	Sonny, the entire group presently running is one hundred percent human. Out of the last eighteen PCs over a period of 3 years since we started playing 3 and 3.5 D&D all but three have been human. The game IS superior now, in almost every facet, to what it was. Abuses of it are as old as the game itself. PRE-Original AD&D, back in the old Lawful, Neutral Chaotic only days of the boxed sets and Immortal Rules, the 150th level Magic Users were running around cracking planets, all inside of the rules...if you were the type of idiot who would stretch them ala the "Half-drow/Half Illithid Paladin Wizard Psi-Monk that has the feats to do so much damage it could crack an entire planet in half" anyway. It's not the game, it's the mindless drouges. Wake up. Ohh, why bother posting on the 3.x boards at all if the old game was so superior? There are a couple of very active communities of 1st and 2nd edition folks out there. I was one of them until I actually sat down and gave the game an unbiased try. Isshia
WolfHati 06-11-06, 04:12 AM	Black and white means you have simple things defining them, like: Good respects life. Evil does not. Now what follows logically? Orcs are alive. Therefore lives of orcs are respected if they pose no threat to other life. If orcs do pose a threat to other life, then one should change that. Killing the does not respect life, so it is better to render them harmless without killing. So if there is a solution to having a bunch of orc babies around that does not involve killing it is good to do it. Therefore a paladin should not kill orc babies unless he or she has no other choice.
astute1 06-11-06, 10:57 AM	IMC Alignments ARE in fact black and white. Good is clearly good, and Evil is clearly EVIL. If a race, by and large, is listed as Evil, then a majority of them are, like 98%. This goes for orcs, which can be considered evil 100% of the time, including women and children. That's cool, but it's not the way they're described in the rules, and I would hope that you make that clear to your players when you begin the campaign. Orcs are described as "Often Chaotic Evil" - which, according to the SRD, means that about 30% of all orcs are chaotic evil. I'm figuring that probably 50% of them are evil, 50% of them are chaotic and there's probably a big chunk of them that are neither chaotic nor evil. My other comment is one that has been made probably about a million times before. It's not a good act to murder evil creatures. Good creatures seek to "defeat" evil - by thwarting evil plans, arresting evil people, converting evil to good, and, when nessicary, killing evil creatures. Killing a helpless orc in the situations described by the OP is not the action of a paladin.
Sphyre 06-11-06, 09:24 PM	Ah, ye olde game of "Spank the Paladin". It strikes me as a bit harsh to suddenly shout "Ah haha, you lose all your powers!", particularly when you delibrately set the situation up assuming he'd do that. I hardly think the DM is doing that. Look at what he's saying. First he said he saw the Paladin acting un-paladin-like. Since it was nothing that big, he was trying to see whether the paladin was actually breaking his code or not. This doesn't look like a DM out to get a paladin, but a DM who's wondering at what point is the paladin walking over the line.
LCD2YOU 06-11-06, 10:11 PM	Ok: Mr. DM. You've gamed with this player for 4 years now, right? Did they ever play a Paladin before? Has anyone in the group played a Paladin before? Or have they, especially the one playing the Paladin, been around a NPC Paladin and seen the tough choices, I mean the nitty gritty stuff, before? Did you ever mention tho the player, "Hey, you character remembers when he squired for his old mentor Sir Robin, what to do in some situations where you just want ot lash out". If the answers aren't anything but, "Yes, at this, this and this place and time", then you are at fault for not SPELLING it out. Before, it has been shown where a "Smite on Site" Paladin is perfectly fine, from the RAW and SRD. Personally, I don't think you should do anything to the player's Paladin until you have a Paladin's Code for his particular branch of Paladinhood written up and you both go over it together. Now with that said, what are the choices for the Paladin and the babes in the nursery: 1: Let them go. Great. In 10 to 15 years more hordes of mostly CE warriors "avenging the deaths" and slaughtering the innocents of the town. Yeah, the Paladin screwed up. 2: As Terrainmonkey pointed out, taking them back as prisoners to the town will get him quizzical looks and him hearing the anguished cries of the orcs non-coms being turned into fertilizer. 3: Training them himself. Yeah, that fun. It's why I signed up to be a Paladin. Lot's of armor, good combat skills, protection from on high, all so I can be a social worker. 4: Sending them away. Another good one. Yeah, those orcs "women and children" will certainly be able to find some good land somewhere and start rethinking their life of raid and pillaging. Most likely, those that don't die from the harsh travel will wind up as food for something else. So, if you are going to say that the Paladin "must help out the kids" there wouldn't be any Paladins. Any BBEG would throw orcish kids at the Paladins coming after him and as he knows that even the most gracious, progressive and understanding good kingdom out there willing to take these kids in will fall apart from within (if orcs are just misunderstood and "need loving" to turn to the good side from the dark side great for your game - that's really fantastic and I'm not saluting you for it) while the Paladins play nurse maids with only a small chance of success to be killed in their sleep by the ones they were protecting and trying to raise. It is all well and good to have the Paladins be Social Workers but think about the long term implications. Do you really want them to be that way? If so, then why wouldn't every BBEG just make the best anti Paladin and I dare say Cleric (would a cleric of Pelor let the orc kids stay behind to die of starvation?) of the good gods there is: "Traps" of humaniod kids. There is another way: The Evil humaniods are never really children but like the Urak Hai of the LoTR movies "born" full grown. That makes a lot of issues go away.
pres_man 06-12-06, 12:25 AM	Lol, I just love the "putting baby orcs on pikes is more good than letting their mothers take them off into the wilderness" arguments. Paladins can't make decisions about ending life on vague, "what if ...?" If we do, then when a paladin learns someone is good, they should kill them right then. I mean "what if" they turn evil later? See, the paladin is saving their souls. Heck even the great one says this is appropriate. As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their souls, prevents them from slipping back into error. So paladins kill all good folk so as to save them from the possibility of ever turning from their ways. What if's are a joke. Paladin has nursemaids/mothers take young off into wilderness along with any other non-combatants. Neutral Paladin sets up or works within a system set up to redeem "monster" humanoids. Good Paladin murders non-combatants. Evil Now paladins can certainly make neutral choice, especially if the good choice is deemed unworkable (DM does not support redemption efforts and thus has no outside agencies that can assist paladin). Yet doing an evil act is never acceptable.
astute1 06-12-06, 12:32 AM	Here's an interesting question, compare the following encounters: 1. You've defeated the evil human bandits. Wandering through their caves, you come across what appears to be a playroom where an older woman, perhaps a nanny, huddles in fear with a small group of human children. 2. You've defeated the evil orcish bandits. Wandering through their caves, you come across what looks like a playroom where an elderly orcish matron, perhaps a nanny, huddles in fear with a small group of orc children. What's the difference between murdering the nanny and kids in encounter 1, versus murdering the nanny and kids in encounter 2? The answer: Nothing!
terrainmonkey 06-12-06, 01:04 AM	Here's an interesting question, compare the following encounters: 1. You've defeated the evil human bandits. Wandering through their caves, you come across what appears to be a playroom where an older woman, perhaps a nanny, huddles in fear with a small group of human children. 2. You've defeated the evil orcish bandits. Wandering through their caves, you come across what looks like a playroom where an elderly orcish matron, perhaps a nanny, huddles in fear with a small group of orc children. What's the difference between murdering the nanny and kids in encounter 1, versus murdering the nanny and kids in encounter 2? The answer: Nothing! okay, here's an answer. everything is different. and here i'm going back to the racial lines again. Evil human bandits are just that, evil humans. However, the children are not, and can be easily taken back to Human lands to integrate them into society. this is an acceptable course of action by a paladin. one believes that the Human bandit children can be shown the ways of good and order. perfectly simple. I have no problem with this. I do have a problem in equating orcs to humans. Orcs are monsters, they are for the most part evil all the time. also, to integrate them into society and try to tame thier savage evil ways would take too much effort and they would be looked upon as outcasts by most humans in the lands. It doesn't matter if the people are good, for the majority of the folks in the land the orcs will be looked upon with scorn and disgust. human children will torment thier orcish playmates and that in turn will have an adverse effect on the orc child's upbringing. this in turn will more than likely make the child evil. As an example, think about how children who are different from the norm are tormented on the playground by other kids. i'm sure a lot of folks here have had the "nerd" steriotype thrown at them here and there. I've been witness to how children torment each other growing up in school. what makes you think that this would be any different in a fantasy setting integrating members of a hated monster race into human society? it's foolish to think that the outcome would be anything less than total bedlam. and what happens when one of the orc children loses his temper and breaks one the human children's neck? who is at fault here now? i would think the first death by an orc kid would strip the paladin of his powers immediately, wherever he was on the realms when it happened. That's how i would rule it anyway. And yes, i'm falling back on the race card, but i think it's an apt argument. and the human bandit/orc bandit comparison will not hold it's weight simply because of the intolerance on the part of human nature. so in the end, it is more expedient to slay the orc children, than bring them back to society and see how it all works out hoping for the best.
Kuraito 06-12-06, 01:28 AM	I only read the first page of this whole deal, but I must say, St. Cuthburt, in my opinion, wouldn't take kindly on this paladins activity. The only cleric I truly enjoyed RPing was a cleric of St. Cuthburt named "Delkor the Vengeful", given the title after he slaughtered an orc tribe that had destroyed an outlying settlement. Delkor set his own level of viciousness depending on the crimes of those he was fighting, infact, one of his favorite spells was "Wrack" but he only used against the most vile of creatures who had or were in the process of, commiting terrible crimes. However, even Delkor, in his rage, didn't slaughter anyone in said orc tribe who didn't fight against him. He wouldn't kill a helpless being that did not have an active role in the crime he was avenging (slaughter of the town). Delkor was LN. This paladin is supposedly LG. Hes pretty far out of line, even Delkor would have chastied him about his brutatlity. St. Cuthburt is not a permit to commit murder against people who have commited no crime, despite alignment. Slaughtering children is not the type of thing St. Cuthburt smiles on, regardless of race. The arm thing, Delkor would understand, but not killing the kids. While I would not stripe him of his powers yet, I would speak to him, both as a DM and possibly as a servent of St. Cuthbert in game, and tell him hes being a little out of line. Cuthbert is all about RETRIBUTION, and as a LN cleric, I could use pretty much any means to avenge vile crimes, but as a PALADIN, serving St. Cuthbert only gives him SLIGHTLY more breathing room then the normal paladin. Remind him that he is LG, St. Cuthbert or no. He needs to start acting like it, and slaughting the helpless who had commited no crime is not good, its not even justice or revenge, which is why even Delkor would frown on it. Your PC is way out of line for a Paladin, and you need to tell him so.
Cantankerous 06-12-06, 04:16 AM	Racism, specism, any type of lumping of an entire group together from the actions of a MINORITY (Which remember, in 3rd edition, which is all the bloody hell that matters for discussions on these boards, is exactly what Chaotic Evil Orcs are... a minority. Often means roughly 30% of the time in D&D.) is just plain brain dead. Human nature is not one of intolerance being accepted, not since the human race began to grow up culturally. It has always become the advocation of a very vocal minority to claim that it has always been so and will always be so, but that is utter bunk. And oh, LCD, buddy, you must be kidding. The question of smite on sight has NEVER been acceptable by the RAW except by the most twisted interpretation of it. That was the conscensus of the threads you're referring to as I remember them. You and a few others descented, but the conscensus was that such interpretations were extremely off course. Isshia
LouSapphire 06-12-06, 07:03 AM	Sorry that you think people are flaming you, I think it's just slightly heated as you have an extreme view on this :) If my post comes accross as flaming I apologise in advance. okay, here's an answer. everything is different. and here i'm going back to the racial lines again. Evil human bandits are just that, evil humans. However, the children are not, and can be easily taken back to Human lands to integrate them into society. this is an acceptable course of action by a paladin. one believes that the Human bandit children can be shown the ways of good and order. perfectly simple. I have no problem with this. What is the difference? Is it only the civilised races are capable of telling the difference between Good and Evil? Only the races that don;t mention Evil in the Monster Manual? I'm finding it hard to tell how you differentiate. I do have a problem in equating orcs to humans. Orcs are monsters, they are for the most part evil all the time. also, to integrate them into society and try to tame thier savage evil ways would take too much effort and they would be looked upon as outcasts by most humans in the lands. It doesn't matter if the people are good, for the majority of the folks in the land the orcs will be looked upon with scorn and disgust. human children will torment thier orcish playmates and that in turn will have an adverse effect on the orc child's upbringing. this in turn will more than likely make the child evil. By judging someone purely on their race, creed and/or colour of skin you are falling into the realms of biggotry/racism. I don't think we need to explain that as a Paladin that it is an unnacceptable mindset to have. As an example, think about how children who are different from the norm are tormented on the playground by other kids. i'm sure a lot of folks here have had the "nerd" steriotype thrown at them here and there. I've been witness to how children torment each other growing up in school. what makes you think that this would be any different in a fantasy setting integrating members of a hated monster race into human society? it's foolish to think that the outcome would be anything less than total bedlam. and what happens when one of the orc children loses his temper and breaks one the human children's neck? who is at fault here now? i would think the first death by an orc kid would strip the paladin of his powers immediately, wherever he was on the realms when it happened. That's how i would rule it anyway. Felt the need to seperate this as I agree completely. I live in belfast, and have grown up around secterianism that is spread from the family. They teach their children to hate the opposite religion, they spread that around their playground and the cycle repeats itself. So yea, I agree with the quote. But thankfully I'm not a Paladin so I'm not gonna fall over in a crisis of faith :) And yes, i'm falling back on the race card, but i think it's an apt argument. and the human bandit/orc bandit comparison will not hold it's weight simply because of the intolerance on the part of human nature. so in the end, it is more expedient to slay the orc children, than bring them back to society and see how it all works out hoping for the best. I agree that normally the race card can be acceptable. But not when we are dealing with Paladins. For a LN adventurer in the town it could be a valid arguement, but once again (sorry frop repeating myself) NOT FOR A LG PALADIN. On a side note, this is one of the best threads concerning alignments and paladins I've seen in a long time. No direct flames and everyone is explaining their viewpoints, it's great and is restoring my faith in alighnment threads :)
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 07:59 AM	Here's an interesting question, compare the following encounters: 1. You've defeated the evil human bandits. Wandering through their caves, you come across what appears to be a playroom where an older woman, perhaps a nanny, huddles in fear with a small group of human children. 2. You've defeated the evil orcish bandits. Wandering through their caves, you come across what looks like a playroom where an elderly orcish matron, perhaps a nanny, huddles in fear with a small group of orc children. What's the difference between murdering the nanny and kids in encounter 1, versus murdering the nanny and kids in encounter 2? The answer: Nothing!Wrong. There is a great deal of difference between a group that is "Often" CE, Orcs, vs "Often" N, Humans. As "Often" means 40-50% are of that alignment. That does not mean the reast are even distributed around the other 8 alignments. The Orcs are still going to be on the Chaos/Evil axis so a general breakdown, IMO, would be: 45% CE 20% NE 20% CN 5% N 5% LE 5% CG < 1% the other 3. Also, it is most likely that the "good Orcs", mostly CG, would be cast out, if lucky, or running for their very lives. Most Orcish communities are evil, period. Compare that to humans, "Often" N. 45% N 10% NG 10% CN 10% NE 10% LN about 4% each for the rest. In a "N" human society, 1 in 6 are evil compared to the Orcish community where 7 in 10 are evil. Even with the non-evil parts of Orcish society, 2 in 3 are CN which we've seen is almost as bad based on the stories of CN players on this board. Of course that is not the case as humans tend to form societies with like minded individuals.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 08:11 AM	Sorry that you think people are flaming you, I think it's just slightly heated as you have an extreme view on this :) If my post comes accross as flaming I apologise in advance.Mine too.What is the difference? Is it only the civilised races are capable of telling the difference between Good and Evil? Only the races that don;t mention Evil in the Monster Manual? I'm finding it hard to tell how you differentiate.The difference is Orcs are not human, they are different. Humanity is predisposed to N while Orcs are predisposed to CE. Yes, they are "Often" CE which means they have a very strong strain of Chaos and or Evil in them. So intead of a CE Orc you run into a NE or CN Orc. Yeah that says a lot on how safe I'd feel.By judging someone purely on their race, creed and/or colour of skin you are falling into the realms of biggotry/racism. I don't think we need to explain that as a Paladin that it is an unnacceptable mindset to have.But you fail on two points. First you are anthropromorphizing the Orcs. Unless you have Orcs being H-o-m-o Sapien Orcish, they are a completely different species than humans and not just a sub-type. Second, you are applying 21st Century terms for a game place where it does not belong IMHO. If there are humans being held as slaves in your world, then the idea of enlightenment about Orcs, even in good societies, will be not a stretch but a completeparadygm shift.Felt the need to seperate this as I agree completely. I live in belfast, and have grown up around secterianism that is spread from the family. They teach their children to hate the opposite religion, they spread that around their playground and the cycle repeats itself. So yea, I agree with the quote. But thankfully I'm not a Paladin so I'm not gonna fall over in a crisis of faith :) Well, last I checked the only difference between the two groups in Belfast, Catholics vs Protestants, is how they were raised. Neither side has any more or less predispositions to evil and violence, no matter what the fire starters of either side say, than the other. The case is not that way with the Orcs. Again, if you are playing Orcs as a sub-race of humans you have a point. I do not agree that Orcs are but that's my game.I agree that normally the race card can be acceptable. But not when we are dealing with Paladins. For a LN adventurer in the town it could be a valid arguement, but once again (sorry frop repeating myself) NOT FOR A LG PALADIN.I disagree entirely. By not nipping evil in the bud, they only invite more death for other true innocents later on. I don't like the idea that LG is LS which I feel is far to often the case especially when dealing with Paladins and the mental gymnastics I see people wanting to put them under.On a side note, this is one of the best threads concerning alignments and paladins I've seen in a long time. No direct flames and everyone is explaining their viewpoints, it's great and is restoring my faith in alighnment threads :)Good to hear that.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 08:30 AM	Much of the problem is that the alignment system is deliberately vague both to allow some flexibilitiy for players and to avoid offending the sensibilities of players with certain points of wiew regarding good and evil, Thus we got this strange mixture where our characters are bound to behave according to a modern standard of morals while existing in a world that supposedly uses pseudo-medieval values. This does however make a lot of problems when you look at the game in itself , As an example both moradin and correlon who are supposedly good gods but they both espouse racist beliefs that other parts of the game say is outright evil. Therefore it is usually important for a DM to mention how he intends for alignment to work before he starts the game to avoid any misunderstandings. However the paladin is a special case as he is actually independent from the gods and is bound directly to the alignment system, As described he have to be a boyscout and he dont get to complain about it. Not only does he have to avoid ever comitting an evil act, he also have to follow the paladins code and he have to stay lawful good. Personally i have some rules of thumb regarding paladin players: 1." I did it for the greater good" this is of course based on personal experience but i have never ever seen this argument been used unless the paladin player is trying to justify doing something that is utterly opposed to his code or alignment so my basic rule is : There is no greater good there is only good, and you are not allowed to do evil to do good as a paladin. 2. A paladin is allowed to have personal flaws and hatreds but if those feelings will lead to evil then he better not act on them. and lastly the important one 3. Any act that would be considered an vile and evil crime if comitted against the player characters and their loved ones will automatically cause the paladin to lose his status if he does it to npcs. As for the orc babies i would like to point out again that the babies will not all be evil that they have not actually ever comitted evil and that they are not a threat and neither will they be for a decade or more, as for being monsters the orc babies are no more monster than any other baby be it human elven or dwarven that have the same alignment as them, there are simply no justification in the current rules for labeling them as such. Actually the punishment of unprovoked killing just like this is one of the premiere tenets in st. cuthberts faith, actually that would be a nice scenario : in 15-20 years the (ex)paladin gets hunted down by an orcish cleric of st. cuthbert that is revealed to be one of the babies that he tought he killed.
zodiki 06-12-06, 08:33 AM	If the DM thinks the Paladin went too far, he went too far and should lose his powers. The problem I see is not so much one of the Paladin's actions but with communication between the DM and the player on what is and what isnt accepatable behaviour for a Paladin. Depending on the campaign, the Paladin's actions could or could not be construed as evil/breaking his code - as far as plain vanilla goes - it sure seems to me the Paladin is acting evilly. When a player chooses to play a Paladin, the player and the DM must be of one mind on what that means.
Lokathor 06-12-06, 08:50 AM	It doesn't have to do with the fact that they're not humans; at least is shouldn't. Are you supposed to just slaughter elves too? Or halflings? Halflings are almost as likely to be CN, same as an orc might be. Better kill them all, eh? Life is precious. Intelligent life is more precious. Orcs are alive, and they are intelligent, and therefor orcs are precious. Who are you to say who lives and who dies? Just because you've got a big sword and a wizard at your back you get to say that they're not fit to exist just because they were born into being a different kind of person than you are? Is that really the best mindset that the paragons of good can possibly imagine? With that kind of good who needs evil? The "standard" (CE) orc will kill an elf just for being an elf, that's what makes him evil. If the standard paladin will kill an orc just for being an orc, how can that possibly make him good? The markings of a paladin are the fact that he can have an "enlightened" outlook on the world despite the fact that others don't. Not all good has to hold itself to a high standard, but a Paladin does. That's what makes him a Paladin, and not just any other fighter.
wrecan 06-12-06, 08:53 AM	The question of smite on sight has NEVER been acceptable by the RAW except by the most twisted interpretation of it. That was the conscensus of the threads you're referring to as I remember them. Cantankerous, that thread ended with you, LCD2YOU, me, pres_man and maybe two other people actually contributing, while a rogues' gallery of people who had only read the first page of a thread would make uninformed comments. To say there was any "consensus" is to redefine the word. Smite-and-sight is a permissible (though atypical) interpretation or Core RAW using a very limited definition of the word "evil" to include only sociopaths, sadists, death cultists, their respective minions, and creatures who are always evil. Now, you or I might never want to play in such a game, might think it ill-advised, hypocritical, or however you feel fit to judge it, but that's why the answer to every frickin' paladin thread should always be: The DM and player need to discuss what is appropriate behavior for paladins at some point, either remote or close in time, before a paladin is punished in-game for inappropriate behavior. That phrase can be amended appropriately, replacing "paladin" with "monk", "cleric", "bard", "barbarian", "dwarven defender" or any other class or prestige class with an alignment restriction. And if this advice is followed it doesn't matter how one interprets RAW, CRAW, the SRD, or whatever combination of core, supplements and house rules one allows in the game. All that matters is the DM and players all get on the same page.
Kaligrad 06-12-06, 09:06 AM	Hot damn. I'm gone for months, and you guys are still shouting at each other about paladins. Minor side note: usually, a paladin executing his own prisoners in a medieval setting, even during the late or "high" middle ages, would be a form of mercy to the captured. Since a captured humanoid would be found guilty (since he didn't know any "witnesses") and obviously can't pay his blood price (even if he had money, the PC's have undoubtedly looted it), he would far more often than not be executed by the town. Public executions were a form of entertainment at the time, and many towns also had public torturing as well. Having one's head cleanly chopped off at the hands of an experienced warrior at least has an element of privacy that having one's head cleanly chopped off at the hands of an experienced executioner does not, and is a sight better than being tortured beforehand. I must admit, though, that being burned alive in a tent is a bit much, though still faster than being burned at the stake.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 09:14 AM	Of course any nation/city/authority that actually performs public executions and torture for their peoples entertainment would be in D&D be considered EVIL and the paladin could risk loosing his status simply for obeying orders given to him by those authorities.
Kaligrad 06-12-06, 09:18 AM	Of course any nation/city/authority that actually performs public executions and torture for their peoples entertainment would be in D&D be considered EVIL and the paladin could risk loosing his status simply for obeying orders given to him by those authorities. You seem to need to brush up on your history. EVERY nation during the middle ages, including ones in Africa and Asia, supported public executions, slavery, ritual suicide, or a combination of the above.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 09:19 AM	Of course any nation/city/authority that actually performs public executions and torture for their peoples entertainment would be in D&D be considered EVIL and the paladin could risk loosing his status simply for obeying orders given to him by those authorities.Which is what I have always thought Medieval Europe and Puritan America were. Still, they have these sort of "shows" in Saudi Arabia and SE Asia. In the US, they at least don't show the executions, but there are BBQ parties outside the prison walls. A Paladin in this world would sit in a corner and mumble to themselves before being carted away.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 09:26 AM	I am well aware of the bloody history of mankind and each and every one of those nations would be considered evil in D&D. D&Ds alignment is firmly based in the modern understanding of good and evil, Torture and slavery is condemned as evil as is executions for the entertainment of the people. Just because our ancestors did not consider it evil or deviant does not mean that D&D agree with them.
Kaligrad 06-12-06, 09:29 AM	A Paladin in this world would sit in a corner and mumble to themselves before being carted away. Now that's something I can agree to. That's the fun thing about high fantasy; you can dispense with the endless shades of gray that real life has in abundance. The Bad Guys are painted in bold tones of black and red (or purple for you Japanese), while the Good Guys get to stand in the bright light of gold and white. Would that we all had an X-ray beam that told us who to trust and who not to.
wrecan 06-12-06, 09:30 AM	D&Ds alignment is firmly based in the modern understanding of good and evil. D&D alignment constitutes neither modern nor medieval morality. It is a morality system set up for a fantasy role-playing game and incorporates elements of both. And of neither.
Ankalagon 06-12-06, 09:44 AM	It is a morality system set up for a fantasy role-playing game and incorporates elements of both. And of neither. That's certainly true. Don't shoot me for this but originally (x yrs ago), it was believed that the game should be black and white otherwise the American market would find it too difficult to deal with and thereby not buy it. Heroes should slaughter evil, evil should lose out to heroes. That is the essence of D&D, just take a look at how celestials treat evil as per the RAW. I have always found games and gameplay dictated by metagamed concepts of alignment p*ss poor. Keep it if you like, enforce it if you like, black and white or wash it with shades of grey but I am not certain you can ever 100% argue what D&D alignment is or what constitutes absolute Evil or Good. As has been stated, it's pretty much about YOUR game with RAW being RAG. D&D alludes to LG as absolute good whereas old school TN was probably closer, certainly NG. But killing baby orcs is a genetics vs environment argument, good luck anyone with that one. "Often" refers to "adventuring encountered" not "hello Mr&Mrs Orc and rug rats". But that too is IMO.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 09:46 AM	Actually it is far more based in modern thinking than in medieval thinking. Otherwise i would be fully justified in killing torturing and generally maltreating anyone my faith or superior decides are inferior to me. We would have knights raping peasant wenches, guildmasters cruelly beating their apprentices for minor infractions or just because he feels like it, clerics organizing pogroms and burnings, Peasants killing the deformed and outsiders and so on and so on without it being considered unusual or for that matter particulary evil. While the medieval age was in no way a hell on earth it was neither an age particulary concerned with the behavior that the D&D alignment system considers moral and upright.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 09:57 AM	Actually it is far more based in modern thinking than in medieval thinking. Otherwise i would be fully justified in killing torturing and generally maltreating anyone my faith or superior decides are inferior to me.And this is truly different from the modeern world how?We would have knights raping peasant wenches, guildmasters cruelly beating their apprentices for minor infractions or just because he feels like it, clerics organizing pogroms and burnings, Peasants killing the deformed and outsiders and so on and so on without it being considered unusual or for that matter particulary evil.Yeah, sounds like many places in the world today so what is your point?While the medieval age was in no way a hell on earth it was neither an age particulary concerned with the behavior that the D&D alignment system considers moral and upright.But even people today have different ideas on what is the right course of action. The write ups on alignments really don't help as much as you might think.
wrecan 06-12-06, 10:05 AM	And here's some threads on this board where this topic has been discussed ad nauseum. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=647318 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=639755 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=635621 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=636088
wrecan 06-12-06, 10:11 AM	Actually it is far more based in modern thinking than in medieval thinking. There was an enormous flame-baiting thread on this topic a few months ago. Please don't drag this topic back into the spotlight. D&D is a game. It's alignment system is designed to be interpreted to make the game fun, not to expound on the current philosophical questions of the day nor to recreate the morality system of medieval England. Trying to figure out whether it's 60% modern vs. 40% medieval or vice versa is an exercise is subjective wankery and futility. Because it is a game intended to occur in a fantasy setting with medieval flavor and played by people raised with the morality of the modern age, it will have elements of both. And neither. Don't try to shoehorn your morality, or the perceived morality of the medieval peasant, into the rules. If you want to play modern morality, do so, regardless of the rules. If you want to play medieval morality, do so, regardless of the rules. if you want to play with alignment system, do so, regardless of your subjective perceptions of modern or medieval morality. If you wan to mix and match, do so, but be honest that you are doing so.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 10:17 AM	I agree that the the alignment writeups are rather crappy and they should be done far better but i kind of doubt that they will be since WOTC would have to sit down and decide just what kind of player they want to alienate when they present rules rather than vague guidelines. By stating that the alignment guidelines are based on the modern way of thinking rather than a medieval state of mind i was merely referring to the fact that the rules consider murder torture and other crimes not only bad but actually EVIL in an way that the medieval mindset never allowed for, If you counterfeited coins in certain countries you could end up being boiled alive, If you insulted an noble (or if he merely felt insulted) you could end up dead, Kings were thought to be better than you by divine decree, Serfs were just a hair shy of being slaves, In certain countries a noble could demand to sleep with peasant women without the woman being asked or the law being broken. While it is not impossible for anything like this to happen today it is in no way common in the same way that it was in the medevial ages.
wrecan 06-12-06, 10:41 AM	And today, in Western nations, we don't except people running around, undeputized (or even deputized), breaking into sentient peoples' homes, killing htem and looting their stuff. Such people are called vigilantes and bandits, not "adventurers". Feudalism (kings, lords, etc.) is the default government of most D&D campaigns and that would be considered an immoral system by today's standards. Neither modern nor medieval morality fits. D&D adopts fantasy morality, not modern morality, in which you can be a good king who rules without the consent of the governed, and in which you can be a good adventurer who marches into wilderness areas to do battle with bandits without any sanction from the local authorities. D&D adopts fantasy morality, not medieval morality, in which you cannot be a good king for summarily lopping off heads for worshipping the wrong god, and in which you cannot be a good adventurer for killing humanoids who happen to be of a different race that is often evil. The only reason the alignment rules are vague is to give DMs leeway to introduce the alignment definitions they want. That is why the answer to virtually every alignment thread is: The DM and player need to discuss what is appropriate behavior for [alignment-restricted class] at some point, either remote or close in time, before [the alignment-restricted character] is punished in-game for inappropriate behavior.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 10:57 AM	I agree with your point about adventurers and their usual behavior but the alignment system does not in any way demand that you behave like that, actually jugding by the alignment system and what it have to say about respect for others and their property it would seem to discourage such behavior if you want to be considered good. D&D as a whole does encourage players to behave like that since it is one of the more popular ways of playing the game but there is nothing in the part of the PHB regarding alignment starting on page 103 that demands that you break into peoples homes kill them and steal their stuff to be good, That is purely something DMs and players do because they think it is fun.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 11:06 AM	For myself at least, it is a priori to hold that DnD is a game of heroic proportions. In the Fantsay Genre, bad guys take treasure. Tombs dedicated to Evil deities have long forgotten secrets needed to defeat the current evil. Monsters guard the very items the heros need. And on and on. If you are going to have it that the Players are going about, reclaiming lost and stolen items and returning them to the rightful owner, great. But unless you have the genereal populous being at least 10% as righteous as the party, the party should expect a lot of, "No that actually belonged to my great-great-great grand father the one that the other claiments great-great grandmother cheated him out of when she plied her trade and caught my honorable and unsuspecting ancestor in with brigands". The sad thing is, they might both be telling the truth. the first from not knowing their great-great-grandmother did that and the other that their ancestor was robbed. No tickee, no shirtee
Ankalagon 06-12-06, 11:11 AM	I agree that the the alignment writeups are rather crappy and they should be done far better but i kind of doubt that they will be since WOTC would have to sit down and decide just what kind of player they want to alienate when they present rules rather than vague guidelines. How can you write complete rules for a game relying on interaction and spur of the moment decisions. There will always be a circumstance where oh my (head explodes), those damn writers didn't tell me what to do when my players force people to jump on a gnome bicycle with no seat. Alignment rules say enough and that's really all they need to do. The rules do not tell you how to run your game, they advise how within a given framework you can apply their advice. By stating that the alignment guidelines are based on the modern way of thinking rather than a medieval state of mind That's kind of true. I am pretty sure altruism wasn't a word until about 1920 (I maybe wrong). i was merely referring to the fact that the rules consider murder torture and other crimes not only bad but actually EVIL in an way that the medieval mindset never allowed for Medieval mindset is an oxymoron. They had no mind and it was set for a max of 24hrs until the elistest snobs decided to change it. Make your own interpretation of celestials and how they take care of business.
wrecan 06-12-06, 11:12 AM	the alignment system does not in any way demand that you behave like that Nor does it require the opposite. Adventurers are allowed to break into the lich's tower, kill him, steal his stuff and keep it for their own profit, and still keep their good alignment, even if they have no explicit authority from whatever lawful authority may technically control that territory to take those actions. In the modern world, that would not be considered appropriate or ethical behavior. Yet the game allows for it. there is nothing in the part of the PHB regarding alignment starting on page 103 that demands that you break into peoples homes kill them and steal their stuff to be good, The alignment system neither requires it nor (and this is the important part) prohibits it. Therefore, one can be good and do it. That is purely something DMs and players do because they think it is fun. Exactly. This is a game, not a philosophical or nistorical exercise. The alignment system is designed for the game, not vice versa.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 11:16 AM	It depends a lot on what setting you play, I have played pure hack and slash,more standard settings,and more political settings. In campaigns with more evolved authorities it may actually be hard to justify the average slay and loot behavior to the law : Sure i killed the dukes son and robbed his corpse but i did it because he was evil, honest.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 11:19 AM	It depends a lot on what setting you play, I have played pure hack and slash,more standard settings,and more political settings. In campaigns with more evolved authorities it may actually be hard to justify the average slay and loot behavior to the law : Sure i killed the dukes son and robbed his corpse but i did it because he was evil, honest.That's a completely different set of circumstances. Let's try not to confuse going into the wilderness with what you're describing which is a mugging and murder. I play a very political game and many of the NPCs are selfish. They are not evil, though some slide due to their actions, but it still happens in my game that members of the noble houses have gotten killed. Although the players generally end up running for their lives.
Arganis 06-12-06, 11:22 AM	D&D adopts fantasy morality, not medieval morality, in which you cannot be a good king for summarily lopping off heads for worshipping the wrong god, and in which you cannot be a good adventurer for killing humanoids who happen to be of a different race that is often evil. When it comes down to it, the difference between D&D and Real World alignments is that in D&D, the deific forces that enforce such distinctions are tangible and active in daily affairs. Without getting into too much of a religious argument, in D&D you can know if something is good or evil because your cleric can ask your god. A GM should always have a good understanding of those that his/her PCs worship, so (s)he can answer such questions for them. In the real world we are left to resolve our natural instincts against whatever spiritual writings we adhere to. It's all interpretation. Providing you aren't a subjectivist, the terms medieval morality and modern morality are useless. It was as evil to behead someone without just cause then as it is now. Further, it may be evil to execute anyone at all. Who knows!
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 11:26 AM	When it comes down to it, the difference between D&D and Real World alignments is that in D&D, the deific forces that enforce such distinctions are tangible and active in daily affairs. Without getting into too much of a religious argument, in D&D you can know if something is good or evil because your cleric can ask your god. A GM should always have a good understanding of those that his/her PCs worship, so (s)he can answer such questions for them. In the real world we are left to resolve our natural instincts against whatever spiritual writings we adhere to. It's all interpretation. Providing you aren't a subjectivist, the terms medieval morality and modern morality are useless. It was as evil to behead someone without just cause then as it is now. Further, it may be evil to execute anyone at all. Who knows!Even asking the Gods in DnD may not give you the anser one is looking for that really defines good/evil. Ask Morodan about what to do with a cave full of baby orcs. I think his answer will be, "Drown the little *******".
wrecan 06-12-06, 11:32 AM	It depends a lot on what setting you play.Exactly. That's why you can't go around relying on the "fact" that D&D morality is based on modern morality. Nor can you rely on the "fact" that D&D morality mirrors medieval morality. It doesn't even try. That's also why the answer to every alignment thread comes down to: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Wrecan/alignment.jpg
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 11:36 AM	Actually the players are only allowed to break into the lichs tower kill him and steal his stuff if he is actually guilty of something(liches usually are conveniently enough) and if the law in that place allows for such an action. If the lich in question is the master of the wizards guild with a long and distingushed career in the kings service then the players better keep their greedy mittens off him if they want to remain good. If they murder and steal even if they are good and their opponent evil they still can lose their lawful alignment if they do so in a place where the law demands that their opponent is entitled to an trial. Despite the fact that the i kill it and loot it is an popular choice when playing D&D it is in no way an excuse for letting the player break their alignment.
Ankalagon 06-12-06, 11:49 AM	Actually the players are only allowed to break into the lichs tower kill him and steal his stuff if he is actually guilty of something(liches usually are conveniently enough) and if the law in that place allows for such an action. If the lich in question is the master of the wizards guild with a long and distingushed career in the kings service then the players better keep their greedy mittens off him if they want to remain good. If they murder and steal even if they are good and their opponent evil they still can lose their lawful alignment if they do so in a place where the law demands that their opponent is entitled to an trial. Despite the fact that the i kill it and loot it is an popular choice when playing D&D it is in no way an excuse for letting the player break their alignment. Just checking, this is D&D we're talking about :confused:
Arganis 06-12-06, 12:02 PM	Even asking the Gods in DnD may not give you the anser one is looking for that really defines good/evil. If a character merely reveres one or more gods, then they may not feel compelled to follow the teachings of one or more of them at any given time. However, if a character worships a god but does not believe what that god says to be definitive, then they aren't very devout at all. Ask Morodan about what to do with a cave full of baby orcs. I think his answer will be, "Drown the little *******". And if that is what Moradin says, then a paladin of Moradin could not lose his powers for doing so. That's what I mean about defining the beliefs of your PC's deities.
wrecan 06-12-06, 12:03 PM	Actually the players are only allowed to break into the lichs tower kill him and steal his stuff if he is actually guilty of something(liches usually are conveniently enough) and if the law in that place allows for such an action. Really? Show me the rules that says that a chaotic good ranger is not allowed to kill a lich who has lawfully inherited his good father's throne and has decreed that the king may lawfully torture his residents at his pleasure.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 12:19 PM	Sure this is D&D we talk about and i often play it the way the other people speak about myself, But that does not mean that D&D is doomed to be nothing more than an exuse for hack and slash. Despite the fact that many allow their characters to behave like bloodthirsty barbarians and still remain good it does not mean that the alignment system actually allows for that to happen, Read up on it, notice such word and phrases as respect for life, altruism, concern for the dignity for sentinent beings. Also notice that evil is represented by words such as hurting, oppressing, and killing others, Interestingly killing because of convenience is mentioned particulary as an evil trait. To get back to the beginning of my discussion with wrecan where he stated that the alignment system does not prohibit killing people and stealing their goods, i will have disagree after having read up on the alignments just now ,it seems that it does indeed discourage such behaviour from good characters particulary the killing, the stealing might be allowed if you are neutral or chaotic but lawful characters should have problems with that too. This however is not important as such, play the game as is most entertaining for you and your fellow players, The current discussion simply started because wrecan disagreed with me when i stated the alignment system is using a modern mindset when it comes to defining good and evil, I still stand by that, while you here and there may find some artifacts from bygone ages the alignment system is overwhelmingly modern in apperance. And by the way i still hold that killing the orc babies is wrong.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 12:26 PM	I admit that i was thinking of a more lawful perspective when i made the lich example and that the ranger would not have a problem with such an action. However in this example you forget that exceedingly few persons in our day and age would have a problem with anyone assassinating an ruler that had instigated laws that allowed him to torture people at his leisure. So this situation does in no way show a behavior that is in conflict with a modern mindset.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 12:34 PM	Sure this is D&D we talk about and i often play it the way the other people speak about myself, But that does not mean that D&D is doomed to be nothing more than an exuse for hack and slash.And now we actually see the issue. To you, it appears that killing/destroying/using weapons, you're not role playing you are instead hack and slashing. I disagree on so many levels. If you want your players to have characters that, from what I've read from your posts, 21st Century Social Workers, good for you. Just don't ever say that your way is role playing and if you're not RPing like they way you want, ie little violence, then you're just a hack 'n slasher. That is in a phrase, Bovine Scatology.Despite the fact that many allow their characters to behave like bloodthirsty barbarians and still remain good it does not mean that the alignment system actually allows for that to happen, Read up on it, notice such word and phrases as respect for life, altruism, concern for the dignity for sentinent beings.Oh, we've been down this road oh so many times. Read it again. For added fun and excitement, read up on the Spell with the Good Descriptor, "Holy Word" and note it can kill 4th level and under flat out. Sometimes, despite your personal feelings to the contrary, removing a vile and blood thirsty cretin from the land of the living is a good act.Also notice that evil is represented by words such as hurting, oppressing, and killing others, Interestingly killing because of convenience is mentioned particulary as an evil trait.Actually read it again. Evil means doing all of the above. One is not evil unless they do all of the hurting, oppressing AND killing others. As for killing, remember there is a difference between "good" killing and "evil killing someone. Evil kills for fun and or profit. Good will kill but the actions are to prevent future killings, or to save someone directly. They aren't the same. Intent is a huge part of it.To get back to the beginning of my discussion with wrecan where he stated that the alignment system does not prohibit killing people and stealing their goods, i will have disagree after having read up on the alignments just now ,it seems that it does indeed discourage such behaviour from good characters particulary the killing, the stealing might be allowed if you are neutral or chaotic but lawful characters should have problems with that too.You can diagree all you want but unless you can show via RAW or SRD that is just your opinion for your game.This however is not important as such, play the game as is most entertaining for you and your fellow players, The current discussion simply started because wrecan disagreed with me when i stated the alignment system is using a modern mindset when it comes to defining good and evil, I still stand by that, while you here and there may find some artifacts from bygone ages the alignment system is overwhelmingly modern in apperance.Which is your opinion. So far we've seen your opinion, not anything from the RAW or SRD from you to back it up. Trust me when I state that wrecan, pres_man, cantankerous and I have gone down this road many times before.And by the way i still hold that killing the orc babies is wrong.As do I but that's me and it has little to do with the game unless you make it as such. Still as myself and others have pointed out, in DnD, you have LG gods who have an exceedingly strong genocidal streak. Moradin is one such example.
pres_man 06-12-06, 12:44 PM	Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life I think in order to show that killing baby orcs (or any "monster" humanoid younglings) is not evil by the RAW, one has to show that they are not in fact "innocent" by the RAW. If they are in fact "innocent" then at least for paladins this makes killing them impossible to justify. 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.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 12:51 PM	Actually i personally rarely play good characters and prefer neutral ones. However when mentioning Bovine Scatology i must say that i am impressed by the concentration of such mentioned this part of your post : " Actually read it again. Evil means doing all of the above. One is not evil unless they do all of the hurting, oppressing AND killing others. As for killing, remember there is a difference between "good" killing and "evil killing someone. Evil kills for fun and or profit. Good will kill but the actions are to prevent future killings, or to save someone directly. They aren't the same. Intent is a huge part of it." If your version of the alignment system is correct then i could play a torturer that puts his hot iron to any child that passes him be and he would never ever be evil because he does not kill anyone i could torture and terrorize for years and not become evil simply because i did never kill anyone, That is to put it mildly one of the more interesting ways of wiewing alignment i have ever seen. Also it is important to note that i do not mind characters killing what i do mind is supposedly good characters that kill unneeded and for profit. Finally just because moradin wants you to kill the orcs does not let your paladin do so, paladins often have to behave better than their gods and they are not dependent on them for their powers and spells unless you play forgotten realms which is an non-core setting. p.s had to edit the post to add in a few lines that dissappeared on me it should make more sense now.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 12:52 PM	Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent lifeI think in order to show that killing baby orcs (or any "monster" humanoid younglings) is not evil by the RAW, one has to show that they are not in fact "innocent" by the RAW. If they are in fact "innocent" then at least for paladins this makes killing them impossible to justify.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. Which then comes into mind why would a deity, as per the game who is supposed to be LG like Moradin, exist with a strong genocidal bent? The answer is in each DM's game and they have the right to interpret this Catch 22 themselves.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 12:57 PM	Actually i personally rarely play good characters and prefer neutral ones.Good for you and this means what in this discussion?However when mentioning Bovine Scatology i must say that i am impressed by the concentration of such mentioned this part of your post :again your opinion which you are giving freely without facts or evidence on the matter."If your version is correct then i could play an torturer that puts his hot irons to use on any child he passes by and never ever be evil as long as i do not kill anyone, I could torture and terrorize people for years and never be evil simply because i did never kill anyone, That is simply put one of the more interesting ways to decide alignment i have ever Actually read it again. Evil means doing all of the above. One is not evil unless they do all of the hurting, oppressing AND killing others.I guess you're responding to me. I did not write that above. I did write this:As for killing, remember there is a difference between "good" killing and "evil killing someone. Evil kills for fun and or profit. Good will kill but the actions are to prevent future killings, or to save someone directly. They aren't the same. Intent is a huge part of it."Which I say is a huge part if not the real difference behind it all.seen. Also it is important to note that i do not mind characters killing what i do mind is supposedly good characters that kill unneeded and for profit.Same here. I wouldn't classify those characters as good. But your point is?Finally just because moradin wants you to kill the orcs does not let your paladin do so, paladins often have to behave better than their gods and they are not dependent on them for their powers and spells unless you play forgotten realms which is an non-core setting.Which is intersting to say the least. That doesn't make sense to me in RL or in DnD. Could you further elaborate on this please?
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 01:06 PM	Sorry for the post above it did get messed up somehow it should be somewhat better now. The point i made is that paladins can serve gods that do not themselves uphold the paladins alignment in such cases the paladin is still bound both by his code of conduct and his alignment, Just look at the first post regarding the paladin of st. chutbert st. chutbert is LN but the paladin is still bound to be LG and in effect have to behave better than his god usually does to remain a paladin. Also paladins in core-D&D is not beholden to gods for their paladinhood st cuthbert cannot cause the paladin to fall if the paladin refuses to commit an action the paladin feels is overly harsh.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 01:15 PM	Sorry for the post above it did get messed up somehow it should be somewhat better now. The point i made is that paladins can serve gods that do not themselves uphold the paladins alignment in such cases the paladin is still bound both by his code of conduct and his alignment, Just look at the first post regarding the paladin of st. chutbert st. chutbert is LN but the paladin is still bound to be LG and in effect have to behave better than his god usually does to remain a paladin. Also paladins in core-D&D is not beholden to gods for their paladinhood st cuthbert cannot cause the paladin to fall if the paladin refuses to commit an action the paladin feels is overly harsh.Which is all well and good but those are your rules. I don't have them in my world. A Paladin who follows a deity does what that deity wants or they are no longer a Paladin. Another thing, generally deities have a much longer view of things than do mere mortals. How does the mortal Paladin know something that the deity they worship doesn't? Perhaps the deity is aware of a great evil that arises if their decrees are not obeyed? That is a very plausible and possible scenario.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 01:23 PM	In your world you are entirely free to do as you want, However in 3.5 there is no way for your god to disipline the paladin as long as he stays LG. There is of course no way to know what would or would not happen if the character does this or that. Divine commands does in no way allow the paladin to obey orders that are evil(admittedly it is unlikely that a paladins god would give him an outright evil command) even if moradin himself popped down from the sky and gave him the command he would still immideatly loose his paladin abilities.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 01:25 PM	In your world you are entirely free to do as you want, However in 3.5 there is no way for your god to disipline the paladin as long as he stays LG.Again, your opinion.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 01:31 PM	You seem to be incredibly talented at writing "your opinion" or words to that effect, might i prevail upon you to actually present ANY evidence that i am indeed wrong or have your keyboard simply hung up on those keys ?
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 01:50 PM	You seem to be incredibly talented at writing "your opinion" or words to that effect, might i prevail upon you to actually present ANY evidence that i am indeed wrong or have your keyboard simply hung up on those keys ?You are the one making pronouncements on just what 3.5 says without quoting it. You are using your opinion, nothing wrong with that. Just as I learned, don't confuse your opinions and feelings on the subject with what is actually said in the SRD and RAW. Would you care to back up your opinions on what the RAW and SRD of 3.5 says with quotes from them?
wrecan 06-12-06, 02:00 PM	However in 3.5 there is no way for your god to disipline the paladin as long as he stays LG. Wha-huh? A paladin falls if he commits a single evil act. Committing a single evil act does not make you change alignment, however. A LG fighter might commit one evil act in the heat of passion and remain LG, just as a CE rogue may commit a merciful charitable act and remain CE. A paladin falls if he grossly violates his code. If a paladin order charges a paladin to never ever lie, as it would be a gross violation, and the paladin lies to an evil tyrant in order to save the life of an innocent, he remains LG, but that god may tell him to take a hike as being unable to abide by the strict code of conduct required of his paladins. A paladin's god can certainly cause the paladin to fall long befor ehe ceases to be LG. You have a penchant for citing your opinion as law. Before you ask LCD2YOU to prove a negative, you might want to consider proving your own argument first.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 02:05 PM	I am making the pronouncements simply because there is not one word in the phb that the paladins are in any way dependent on the gods they chose to serve, Not one word at all. As opposed to clerics where it is indeed mentioned that if you violate their gods ethos you might be censured. Similarily there is no mention of the fighters bonus feats only working when they fight creatures that are purple or wizards spells only working on mondays, This however do not mean that this is so, It simply means that the class abilities function without any special restrictions. The paladin is only dependent on two things to avoid falling, Their code of conduct and their LG alignment, You may add to that if you feel like it but that is indeed a houserule, Not an unreasonable houserule but it is still one.
wrecan 06-12-06, 02:08 PM	while you here and there may find some artifacts from bygone ages the alignment system is overwhelmingly modern in apperance. I don't know how you can think tolerance for feudalism is a small part of the alignment system. It's the crux of what keeps the alignment system working in a fantasy campaign. You want to play with modern morality, and I think that's swell. But you also want to think your preconceptions are the only way to interpret the alignment system and I think that's bad. the ranger would not have a problem with such an action. Um... so the alignment system does allow good people to break into the homes of lawful rulers, slaughter them, take their stuff and sell it for profit? few persons in our day and age would have a problem with anyone assassinating an ruler that had instigated laws that allowed him to torture people at his leisure. I don't know what day and age you live in, but if somebody were to break into the house of the President of North Korea (a madman who does torture his own people), slit his throat, take all the money in his safe and try to live from said ill-gotten gains, that person would still be arrested and tossed into jail. He may be thanked for killing a dictator but in no way would be be considered a "good" person by modern standards. He'd be killed a hitman, an assassin or a burgler, and not with any good connotation.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 02:08 PM	If the paladin commits an evil act then it is him and not his god that causes his fall, similarily with if he lies and do have an code of conduct against that he is the one that have failed.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 02:11 PM	I invite you to quote the Paladin's SRD and RAW here. It could be it says and doesn't say things you think it does.
wrecan 06-12-06, 02:15 PM	The paladin is only dependent on two things to avoid falling, Their code of conduct and their LG alignment Wrong: Ex-Paladins A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). One willful evil act causes a fall. By the way, the SRD nowhere says that a deity causes a fall in the circumstance of ceasing to be LG. So the paladin is always the cause of his own fall, technically.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 02:18 PM	Remember this Immurmodi, The CoC for the Paladin can be written by the deity they worship and the #1 on the list for almost every deity is, "Do what I say".
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 02:24 PM	I am sorry but just what should i quote? there is nothing there at all regarding gods being able to censure paladins, The only place delving into the paladin and falling is the bottom of page 42 under alignment and the bottom of page 44 under ex paladins, Neither place mentions gods with a single word. I have also checked the hypertext srd and similarily there is not a single word of gods there either. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 02:28 PM	A paladin do not have to worship an deity at all but if he did swear to such an code he would of course be bound by it. That does not however mean that he can obey such commands if they go against his code or if the demand would be evil without being faced with a loss of his paladin status. "the SRD nowhere says that a deity causes a fall in the circumstance of ceasing to be LG. So the paladin is always the cause of his own fall, technically." That is actually one of my points a paladin can allways fall for any number of reasons but it is he and his class that causes such a fall not his god.
wrecan 06-12-06, 02:35 PM	A paladin do not have to worship an deity at all but if he did swear to such an code he would of course be bound by it. And thus fall if he doesn't. That does not however mean that he can obey such commands if they go against his code That is actually one of my points a paladin can allways fall for any number of reasons but it is he and his class that causes such a fall not his god. So what? Hey, i've got a point! Clouds are often white. You keep repeating a point with which nobody takes issue while ignoring all the other points being made showing where your opinion of alignments is horribly, horribly skewed.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 02:37 PM	I am sorry but just what should i quote? there is nothing there at all regarding gods being able to censure paladins, The only place delving into the paladin and falling is the bottom of page 42 under alignment and the bottom of page 44 under ex paladins, Neither place mentions gods with a single word. I have also checked the hypertext srd and similarily there is not a single word of gods there either. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htmHow about right here: Code of Conduct A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.I highlighted the part about following legitimate authority. Are you saying the deity the Paladin follows is not a legit authority? Also note how undefined the entire part of the Palaadin's CoC and why it is so open to interpretation.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 02:48 PM	If the god are making demands that goes against the code of conduct or that is evil it does cease to be a legitimate authority. To make an example of st cuthbert again he might find it entirely appropriate that a poisoner dies from the same poison that he killed his victims with, But the paladins code forbids this, If st cuthbert makes a demand that his paladin shall poison the poisoner then the paladin is doomed to fall if he has sworn to obey his god in every matter, he will fall for disobeying or he will fall for poisoning his foe. But as the god represents an illegitimate authority here by demanding an act that violates the paladins code of conduct he might get out of it by refusing to poison the badguy on the other hand he is screwed if he actually poisons him as there is no out at all for using poison.
Ankalagon 06-12-06, 02:55 PM	If the god are making demands that goes against the code of conduct or that is evil it does cease to be a legitimate authority. To make an example of st cuthbert again he might find it entirely appropriate that a poisoner dies from the same poison that he killed his victims with, But the paladins code forbids this, If st cuthbert makes a demand that his paladin shall poison the poisoner then the paladin is doomed to fall if he has sworn to obey his god in every matter, he will fall for disobeying or he will fall for poisoning his foe. That's a complete and utter load of BS. IF my DM playing the God roleplayed ordering me to do something and then stripped me of powers either way I would hit him really, really hard right in the nose. Then I would take his DMG and make a visit to the toilet armed with a good supply of paper. A Paladin I believe requires divine sponsorship however the RAW alludes to external agency, without that there is no judge and without a judge there is a possibilty that the Paladin could never fall no matter what. A Paladin's code even detailed an celestial nose pickings isn't likely to be the magna carta.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 02:55 PM	If the god are making demands that goes against the code of conduct or that is evil it does cease to be a legitimate authority.What you keep on forgetting is at times the gods do know what is going on way deeper than any mere mortal. The Pally's actions, although it may look evil, from the perspective of the ability to look at the whole picture over time it may not be an evil act. Another thing, one act can make a god an "illegit authority?" To make an example of st cuthbert again he might find it entirely appropriate that a poisoner dies from the same poison that he killed his victims with, But the paladins code forbids this, If st cuthbert makes a demand that his paladin shall poison the poisoner then the paladin is doomed to fall if he has sworn to obey his god in every matter, he will fall for disobeying or he will fall for poisoning his foe.St. Cuthbert wouldn't do that. The Paladin would turn the prisoner over, the clerics would commune for a punishment, but as St. Cuthbert is LN, I'm sure they already have innumerable tomes on the subject including any special circumstances.
wrecan 06-12-06, 03:05 PM	Immurmodi, Please show me where the rules define the following terms: "innocent" "legitimate authority" "dignity of sentient beings" "oppessing" "honor" Please be sure to cite your sources. The reason I ask is because these are crucial terms in the alignment and paladin descriptions. You seem to think there is only one way to interpret these terms, while LCD2YOU and I think that these terms are quite open to varying interpretations.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 03:09 PM	Even if the gods did have a plan that does not allow the paladin to break his code, For all we know perhaps making the paladin fall and becoming an cannibalistic blackguard would ensure the victory of good over evil in a few centuries, That does not matter however as the paladin would still be evil. Secondly i am far from certain that cuthbert would not do that, He seems to be quite a merciless divinity at times, More important in this discussion is however that you dodged my question so i will repeat it: LN god demands that a paladin violates his code because the god wants something done in a particular manner, There is nothing in the demand that violates the gods ethos but it does indeed violate the paladins code, What happens ?
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 03:13 PM	Immurmodi, Nobody is dodging your questions. You are not giving definitive answers and when you finally did bring up the SRD on Paladins, it really didn't say what you thought, or more correctly you wanted it to did it? So, answer the simple question of the meanings of the words wrecan gave you.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 03:14 PM	Wrecan there is nothing in the rules that defines those terms just in the same way as the effects of being dead is not defined in the game. That however does not translate into being able to say "my paladins god wants me to violate my paladins code and therefore it is ok" BY RAW you do have to obey the code, There is nothing that says that you have to obey your god when he wants you to violate the code.
pres_man 06-12-06, 03:20 PM	Which then comes into mind why would a deity, as per the game who is supposed to be LG like Moradin, exist with a strong genocidal bent? The answer is in each DM's game and they have the right to interpret this Catch 22 themselves. What genocidal bent? I fail to see that, could please site where this information is. This is what I have for Moradin, Corellon Larethian, and Gruumsh; their relationships to each other and each other's followers. Corellon Larethian ... Gruumsh is his nemesis, and it is because of Corellon's battle prowess that Gruumsh is called "One-Eye". Gruumsh ... He harbors a special hatred for Corellon Larethian, Moradin, and their followers. In ages past, Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's left eye in a fight. Moradin **no comments about racial foes** So the only one that states there is some kind of racial hatred towards anyone elses followers is Gruumsh. well maybe there is something in the racial descriptions at the front. Dwarves ... Dwarves mistrust half-orcs in general, and the feeling is mutual. Luckily, dwarves are fair-minded, and they grant individual half-orcs the opportunity to prove themselves. +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs (including half-orcs) and goblinoids (including goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears). Dwarves are trained in the special combat techniques that allow them to fight their common enemies more effectively. Elves ..., and they regard half-orcs with unrelenting suspicion. ..., and they are generally pleasant and gracious even to those who fall short of elven standards (a category that encompasses just about everybody who's not an elf.) I'm just not seeing the genocidal tendencies of these deities or their followers. Where is it? I have also looked in the Deities and Demigods (3rd edition?), and I find the following. p. 62 - "... Gruumsh, the deity of orcs, is his nemesis, and it is because of Corellon's battle prowess that Gruumsh is called "One-Eye". p. 71 - "... Gruumsh dislikes everything that is not an orc or of orcish make, and he feels particularly spiteful towards elves (over the matter of his eye). He feels equal malice towards dwarves, who contested with the orcs for control of the mountains and won, a state of affairs Gruumsh regards as strickly temporary." p. 83 - "... They also educate the young, arrange communal defenses, and sponsor expeditions to settle new lands. ..." Again it seems that Gruumsh is the only one who directs his dislike towards not only his fellow deities but also towards their followers. The good deities seem to limit their dislike to Gruumsh and not necessarily to his followers.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 03:20 PM	Wrecan there is nothing in the rules that defines those terms just in the same way as the effects of being dead is not defined in the game.Dead? As is dead dead? As in Undead? As in Dead to your family (you are an outcast). Bad choice.That however does not translate into being able to say "my paladins god wants me to violate my paladins code and therefore it is ok"And I'd call that a strawman. As you linked to, the CoC is not all that complete is it? It also says respect legit authority. what can be more legit than the deity the paladin follows? How does one apply mortal terms to agents of Law and Goodness who most likely have a far longer view than any mortal?BY RAW you do have to obey the code, There is nothing that says that you have to obey your god when he wants you to violate the code.And I'm saying a Paladin doing their deity's bidding is doing exactly that. Now, please address the other words as "dead" didn't work too well for you.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 03:27 PM	Sorry LCD2YOU but you just dodged it again. Secondly the SRD did as i told you repeatedly, Not mention with one word having to obey your god when he demands that you violate your code, It does mention obeying legitimate authority which is ARGUABLY a way to get out of that problem but there is simply no recurse for a paladin that obeys the order that would violate his code. So lets put it out in the open : Your paladin gets an order that requires him to violate his code. If he does violate his code just what justification do you have for allowing him to remain a paladin ? RAW he have violated his code and is fallen no excuses, If you have another answer please point to the page in the phb that says that an paladin can ignore this because ....
Drachasor 06-12-06, 03:35 PM	Dead? As is dead dead? As in Undead? As in Dead to your family (you are an outcast). Dead dead. There's nothing that says you can't get up, cast spells, attack, move around, etc once dead. I think when someone says "dead" it is pretty clear what they mean if they don't add anything to it. "undeath" is a particular term to which "dead" doesn't really apply. When you throw in "dead to your family," I think you are just being difficult. And I'd call that a strawman. As you linked to, the CoC is not all that complete is it? It also says respect legit authority. what can be more legit than the deity the paladin follows? How does one apply mortal terms to agents of Law and Goodness who most likely have a far longer view than any mortal?And I'm saying a Paladin doing their deity's bidding is doing exactly that. As he just said, respecting a legitimate authority is just one aspect of the Paladin code. He can't follow an order from such an authority that violates other aspects (in particular one that has him do evil). In addition, "respect" doesn't necessarily mean "obey" so just because he respects a god as a moral authority doesn't mean he has to listen to said god. For one the god may be wrong, for another the god may be another god in disguise (or some other form of deception)...there are many reasons for a paladin to not obey a legitimate authority. -Drachasor
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 03:36 PM	pres_man: I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in the PHB. I'll check my book on deities.Sorry LCD2YOU but you just dodged it again.Like answering which version of "dead" do you mean? I did that.Secondly the SRD did as i told you repeatedly, Not mention with one word having to obey your god when he demands that you violate your code, It does mention obeying legitimate authority which is ARGUABLY a way to get out of that problem but there is simply no recurse for a paladin that obeys the order that would violate his code.There is not much to the CoC. Just reading the CoC gives no meaning of what an innocent is, etc. If there is one who is unable to answer the questions put before them it is you.So lets put it out in the open : Your paladin gets an order that requires him to violate his code. If he does violate his code just what justification do you have for allowing him to remain a paladin ? RAW he have violated his code and is fallen no excuses, If you have another answer please point to the page in the phb that says that an paladin can ignore this because ....Again, who is telling my paladin this? His deity? Some kid on the street corner? Little voices inside your head? As you haven't defined your terms, this conversation can't go any further.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 03:40 PM	No dead actually works rather well, As you might know undead as shown by the un appended to the dead signifies a rather different state than being dead, amusingly there are rules for being undead, And being dead to your family is an expression meant to signify just how far removed form your familys thoughts you are, To nobodys great surprise it therefore uses the word for an unresponsive corpse i.e. dead. I will of course allow you to continue to struggle with the implications of the word if you wish I do agree that the code of conduct is vague but there is indeed parts of it that a god that allows paladins to work for him could bump up against, and when that happens there is nothing in the PHB at all that allows for the paladin to stay in the ranks if he breaks the code, nothing at all
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 03:41 PM	Dead dead. There's nothing that says you can't get up, cast spells, attack, move around, etc once dead. I think when someone says "dead" it is pretty clear what they mean if they don't add anything to it. "undeath" is a particular term to which "dead" doesn't really apply. When you throw in "dead to your family," I think you are just being difficult.Au contraire mon ami. That's the thing you can't be sure and until things are defined, one can't start getting tho the heart of the matter. Immurmodi isn't defining his terms. As this is a fantasy game with quasi-medeival overtones, the idea that a person can be dead to their family is not being difficult. It is you don't like what I'm asking so you will try to turn the screw.As he just said, respecting a legitimate authority is just one aspect of the Paladin code. He can't follow an order from such an authority that violates other aspects (in particular one that has him do evil).Again, he knows it is evil how?In addition, "respect" doesn't necessarily mean "obey" so just because he respects a god as a moral authority doesn't mean he has to listen to said god. For one the god may be wrong, for another the god may be another god in disguise (or some other form of deception)...there are many reasons for a paladin to not obey a legitimate authority. -DrachasorWhich is why he needs to define his terms. Immurmodi, Define the terms or forget getting any response from me. Claim whatever you want but as you change tact and seem to avoid answering questions it is obvious that you want to keep the definitions obscure as that keeps you from being totally nailed down.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 03:45 PM	Very well then a simple one that i actually used before but that you apparently decided to ignore: poison is explicitly forbiddden by the code, st cuthbert still wants that poisoner dead and yes this time he did tell the paladin to poison him what happens ?
Drachasor 06-12-06, 03:47 PM	Au contraire mon ami. That's the thing you can't be sure and until things are defined, one can't start getting tho the heart of the matter. Immurmodi isn't defining his terms. I defined "dead". Look it up in the core books now if you want. Or just pretend it was never mentioned. As this is a fantasy game with quasi-medeival overtones, the idea that a person can be dead to their family is not being difficult. It is you don't like what I'm asking so you will try to turn the screw. I'm sure when all along he has been talking about things strictly from the book, he would suddenly throw a metaphor at you. That makes a lot of sense. Again, he knows it is evil how?Which is why he needs to define his terms. An order that requires him to kill someone that is not evil (with no reason given), help someone that is evil, torture someone, kill the innocent, etc. There are plenty of acts that are evil according to the rules, and just because a supposedly good god says "it's ok" doesn't change that. Just use the definition of evil in the PHB or SRD. That's the relevent one. -Drachasor
pres_man 06-12-06, 03:52 PM	pres_man: I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in the PHB. I'll check my book on deities. Very well, until you can provide some actual game sources for this conjucture, I think it is safe to place the idea that good beings kill beings based solely on race in the area(s) of "Opinons and/or Houserules" and thus is not relevant to the current discussion. So, so far we have no evidence that killing beings solely on race is anything other than an evil trait (it is within the description of the LE alignment). As for the other issues. Breaking the code of paladin does not cause the paladin to fall, unless said breaking is either done through doing a willing evil act or through gross violation of the code. Arguing that one has to define terms that are not defined within the game is a bit dumb. If a term does not have a specific game definition, then one should use a more common source for the definition. Now it may be that more than one common definition might apply and each might support different positions, but in that case, one should be arguing the merits of their applied definition, not arguing that no definition is known. Next you'll be arguing about the definition of the word "Is".
wrecan 06-12-06, 03:54 PM	My point is much simpler. I take issues with the following blanket statements made by you: "Torture and slavery is condemned as evil" -Please explain to me where torture and slavery is explicitly condemned as evil under the SRD. You made a very broad statement and I don't think it can be backed up, without resort to inherently vague terms such as "dignity of sentient beings", or defining torture and slavery in ways that make it tautological. "i was merely referring to the fact that the rules consider murder torture and other crimes not only bad but actually EVIL" -Please tell me which rules in the SRD state that. "in our day and age would have a problem with anyone assassinating an ruler that had instigated laws that allowed him to torture people at his leisure." -Please respond to my point disputing this. In the modern day and age, someone who would kill a the N. Korean dictator without being part of any legitimate authority, would be considered an assassin and not a good person, especially if he then took all of the dictator's possessions as his own. (This is the analogy to the CG ranger who slays the lich-king in his tower and takes the lich-king's treasure -- a scenario you agree is perfectly consistent with D&D's alignment rules.) "i do not mind characters killing" -Please reconcile this statement with your statement that D&D morality uses modern morality. Because I don't think modern morality lets undeputized citizens to run around killing lawbreakers, even if they don't do it for fun or profit. Those people are called vigilantes in the real world and they go to jail. In D&D, they are known as "PCs". "in 3.5 there is no way for your god to disipline the paladin as long as he stays LG." -I think it is pointed out that in 3.5, it is perfectly legitimate for the paladin's code of conduct to be drafted by the paladin's god and for the god to revoke the paladin's powers for violating the code. The rules don't require that interpretation, but neither do they prohibit it. I trust you understand the distinction. "The paladin is only dependent on two things to avoid falling, Their code of conduct and their LG alignment, You may add to that if you feel like it but that is indeed a houserule" -I have shown that in addition to the "two things" you identify, a paladin also falls for committing an evil act, even if it is not in violation of the code, and even if it does not cause a change in alignment. Will you agree that your statement was in error? Now, I am not saying your statements are themselves inconsistent with the rules. They are one permissible interpretation, but they are not the exclusive interpretation of the alignment/paladin rules. Agreed?
wrecan 06-12-06, 03:59 PM	it may be that more than one common definition might apply and each might support different positions, but in that case, one should be arguing the merits of their applied definition, not arguing that no definition is known. I agree and this is where I have a fundamental problem with Immumodi's stance as he consistently makes statements using inherently vague terms and assumes that his interpretation is the only possible one. I think LCD2YOU has probably overstated his argument. But that doesn't give Immumodi's argument more validity.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 04:12 PM	I think LCD2YOU has probably overstated his argument. But that doesn't give Immumodi's argument more validity.Well that sucks. When that happens the message is lost in the rhetoric. Gotta stop posting during long and heated conferrence calls.
pres_man 06-12-06, 04:12 PM	"in 3.5 there is no way for your god to disipline the paladin as long as he stays LG." -I think it is pointed out that in 3.5, it is perfectly legitimate for the paladin's code of conduct to be drafted by the paladin's god and for the god to revoke the paladin's powers for violating the code. The rules don't require that interpretation, but neither do they prohibit it. I trust you understand the distinction. I agree that saying there is no way for a deity to punish a paladin is perhaps too much. Yet it is clear that paladins do not have to have a deity (stated explicitly in the PHB p. 43). Thus a paladin can involve the following a deity into their code (the legitmate authority clause), but this is not necessary. In fact even if a paladin follows a deity this does not even mean that the abilities of the paladin come from that deity and that deity has any control over the paladin's abilities, just as a ranger may follow a deity or a druid or even bards, barbarians, etc. Clerics are the only class that when they claim to follow a deity that the deity has some strong influence over the cleric's abilities.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 04:21 PM	Torture and slavery it does indeed fall under the admittedly vague term "concern for the dignity of sentinent creatures" but quite simply there is no way those two institutions dont fall under this term unless virtually nothing is covered under it (admittedly i am using chattel slavery here other forms of slavery might be more acceptable). As for the ranger that rubbed out kim jong il (film at eleven) i did state that people would not have a problem with it, laws however are another matter, obviously he would not be considered a real "hero" by many people if he absconded with a ton of money but yes i have seen enough of people to know that a lot of people would cheer him on, probably while loudly begging him for the removal of other people. People that shoot lawbreakers are vigilantes they are also called heroes and victims. Also do note that i did say that the alignment system was based and heavily at that on the modern mindset, that does not however mean that every single part of it is based on modern thought. I will agree however that if the god demands an oath of obedience from the paladin and he accepts that then he would be punished for not obeying but again that caused by the paladin and his abilities and not by any further effort from his god. As for the last point however i entirely agree, I did not think of the fact that he did not have to perform an act of great evil. so i do agree on that point.
wrecan 06-12-06, 04:45 PM	Torture and slavery it does indeed fall under the admittedly vague term... And that's all I'm saying. I suspect you don't mean to come off this way, but when you make the blanket statements like the one's I quoted, and which you've now clarified, it make you sound like you think your way of interpreting alignment is the only way to play. In alignment threads, which as you can see get very heated, that kind of tone quickly disintegrates into a flame war. i did state that people would not have a problem with it, laws however are another matter, obviously he would not be considered a real "hero" by many people if he absconded with a ton of money but yes i have seen enough of people to know that a lot of people would cheer him on, probably while loudly begging him for the removal of other people. There you go again. "A lot of people" Who? Obviously, not those who enforce the laws that you presume he would be incarcerated under. Is morality now determined by majority vote? And if so, would Kim Jong Il's assassin pass or not. I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of people." But the point is that the burgler-assassin that you seem to agree is probably not going to be considered "good" is the standard non-lawful PC in a D&D game (even if he wouldn't be considered evil). I really don't see how you can say that alignment is based on modern morality when modern morality would so clearly not think that the standard adventuring party is good. I also note that such vigilantes wouldn't have gotte a very good reception under medieval morality either. That's why I argue that D&D alignment is "fantasy" morality specifically designed for the game. People that shoot lawbreakers are vigilantes they are also called heroes and victims. Yes, twenty years ago, we had a guy by the name of Bernard Goetz here in NYC. He claimed to have shot and killed four kids in self-defense in a subway. At the time he was lauded as a hero.... ...but then it was discovered that Goetz was not being mugged. He had been mugged years before andit scarred him. It was possible that he was actually trolling the subways looking for muggers and then shooting them. At that point, he was not lauded as a hero, even though it was clear that the guys he shot were actually on the prowl to mug people in the subway. What always struck me about Goetz's story was how close it is to so many good-aligned characters in D&D (and comic book heroes). He's a guy who go the wrong end of the stick and so he took the law into his own hands and struck a blow for the common man. But in the real world we don't like those people. In fact, they sort of scare us. In fantasy and fiction, however, they are lauded as heroes. (Dirty Harry, anyone? Deathwish?) That's why D&D uses "fantasy" alignment, not medieval morality and not modern morality. It's easy to confuse modern and fantasy morality. After all, we think of Robin Hood, the Batman and Spiderman and other recent examples of fictional vigilantes, and how much people idolize them and love them and we think that totally applies in the real world. But then you get an actual vigilante in the real world, the number of people who legitimately think of them as heroes turns out to be quite small. that does not however mean that every single part of it is based on modern thought. Except the good-aligned vigilante-style adventurer is a major archetype (arguably the major archetype) for adventurers. If modern morality doesn't allow for good-aligned vigilantes, and I don't think it does, except in very limited circumstances that do not carry over to D&D, then it is inappropriate to say that alignment is based on modern morality. he would be punished for not obeying but again that caused by the paladin and his abilities and not by any further effort from his god. This confuses me. Obviously, if the paladin willfully violates a god's tenet and the god smites him physically with a lightning bolt, we can say this was caused by the paladin's own action. Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying the paladin chooses to fall, and concurrently, could violate his code and then choose not to fall? I think you are arguing that every paladin who falls must fall as a natural consequence of violating his oath, no external force needed. But I am saying that is not a necessary interpretation of the paladin rules. No rule is violated by saying that paladins who join an order dedicated to a deity and who violated the code of that deity are caused to fall by the deity himself. It's neither prohibited nor required by the rules. Do you agree or disagree? I did not think of the fact that he did not have to perform an act of great evil. so i do agree on that point. No problem. I screw up on rules all the time too.
wrecan 06-12-06, 04:50 PM	even if a paladin follows a deity this does not even mean that the abilities of the paladin come from that deity and that deity has any control over the paladin's abilities, just as a ranger may follow a deity or a druid or even bards, barbarians, etc. Agreed. I'm not saying a paladin who violates a deity's code and falls must have had his powers taken by the direct hand of the deity. I'm saying that is a permissible interpretation of the rules for those paladins who have sworn to uphold a specific deity's code of conduct.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 05:07 PM	While i would normally agree with avoiding blanket terms i have never seen anyone making a remotely convincing argument regarding how torture and chattel slavery in any way shows concern for the dignity of sentinent creatures. What i meant was that the breaking of the oath was the action that caused the paladins fall not any divine gesture of irritation from his divinity, While i do understand those that want the paladins to be accountable to their gods, that is an houserule, We do not play the game by what is not stated, It is not stated that characters are not able to fly magically at level 1, what we do have is explicit rules for just how and when you are able to fly magically. We do have one class where it is clearly spelled out that the gods can and will censure them if they do not follow their ethos, That class is the cleric. The paladin is not in any way even suggested to have such an limitation, neither does the ranger or the druid. all those classes can cast divine spells all of them can be connected to a god of their choice and none of them have the limitation the cleric does. As for the god tossing a lightning bolt at the paladin that is no greater threath than any other character who annoys their gods may experience.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 05:40 PM	I want to thank you all for an interesting discussion to while away a boring day. I do of course realise that many of the points raised can be interpreted differently, However i do belive that by the RAW there is no way for a god to censure a paladin that he would not be able to use on any other character (lightning from the sky, an ornery solar). While i am all for allowing for flexibility in the game i simply cannot see anything that allows for a god to censure a paladin any more than than the same god is allowed to remove spells from an wizards memory or removing a monks evasion ability. Still it have been an interesting discussion and i may post more tomorrow, now however it is feeding time.
wrecan 06-12-06, 05:44 PM	i have never seen anyone making a remotely convincing argument regarding how torture and chattel slavery First, you didn't say "chattel slavery", by which I guess you mean antebellum American chattel slavery. Medieval Muslim culture had their own form of chattel slavery than medieval peasants would have given their remaining teeth to participate in. Second, you didn't define "torture." Do you mean a little arm-twisting? Screaming and berating a prisoner into giving information? Threats of violence? Twisting their arm and pushing them against the wall? Telling them in excruciating detail what hellish fate awaits their immortal soul upon death? All of these could arguably be called torture, and not all of them would be considered evil under the alignment system and -- most importantly -- you didn't clarify the term. i do understand those that want the paladins to be accountable to their gods, that is an houserule, We do not play the game by what is not stated Yes we do. The rules do not state that the gods revoke or do not revoke a paladin's powers and a decision one way or the other is a house rule. So your decision that gods have no power to revoke the powers of a paladin sworn to that god are as much a house rule as those who rule that gods do have power to revoke the power of a paladin sworn to that god. All the rules specify is the result of violation, not the mechanism. , It is not stated that characters are not able to fly magically at level 1 Um... a 1st level character with a Ring of Flying can fly. I think you mean "non-magically," and that is covered in the Monster Manual under Speed. "If the creature has other modes of movement, these are given after (or in place of) the land speed." None of the player races have any mode of movement other than the land speed. Ergo, PC races cannot fly at 1st level without magical intervention. We do have one class where it is clearly spelled out that the gods can and will censure them if they do not follow their ethos No, it doesn't. here's what the SRD states: "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features" This sentence does not state that the god revokes the powers. The cleric "loses" his abilities. Like the paladin, it could be a natural consequence of violating his code of conduct. Or as you propose, it could be that the deity actively chooses to revoke them. Either way, you're inserting a mechanism not supplied by the rules. You're house ruling. neither does the ranger or the druid. Druid: "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities" The ranger cannot become an ex-ranger. There are no rules for it. I also note there are no rules for ex-Adepts, despite the fact that they are also a class of divine casters. all those classes can cast divine spells all of them can be connected to a god of their choice and none of them have the limitation the cleric does. The paladin and cleric's limits appear nearly identical. If the paladin or cleric grossly violates the code of conduct, they fall. The mechanism for that fall is left unexplained and any explanation (be it natural consequence or divine intervention) is a house rule.
Immurmodi 06-12-06, 06:01 PM	Sorry for jumping in just after i said i was going to leave it for the day, But i just had to check in one last time. Figures i read up on the druid and ranger but forgot the cleric. Nonetheless the druid does not loose his power due to the influence of a god. and apparently neither does the cleric, they just loose their power. While i most regrettably misremembered the exact wording of the clerics loss of power that does not mean that the paladin in any way is dependent on his god, quite simply put there is not a single line in the phb that allows for it, not one. the cleric may grossly violate HIS GODS ethos and thereby lose his power the paladin may grossly violate HIS code of conduct and thus fall. Also if we are to nitpick the monster manual never states that characters cannot fly magically, it simply states what the average non classed being of that race is capable of.
Drachasor 06-12-06, 06:03 PM	A Paladin's Code of Conduct, unlike the Cleric's, is not supplied by a god. That's according to RAW. Any deviation from that is a house rule of one form or another. Additionally, a Paladin can break his word, which means he can make an oath to follow a god's code and then later decide to stop doing so (unless you are house-ruling). A chaotic act does not end a Paladin's class status, only an willful, evil act has that sort of immediacy. Likewise with the Druid, he doesn't have to follow any god or goddess of nature. Nor does he have to listen to their advice or orders. He does have to revere and protect nature, not teach his secret language, and so forth. That said most of the time a LG deity would get along very well with a Paladin, so advice and warnings given by such deities would be listened to. They simply don't have to be. The same with Druids and nature deities. Unless of course, you enter house rules into the equation that change this. -Drachasor
Drachasor 06-12-06, 06:06 PM	As far as the Cleric thing goes, it is probably fair to say that not listening to your god is very, very likely violating the CoC for clerics. It would be a rare god that doesn't care that much if his followers heed him or not. The mere fact that the CoC comes from his god adds dimensions to the Cleric's CoC that the Paladin's CoC doesn't have (without house rules). -Drachasor
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 06:34 PM	Pres_man: It has changed. It seems that it is the NG Gnome God and the God of the Kobolds that hate each other. The Goblins and Gnomes don't seem to like each other either.
terrainmonkey 06-12-06, 07:10 PM	It doesn't have to do with the fact that they're not humans; at least is shouldn't. Are you supposed to just slaughter elves too? Or halflings? Halflings are almost as likely to be CN, same as an orc might be. Better kill them all, eh? Life is precious. Intelligent life is more precious. Orcs are alive, and they are intelligent, and therefor orcs are precious. Who are you to say who lives and who dies? Just because you've got a big sword and a wizard at your back you get to say that they're not fit to exist just because they were born into being a different kind of person than you are? Is that really the best mindset that the paragons of good can possibly imagine? With that kind of good who needs evil? The "standard" (CE) orc will kill an elf just for being an elf, that's what makes him evil. If the standard paladin will kill an orc just for being an orc, how can that possibly make him good? The markings of a paladin are the fact that he can have an "enlightened" outlook on the world despite the fact that others don't. Not all good has to hold itself to a high standard, but a Paladin does. That's what makes him a Paladin, and not just any other fighter. i'm going to address this in a way people might understand better. Take a look at normal modern earthly races: caucasian, orientals, african american/black, native american, mediterranean, etc. We all share different outlooks, different back grounds, different religions, and different ways of life. yet, we are all still Human. we don't have orcs and elves and kobolds and such in the world. We all share the same blood, the same 10 fingers, eyes, body shapes, etc. Now, let's look at a cross section of a fantasy world. Humans (of all types), elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, minotaurs, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. while they all share the same humanoid shape, they all have differences from humans. Now, here comes the cruz of my argument. hear me out. and please know that i am not a bigot, a racist, or prejudiced against anyone who shares any kind of difference with me. jsut htought i would get that out of the way. Now, on to logic, and reasoning, taking it from the paladin's point of view. I am a human. for the longest time, my race has been subjected to cruel enslavement, barbarism, and pillaging by members of the orc race. I have it in my power to destroy a nest of these murderous pillaging creatures. make no mistake they are an uncivilized rabble of monstrous humanoids bent upon my destruction and the destruction of my peoples. I have entered the den of evil and with the help of my companions have ended the lives of several of these humanoid monsters. to me they deserve nothing but extinction. Now, i am standing in a nursery of these verminous creatures, and have the power to end all of thier lives to stop the further suffering to my people in years to come. for the greater good of my companions and the lands i have sworn to portect i must end the lives of these creatures. though i hate to do it, i must, in order for the cause of good and order to prevail in the world. Now, what about the question of showing them mercy and taking them back to be integrated into society? I know this would never work, as most of my human kin see them as evil rapacious creatures bent upon the destruction of man. when i bring them back to town i know they will simply be slaughtered by the townsfolk. and if one actually escapes and kills one of the townsfolk, then that person's blood will be on my hands. i cannot allow this to happen. sadly, the orc younglings must die. there is no other way. may thier god have mercy on thier souls. He then draws his blade, and sets about the execution as quickly and humanely as possible given the circumstances. and that is how i play a paladin, and that is how i would expect anyone in my campaign to play one. i would never take his powers away, and i could justify this to any DM if i did this in a game.
wrecan 06-12-06, 07:40 PM	A Paladin's Code of Conduct, unlike the Cleric's, is not supplied by a god. That's according to RAW. That's not RAW (or, more accurately, SRD). The SRD does not specify from where the code originates. Any ruling of the origin of the code is a house rule. If you say it comes from the paladin's order, it's a house rule. If you say it comes from the god, it's a house rule. If you say it comes from anywhere, it's a house rule. So picking out only those codes coming from deities for the label of house rule is disingenuous, at best. Additionally, a Paladin can break his word Actually, he can't under the SRD. The SRD is not very clear what the code of conduct must include, except it give three examples: no lying, no cheating and no poison. A paladin who promises to follow a god and who then breaks that promise has lied. Moreover, a paldin requires a code. A paladin who chooses the code of a god (which he need not do) and then breaks that code loses his paladin abilities (by whatever mechanism you decide to house rule). They simply don't have to be.Depends on the circumstance. No generalizations on the matter should be made. Druids, in contrast, have no code of conduct except that they respect nature. it is probably fair to say that not listening to your god is very, very likely violating the CoC for clerics.It's just as likely for paladins who follow dieties. The mere fact that the CoC comes from his god adds dimensions to the Cleric's CoC that the Paladin's CoC doesn't have (without house rules). That's your assumption. You can't say that something about clerics is "likely" (thus making it a house rule) and then claim it means anything vis-a-vis paladins.
wrecan 06-12-06, 07:59 PM	Nonetheless the druid does not loose his power due to the influence of a god. and apparently neither does the cleric, they just loose their power. That's your house-rule. Since the rule does not say how the druids lose their powers, anything you make up to explain it is a house-rule. (Or, more accurately, a setting element) there is not a single line in the phb that allows for it, not one. There isn't a single line that supports your rule either. Don't you understand that? When you say the god cannot remnove a cleric's powers, you are making it up because the rules are silent on the issue. Silent doesn't mean there is no answer. Silence means the answer, any answer, is open for the DM. Saying that it cannot be gods is as inaccurate as saying it must be gods. the monster manual never states that characters cannot fly magically Because they can!! (Ring of flying, remember?) it simply states what the average non classed being of that race is capable of. It doesn't say that at all. In fact, the SRD tells you exactly what classed beings of that race are capable of, under the Level Adjustment entry. They don't mention gaining the ability to fly (unless of course, the class grants you the ability to fly, such as the Dragon Disciple PrC). You're just wrong on this issue, which was a tangent to begin with. Let it go.
Drachasor 06-12-06, 08:00 PM	That's not RAW (or, more accurately, SRD). The SRD does not specify from where the code originates. Any ruling of the origin of the code is a house rule. If you say it comes from the paladin's order, it's a house rule. If you say it comes from the god, it's a house rule. If you say it comes from anywhere, it's a house rule. So picking out only those codes coming from deities for the label of house rule is disingenuous, at best. It's not disingenuous at all. Ok, sure, by RAW the code is tied only to the Paladin and his actions. By RAW it is NOT tied to any individual, organization, or anything of that sort. Hence only the Paladin, through his own actions, can violate the CoC, and he doesn't have to listen to anyone, God or mortal. Furthermore there is no need to make a houserule saying where this CoC comes, beyond the Paladin himself. Similarly you don't have to houserule where a Druid gets his abilities. How they lose their abilities is clearly explained, and hence exactly how they get them is just "flavor" unless you houserule to make it otherwise. Of course the issue we were discussing was the role of gods in a Paladin's CoC, and the fact is there is no role without a house rule. By RAW the CoC simply is. Actually, he can't under the SRD. The SRD is not very clear what the code of conduct must include, except it give three examples: no lying, no cheating and no poison. A paladin who promises to follow a god and who then breaks that promise has lied. Moreover, a paldin requires a code. A paladin who chooses the code of a god (which he need not do) and then breaks that code loses his paladin abilities (by whatever mechanism you decide to house rule). Look at it again. He can violate the CoC. Gross violations are prohibited, not ALL violations. He can therefore break the CoC so long as the violation isn't horrible. Swearing to obey a god and then not obey when he gives you an order to do evil would not be a gross violation, imho (and I think pretty much everyone would agree with me on this). The only code a Paladin requires is the Code of Conduct (which references itself in its text as "a Paladin's code"). Taking on other codes is strictly optional, by the RAW, and the Paladin may easily forgo following such codes if doing so is not a gross violation of his CoC. Of course the more binding he made his original oath the more extreme the circumstance would need to be to justify violating it, but he can go against his oath in exceptional circumstances. So he can lie to avoid doing an evil act. He can cheat to avoid doing an evil act. He can use poison to avoid doing an evil act (though the instances where this would happen are hard to think of). Willfully doing evil in an attempt to follow the CoC would result in a loss of Paladin abilities, imho. The CoC is not a straightjacket. It is closer to a set of serious, and often demanding, guidelines. The Paladin should follow it most of the time, but he doesn't have to follow it all of the time (e.g. non-gross violations of the CoC are ok). Depends on the circumstance. No generalizations on the matter should be made. You can make a generalization that everything I said is true unless you houserule it otherwise. I think that is pretty darn accurate. -Drachasor
Drachasor 06-12-06, 08:03 PM	In short, I am saying that the PHB says how things ARE for each class. If it doesn't say something IS for a given class, then by RAW that thing is not the case. To make something like that true you have to houserule it in (or in some cases, depending on what you are talking about, it could be a roleplaying choice by the player). -Drachasor
wrecan 06-12-06, 08:23 PM	Ok, sure, by RAW the code is tied only to the Paladin and his actions. No, it's not. That's your interpretation. The SRD doesn't say where the code comes from. So sayign it comes from "the paladin and his actions" is an assumtpion on your part. You are assuming the silence implies an actual origin. That's a house rule by your own definition of the term. I am saying that silence means there is no rule and any declaration to fill that gap is by necessity a house rule. By RAW it is NOT tied to any individual, organization, or anything of that sort. That's not what the SRD says. That's your spin. The SRD does not say the code is not tied to any individual, organization, etc. It is silent. You are presuming that silence means the negative and that is a logical fallacy. there is no need to make a houserule saying where this CoC comes, beyond the Paladin himself. Similarly you don't have to houserule where a Druid gets his abilities.Well, you could simply leave it "unknown" which is what the rules do. But you haven't been doing that. You have been affirmatively deciding that the SRD's silence means it must be X or miust not be Y. That's your hang-up. How they lose their abilities is clearly explainedMan, that's vague. Do you mean "how" as in what predicates must be met, or "how" as in the mechanism of losing powers. The former is epxlained; the latter is not. the issue we were discussing was the role of gods in a Paladin's CoC, and the fact is there is no role without a house rule. By RAW the CoC simply is.Well, it's not even defined, so I'm not sure it "is" much more than knowing it exists. The DM must define it. Swearing to obey a god and then not obey when he gives you an order to do evil would not be a gross violation, imho (and I think pretty much everyone would agree with me on this). I think your thinking constitues a house rule, which is what we're discussing. While I wouldn't disagree, it's irrelevant to the discussion. The only code a Paladin requires is the Code of Conduct (which references itself in its text as "a Paladin's code"). Taking on other codes Whoevenr mentioned "other codes"? Nobody. You're assuming the oath ot a god would be an "other code" (a term you invented). But under the SRD, the code may be the god's code. Nothing in the SRD prevents it and any decision that the god's code cannot serve as the paladin's code/CoC is your house rule. You can make a generalization that everything I said is true unless you houserule it otherwise. I think that is pretty darn accurate.And yet it's not. I am saying that the PHB says how things ARE for each class. If it doesn't say something IS for a given class, then by RAW that thing is not the case. But that's not what you're doing. By saying the code cannot come from a god, or that it must come from the paladin and his actions, you are adding to the SRD and that is a house rule. Silence is not consent to your interpretation, no matter how reasonable you may think it is. Silence means the rule is undefined and thus can be filled in by the DM. In fact, that's exactly what you've been doing this whole thread; you just think your interpetation is so reaosnable that it must be supported by the SRD.
Drachasor 06-12-06, 08:38 PM	The Paladin's code cannot come from a god, organization, or any other specific thing, by the RAW. If it did, then the RAW would have to say so, because that matters. It doesn't say anything of the sort, so it cannot be. The rules don't say it is unknown either. The Class is presented as it is. This can be houseruled different. I mispoke when I said it comes from the Paladin. I meant to say it comes from the Paladin Class. It is clear when he loses his abilities in the sense that the game mechanics for their loss is clear. Now, I'll agree you can add flavor to any class. As long as you are not changing any of the mechanics, then it is just that: flavor. If you change a single mechanic (e.g. a god can strip the Paladin of his abilities for not listening to said god), then that is a house rule. By RAW the Paladin need not obey any god, even if you add in the flavor that his powers come from a particular god. Though the latter is often supplemented with a house rule. Without that house rule a Paladin can certainly violate any oaths he gives to a god or anyone else. I think we agree on this though, and agree that the CoC is not absolutely binding (e.g. the "gross violations" bit). Perhaps we disagree on the definition of a house rule. To me it is a rule that changes the mechanics of how the game works. That changes the cause and effect of some game mechanic. Some things are flavor which add to a setting and do not change a mechanic. Other things are new mechanics or additions to old mechanics. These latter sort are house rules. -Dreachasor
wrecan 06-12-06, 08:47 PM	The Paladin's code cannot come from a god, organization, or any other specific thing, by the RAW. If it did, then the RAW would have to say so, because that matters. That's your opinion. I don't think it matters in any way whatsoever. It is intentionally left open so the DM can decide whatever he likes without having to alter written rules. The rules don't say it is unknown either. If the rules don't say anything, it is by definition unknown. It doesn't have to tell you that it's unknown. What does a dire hawk look like? I don't know. I didn't need the rules to tell me we don't know what a dire hawk looks like. We know we don't know because the rules are silent. I'll agree you can add flavor to any class. But that's exactly what you do when you tell people the code doesn't come from a god. That's flavor that you've added to the class. If you change a single mechanic (e.g. a god can strip the Paladin of his abilities for not listening to said god), then that is a house rule. Yes, and saying that the loss of powers cannot come from a god is also a house rule, because the rules don't say that. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of a house rule. To me it is a rule that changes the mechanics of how the game works. We don't disagree. Where we disagree s that you don't recognize that you are engaging in a house rule when you tell somebody that the explanation for an existing mechanic cannot be. House rules can be negative as easily as they can be positive. When you say that the loss of paladin powers cannot come from divine intervention, that's a house rule. If I were to say it must come from divine intervetion, that is also a house rule. The only thing that is not a house rule is that we don't know what causes the loss of powers. And if that's what you had said I would have no problem. But you didn't.
Gold Medal Jedi 06-12-06, 09:27 PM	Easy fix... Screw the paladin class entirely... scrap them and dont allow them... instead only allow the new Knight base class in the PHB2. I always hated the paladin class anyway, because of the whole alignment issue. As soon as WOTC put out the PHB 2 and i saw how the knight class worked and how it didnt care about alignment as much i was giddy with excitement to see how it worked in game. I now have a player that has been playing this class for a few sessions and has gone from 3rd to 6th in class with him and have had no problems what so ever with it. He is balanced and able to play the gamut from really goody two shoe to questionable bad cop without fear of loosing their ability entirely. Everyone at the table has been happy with him and the experience as a whole. This player also tried to play a paladin a few months back and pleaded me to kill him off because of the naturally restrictive nature paladins lead. Sure he doesnt have the neato healing ability but with a cleric in the party it hasnt really been an issue. And i have allowed him to have a particularly loyal mount, my only stipulation for this was a maxed out handle animal score. So in acutallity he has lost nothing and gained tons for very little. SO SCREW THE PALADIN CLASS... GO WITH THE KNIGHT and call it all good.
Traevanon 06-12-06, 10:47 PM	This is not to Wrecan, I am borrowing his post to illustrate a point to others. Hope you dont mind. Please show me where the rules define the following terms: "innocent" "legitimate authority" "dignity of sentient beings" "oppessing" "honor" Please be sure to cite your sources. The essence of the challenge of playing a paladin is in knowing the definitions and boundaries of these terms and having faith that your definitions are correct. Its challenging to play a paladin but not complicated. Realize first and foremost that the more faithful and stouthearted you are the more your alignment will be questioned by those of weak faith and morals, but that is the reason why the Paladin answers only to his faith and his Order. Your DM should stay out of it except in the guise of playing actual NPCs. By the time you fall, if you are playing your paladin correctly, you as a player will be convinced that it is the proper course. If you disagree then only one of two things can be happening, either your DM is trying to play morality games or you are trying to have paladin powers without *being* a paladin. Edit: Oh by the way Terrain Monkey, your post is excellent illustration proper Paladin behavior. The Paladin will be questioned by those of weak character, but he is certain and correct that his actions were in keeping with his code. This is exactly why the DMs only job with paladins is to make sure that they truly are taking their oaths seriously. The player should be the one with the final decision to remove his character's paladin powers so long as he is taking his roleplaying seriously.
pres_man 06-12-06, 11:54 PM	Pres_man: It has changed. It seems that it is the NG Gnome God and the God of the Kobolds that hate each other. The Goblins and Gnomes don't seem to like each other either. Again, the relationship between the deities is not the issue, the issue is the relationship the followers of a deity and the opposing deity and its followers. Again, the good deity is described as being the foe of the evil deity. The evil deity is again described as hating not only the good deity but his followers as well. So again we see, evil is making judgements about whole groups of humanoids, while good makes judgements about individuals.
Cantankerous 06-13-06, 01:36 AM	I think in order to show that killing baby orcs (or any "monster" humanoid younglings) is not evil by the RAW, one has to show that they are not in fact "innocent" by the RAW. If they are in fact "innocent" then at least for paladins this makes killing them impossible to justify. :clap: :clap: :clap: Bravo. It matters not one tick whether or not they are Orcs. THAT particular issue is settled, as per the RAW, with the Alignment descriptor: Alignment: Often chaotic evil The often there negates the smite on sight. For smite on sight you need something more like: Alignment: Always chaotic evil That always is your go sign, it is your rationale to whack away at the unholy with utter disregard. People, there is a reason why the Alignment descriptors are included. It isn't because ALL anything must ever be of one Alignment type. You can, if you choose, have a Fallen Guardinal out there who's Lawful Evil and of whom even Baatorians might say "Yea gods, what a tyrant." You can have a Eyrine who has reformed herself utterly and is now Chaotic Good in her alignment. The always in the Alignment descriptor means that these beings have such a reputation for Evil that the Paladin MAY smite them on sight. They MAY be considered to be Evil no matter what the situation where the person has no direct knowledge of the actuality of it without ANY alignment entanglements, because as a race they are always Evil. It doesn't matter if the Eyrine is a Holy Liberator who has given her all to the cause of Good for decades, if the Paladin comes upon her in the process of killing said Guardinal from the above example, and he doesn't know the truth of the matter, he is completely free to Smite her on Sight without prejudice... and if he kills her and sets the evil Guardinal free, in all innocence, he has done the right thing Alignment wise and may not be stripped of his Paladinhood for it. It does not matter that he may have done great damage to the cause of Good in doing this. He was completely in the right. By the same token, the destruction of even a single INNOCENT life is Evil period, the end, beyond the Pale. It does not matter whether that innocent life was that of a new born Celestial or a new born Orc, not in the least, not at all, because in neither case was there the reasonable expectation that the being itself was Evil and the taking of an innocent life without great need is perhaps THE foremost defintion of Evil possible in D&D. Isshia
Guy Humual 06-13-06, 02:48 AM	Without actually reading anything in this thread (except the thread's title) I'm going to have to say that without a doubt that the paladin's action(s) was (or were) evil. Also I'm going to guess that the paladin in question committed this (or these) act(s) willfully and thus should loose all class abilities and can no longer advance as a paladin until he/she atones. I’m also going to guess that someone in this thread thinks the OP is a bad player/DM. I’ll also guess that someone else disagrees and thinks that it was the other player/DM who is in error. And I’ll also guess at some point someone has mentioned either Hitler, the holocaust, or brought religion into the argument. I’d like to finish my post by saying that I disagree with whoever has made the most posts to this thread thus far. Clearly you are mistaken. Please re-read the internet.
astute1 06-13-06, 10:00 AM	Now, here comes the cruz of my argument. hear me out. and please know that i am not a bigot, a racist, or prejudiced against anyone who shares any kind of difference with me. jsut htought i would get that out of the way. Now, on to logic, and reasoning, taking it from the paladin's point of view. I am a human. for the longest time, my race has been subjected to cruel enslavement, barbarism, and pillaging by members of the orc race. I have it in my power to destroy a nest of these murderous pillaging creatures. make no mistake they are an uncivilized rabble of monstrous humanoids bent upon my destruction and the destruction of my peoples. This would be a perfectly good and true arguement, if orcs were always chaotic evil. You might even be able to make this arguement if orcs were usually chaotic evil. However, as presented in the SRD, orcs are often chaotic evil, which means that there's a lot of non-evil orcs out there (probably about half of them.) Thus, the entire thrust of your arguement is wrong. If things were the way you claim they are, then the paladin would in fact be justified in killing the orcs. However, orcs are not "monstrous humanoids bend upon my destruction and the destruction of my peoples." They are humanoids, just like elves, dwarves, and gnomes. They tend to be more evil than the other humanoids, but to make a blanket statement about their race, which is not supported by the rules, and then base your actions on that statement is foolish.
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 10:15 AM	This would be a perfectly good and true arguement, if orcs were always chaotic evil. You might even be able to make this arguement if orcs were usually chaotic evil. However, as presented in the SRD, orcs are often chaotic evil, which means that there's a lot of non-evil orcs out there (probably about half of them.) Thus, the entire thrust of your arguement is wrong. If things were the way you claim they are, then the paladin would in fact be justified in killing the orcs. However, orcs are not "monstrous humanoids bend upon my destruction and the destruction of my peoples." They are humanoids, just like elves, dwarves, and gnomes. They tend to be more evil than the other humanoids, but to make a blanket statement about their race, which is not supported by the rules, and then base your actions on that statement is foolish.Wrong. "Often" means 40% to 50% are CE. That means they are still pretty strong on both the Chaotic and Evil axis. 45% CE 20% CN 20% NE 5% LE 5% TN 5% CG <1% All others So, taking that, there are what 5% or 6% "Good" Orcs? Many of them are outcasts and most likely not living anywhere close to their evil brothers. No, Orcs are not like gnomes, dwarves or halflings. As far as elves go, maybe. Both elves and orcs suck, IMHO. Still 7 out of 10 Orcs are evil. Like I stated earlier, with 2/3 of the other 3 of 10 Orcs CN, not much of a way to feel safe there either. Why people want to make everything so freaking Polly-Annish and "All we have to do is hold hands" is beyond me. RL? Yes. Why do so many anthropromorphize Orcs and other species that aren't human? Again, the relationship between the deities is not the issue, the issue is the relationship the followers of a deity and the opposing deity and its followers. Again, the good deity is described as being the foe of the evil deity. The evil deity is again described as hating not only the good deity but his followers as well. So again we see, evil is making judgements about whole groups of humanoids, while good makes judgements about individuals.Well, if you read the MM, it seems obvious to me that they really don't like each other and their followers likewise loathe the other as well. While you're correct good looks at the individual, that particular individual must seperate themselves from the group. Otherwise, with the odds of the running into a truly evil Orc group greater than 70%, not to mention the CN and N orcs that tend towards evil, you're being foolish.
wrecan 06-13-06, 10:24 AM	However, as presented in the SRD, orcs are often chaotic evil, which means that there's a lot of non-evil orcs out there (probably about half of them.) Although I generally agree with your argument, the proportion of non-evil half-orcs would be much less than half. According to the SRD, orcs are "often" Chaotic Evil, which means about 40% are chaotic evil. Assuming the 8 remaining alignments are evenly distributed amongst the 60% remaining, that means that 7.5% are neutral evil and 7.5% are lawful evil. That means that 55% of orcs are evil, 22.5% are neutral and 22.5% are good(!) Truthfully, the remaining alignments are probably not evenly distributed. I'd say an orc is twice as likely to have an alignment one step removed from CE (say, CN or NE) than two steps removed (CG, N, LE), which is twice as likely as three steps removed (NG, LN), which is twice as likely as diametrically opposed (LG). The proportions under this calculation would be: Evil: 61.8% = 40% (CE) + 14.5% (NE) + 7.3% (LE) Neutral: 25.4% = 14.5% (CN) + 7.3% (N) + 3.6% (LN) Good: 12.7% = 7.3% (CG) + 3.6% (NG) + 1.8% (LG) (totals only to 99.9% due to rounding.) Not that this means that orcs can be killed willy nilly. While a majority of orcs will be evil, nearly an eighth of all orcs or more should be good-aligned. One would expect a paladin to keep that in mind. edit: taking LCD2YOU's estimate of 40-50% (45% mean) changes the numbers slightly: Even distribution: non-evil=41.25%, good=20.625% Weighted distribution: non-evil=35%, good=11.7% Now, more than 1 in 9 orcs is good. Even though many of them will be outcast, some of them may stay behind to help others escape (or may be unable to escape), and one-tenth of all those babies are likely to grow up to be good orcs.
Deathstalker 06-13-06, 10:38 AM	The problem I have with all this is that as I recall, St. Cuthbert is not a crusader god. If I recall correctly, he's a god of retribution, not a god of 'good'. His job isn't to cleanse the world of evil, it's to mete out retribution for committed wrongs. I don't fully understand how he can justify killing the caregivers and infants in the nursery, considering that even if orcs were always evil, they still hadn't done anything deserving of punishment (well, the infants anyways) as far as he knew. I think your paladin is being a bit overzealous to say the least. The punishment for spitting in his face is death? He must be a riot during a bar fight. I mean, so far, from what I've read of the posts, the paladin has pretty much been going around killing anything that's evil and justifying it as retribution for their wrongdoings. I suppose if you really want to be generous, you can say, "Yes, the orc probably has killed numerous people including women and children, so it's probably fair that he should die in an eye for an eye sense" but if the sole reason for his murderous tendencies is that people are detecting as evil, what happens when he runs into a corrupt politician or official who's smart enough to do everything within the law? This is the reason why, in general, legal systems require PROOF OF WRONGDOING. Just because someone MAY have done something wrong doesn't mean that they actually did. And not everything that is 'wrong' is illegal. Politicians do things that screw over the poor and destitute all the time, but they probably don't detect as evil for it, and even if they do, if what they're doing is legal, then they can't really have vengeance enacted against them, especially since Cuthbert is neutral, not good. I think a discussion really needs to be had about good, bad, evil and illegal and the difference between all of them before moving on with this paladin....As well as the fact that there are lesser degrees of punishment than killing...
wrecan 06-13-06, 10:41 AM	Your DM should stay out of it except in the guise of playing actual NPCs. * * * If you disagree then only one of two things can be happening, either your DM is trying to play morality games or you are trying to have paladin powers without *being* a paladin. Or you and your DM have an honest difference of opinion about the meaning of "honor" and "dignity" that could easily have been resolved by the DM and Player talking about what is expected of paladins in the campaign world... a conversatoin that would not occur is the DM stays out of it except in the guise of playing actual NPCs, as you suggested.
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 10:42 AM	If one uses wrecan's or my % of "good" orcs, the numbers are still small. It is also most likely that the "good Orcs" really aren't around but if they are lucky, form "good aligned" Orcs communities which as they go against Gruumish, are mercilessly hunted down by the other Orcs. Only "good Orcs" who have friendly relations, and these relations would be known and not a secret, with outside help or live far away on land that nobody wants, would that society live. The amount of saying things are this way, "good Orcs", without taking into account the issues they would face is truly a fantasy setting.
wrecan 06-13-06, 10:45 AM	what happens when he runs into a corrupt politician or official who's smart enough to do everything within the law? Well, that all depends if corruption and graft is sufficient to make someone evil under the alignment rules. It might not be and is entirely dependent on the DM's rule. Which is why it is crucially important that the DM discuss with his players with alignment-restricted characters what is and isn't appropriate behavior. not everything that is 'wrong' is illegal. Not everything wrong is necessarily evil either. I think a discussion really needs to be had about good, bad, evil and illegal and the difference between all of them before moving on with this paladin....As well as the fact that there are lesser degrees of punishment than killing... Bingo.
pres_man 06-13-06, 11:05 AM	Just to point out, orcs don't have to be good to be unworthy of death, they merely have to be non-evil and to not be actively trying to kill others. So looking at the percentages given above (which are merely guesses and thus should not be set as any kind of official values) and assuming them to be accurate, we see that the number of non-evil orcs might be anything from 30%-41.25%. That is approarching the "often" standard (40-50%), which means non-evil orcs should be expected "fairly often" (not as often as "often", but often enough ;) ). And as LCD2YOU pointed out many of the non-evil orcs are likely to come into armed conflict with many of the evil orcs and this is more and more likely as they get older (more opportunities for it to happen as time goes on). Thus it is possibly more likely that non-evil orcs are present when they are young, perhaps even approaching the "usually" standard (>50%), most would probably be admittedly either TN or CN. So a paladin that is killing all of the young orcs without even using his (in some flavor settings) god-given ability to determine which are evil is bound to harm some innocents (non-evil) orcs. Thus the paladin should probably fall under the standard assumptions.
Ariel23 06-13-06, 11:13 AM	Killing a prisoner (somone who has surrendered) = Evil. It could be argued a neutral act, but never a good act. In RL, any killing is definitely not Good. Except perhaps for self-defense and accidents and some very limited situations, killing is evil. A Good person would always seek to preserve life, even in self-defense. How many "good" people do you know in RL and how many people have they willfully killed someone because they were stirring up trouble in the neighborhood or had a different ideology? Do you even know anyone who has killed but not in wartime? But, this is D&D. If you don't kill stuff, you won't have much of a game. The same can be said if you focus too much on alignment. In D&D, committing necessary evils can make you Good. Riding into a village of Orcs on your horse and killing all of them would never be "Lawful Good" in RL...that's called mass murder or genocide. If you call out to them beforehand to rouse them and warn them of their coming doom...still not Lawful Good. Considering the code of conduct in metagame terms: why is it there? Paladin is a sub-optimal class, one of the worst in fact. Why the extra burden? If it is for role-play purposes, does that mean the other classes should not be role-played since they don't have such restrictions? The reason it's probably there is to simulate knights, although it does it poorly. The Knight in the PHB II is much better, aside from having the proper name. Once you figure out why that restriction is there...what purpose, mechanical or narrative, it serves, then you will know whether or what you need to do about "violations" of it. As with all things directly affecting characters, this needs to be communicated to the PC in question.
astute1 06-13-06, 11:49 AM	If one uses wrecan's or my % of "good" orcs, the numbers are still small. The actual numbers aren't terribly pertenent to the question at hand. The baby orcs don't have an alignment, as they are incapable of making moral decisions. However, if allowed to grow up in a good-aligned society, it's likely that many of them will become neutral- or good-aligned adults. After all, the fact that they become chaotic evil is largly dependent on the society in which they are raised. Not as many might be good-aligned as if they were baby humans, since orcs by nature are dull and brutish, but that is a possibility. So, what we end up with is that baby orcs: a) are helpless, b) have no alignment of their own, and c) have the capacity to grow up into good-aligned creatures but you still think it's OK for a paladin to kill them?
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 01:13 PM	The actual numbers aren't terribly pertenent to the question at hand. The baby orcs don't have an alignment, as they are incapable of making moral decisions. However, if allowed to grow up in a good-aligned society, it's likely that many of them will become neutral- or good-aligned adults. After all, the fact that they become chaotic evil is largly dependent on the society in which they are raised. Not as many might be good-aligned as if they were baby humans, since orcs by nature are dull and brutish, but that is a possibility.If allowed to grow up in a "good aligned society"? Okay, I'll bite. Just how is that done?So, what we end up with is that baby orcs: a) are helpless, b) have no alignment of their own, and c) have the capacity to grow up into good-aligned creatures but you still think it's OK for a paladin to kill them?This was a trap to play "smack the Pally". So what would you have expected the Paladin to do?
astute1 06-13-06, 02:14 PM	So what would you have expected the Paladin to do? The same thing he would have done if he found a bunch of human babies in the cave. I'll wager he wouldn't have put them to the sword!
Evingolis 06-13-06, 02:29 PM	killing babies of a kind that is NOT evil in any case is evil imho. even if it is not, it is NOT good. even if its 'only' neutral, it is NOT what a paladín has to behave like if someone wants to play a butcher, no problem, have him playing that. he simply has to choose a class different from paladin. there are enough (and a lot more powerful). nonetheless, setting players traps in order to have their alignment changed is not the way dnd should be played like because it destroys peoples fun. discuss the problem with the player(s) and give them a way to a solution (maybe change class/character). theres always a solution if people want it in dnd.
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 03:14 PM	The same thing he would have done if he found a bunch of human babies in the cave. I'll wager he wouldn't have put them to the sword!Orc babies are not human. They are a different species altogether. Why are you anthropromorphizing them so strongly? Go through the steps you think the Paladin should do when finding a litter of Orc babies.
Drachasor 06-13-06, 03:23 PM	We don't disagree. Where we disagree s that you don't recognize that you are engaging in a house rule when you tell somebody that the explanation for an existing mechanic cannot be. House rules can be negative as easily as they can be positive. When you say that the loss of paladin powers cannot come from divine intervention, that's a house rule. If I were to say it must come from divine intervetion, that is also a house rule. The only thing that is not a house rule is that we don't know what causes the loss of powers. And if that's what you had said I would have no problem. But you didn't. I think we basically agree on everything. We are just having some language issues. I agree that you can overly and setting material on the core rules. As long as you don't change any of the mechanics, then it is pure flavor and no house rules are involved. Any mechanics you do change is a house rule (e.g. a god can decide to take Paladin powers away for reasons not listed under the Paladin class, such as not listening to the god). Perhaps I am wrong, but I think setting up a god to be in charge of a Paladin requires some house rules in order to feel right. Otherwise the Paladin could potentially really, really annoy the god (even anger him) and still keep all of his abilities. Afterall, said Paladin does not have to listen to any commands given by the god. For he need only respect legitimate authority, which doesn't imply obedience to said authority. I have to admit though, you could set something up with a god granting powers that doesn't incorporate any house rules. Might be a trifle odd though.
Evingolis 06-13-06, 03:23 PM	>Orc babies are not human. as are dwarves, elves, sheep and rabbits. so what?
Drachasor 06-13-06, 03:25 PM	Orc babies are not human. They are a different species altogether. Why are you anthropromorphizing them so strongly? Go through the steps you think the Paladin should do when finding a litter of Orc babies. He should try to find good homes for said babies, and keep them alive until he does. Just as he would with human babies. Being humanoid, intelligent, and sharing many, many other qualities with humans makes orcs (and other races) in D&D quite human-like. Certainly they don't deserve to be treated as vermin to exterminate, especially the babies. -Drachasor
pres_man 06-13-06, 03:58 PM	Orc babies are not human. Yet they are humanoid, which generally means that they can be raised to be non-evil. They are a different species altogether. Why are you anthropromorphizing them so strongly? Are they? Are you sure about that? Let's see, they can breed with humans, produce offspring that is fertile (at least in everything I've read). To me, that sounds like the same species, but perhaps different "breeds" (D&D calls those races). Neither humans nor orcs are magical by nature so the ability to reproduce fertile young isn't like dragons' ability. Go through the steps you think the Paladin should do when finding a litter of Orc babies. Well, that depends a lot on the setting and the nature of the paladin's character (is he LG, Lg, lG, or lg?). Instead, I'll talk how I would play a paladin. If I was invading an orc encampment that was responsible for attacks in the area and came across a nursery. If there were non-combatants present caring for the young, I would tell them to be quiet and still or else (what that else would be would depend on what they did). I would attempt to find a place to put them "away" for the time being (either by pitoning the doors shut or find another area where they could be locked in. Having removed the non-combatants from the "field", I would move on to dealing with the remaining warriors. Afterwards, what would happen to those non-combatants along with anyone who had surrendered would depend on what the DM has set up for in his world. Worse case, they would be taken to the border and expelled from the lands. Better case, they would be taken to an organization that deals with situations like this (good religions for example). What I certainly would not do is put non-combatants to the sword. Why people think it is "heroic" to kill females and younglings, I fail to see. Can anyone site a single heroic fantasy story where the good heroes of the story went around killing non-combatants? Please, one such story where the good heroes do that? Episode III, sorry Vader was no longer good at that point, come on, anyone, where good heroes kill non-combatants?
wrecan 06-13-06, 04:30 PM	Perhaps I am wrong, but I think setting up a god to be in charge of a Paladin requires some house rules in order to feel right.I don't. All it requires for me is that the god be LG and that the first line in the code be "Obey Thy Lord" As long as the LG god not order his followers to do things that aren't LG, I don't see an issue.
wrecan 06-13-06, 04:34 PM	I'm not sure, LCD2YOU, what point you're trying to make here. The OP may have beeen setting up the paladin for a fall, but it wasn't because there was no LG way to handle the orcs. There certainly was: bring the children to civilization and turn them over to the nearest orphanage. The trap was that the DM never told the player what behavior was expected of him and then thought to punish him for crossing the DM's invisible line. There should never be any need to "test" a paladin. He should know what his code of conduct is before game play. Frankly, I think all paladins should have a phylactery of faithfulness issued to them standard... or as a class ability.
Drachasor 06-13-06, 04:52 PM	I don't. All it requires for me is that the god be LG and that the first line in the code be "Obey Thy Lord" As long as the LG god not order his followers to do things that aren't LG, I don't see an issue. Modifying the code is making a house rule. That's what I was trying to say. Unless "Obey Thy Lord" is just a suggestion and the Paladin won't lose his status if he chooses to not obey but still obey the code as it appears in the PHB. That doesn't seem to be what you are saying though. -Drachasor
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 04:57 PM	Wow. Who'd a thought, "Orcs are not human" would generate such responses? Okay, for all of you out there going on about this like you are holding some moral high ground, you're not. Let's go back to the premise of the Orc vs humans and humans near kin, the "demi-humans". Yes, I differentiate and no, in my game Orcs, with very few exceptions and they stand out, are vermin to be erradicated. Orcs have a different mindset than Humans and Demi-Humans. Their brains do work differently, witness the racial "lower intelligence" they start off on. They are products either created, or most likely warped, by the Orcish gods. So what if they are bipedal with humaniod characteristics? The ancestors of Orcs and humans need not be the same and interbreeding with humans has never been stated to be based on biology so I have it as the way some powers wanted it to be. That means nothing and I see it as a way to hurt others even more. Gruumish is a very powerful force in the lives of Orcs and he is CE. Why the powers that be at Wizards call Orcs only "Often" CE is beyond me. Still, as I see it, fully 70%, if not more, are evil. Of the 30% that isn't, I'd say that many of them would be too stupid to have an alignment, so it appears they are N or CN to the outside world as they are smart enough to have an alignment at all. What does that mean? Fully 90% of the Orcs are evil or followers that go along for the ride or are threatened to obey or die. The ones that aren't evil are outcasts, if they are lucky, or just dead. I'm sure that "good" Orcs are found, hounded and killed in Orcish society. Again, I blame the writers at Wizards for being terribly inconsistant. You won't find "good" Orcs in most Orcish encampments being that they are like gangs where the weak, the "good ones" are being hounded at best, or hunted more likely as they are easy targets to go after. Think about it. An Orcish encampment is a gang hide out. Not just your run of the mill gang, but some of the more vile and hard core types you'd never want to meet. Where does a "good" being, especially one who is starting out, get a chance to thrive, let alone live, in an environment like that? As for "raising Orc kids", hell, we in RL can't raise human kids that well in foster homes. Orcish kids, who at best are "not as smart" as their human counterparts, and unless you have a person watching for Orcs bullying their human peers, you are going to have issues there. Then there's the issue of as they get older, the Orcs, although they aren't bright aren't totally stupid, making their own groups, gangs if you will. Yeah, that's a great recipe for disaster. Here's something else to think about: Good churches are given a bunch of orcs to take care of and they ask for money. Unless you have rich nation states or even a rich city state, the costs would bankrupt them. Far better to send them off to die, which is what would really happen, when one sends them back out into the sticks. Ok, so you do find away to hold some of the Orcs. But wait, the Orcish gods, don't you think they'll be mad too? So the Orcish gods, like Moradin getting upset with wholesale "retraining" of HIS dwarves, will take action. This whole thing is too funny. It's one thing to talk about "The Paladin doing for the Orcish children what he'd do for human kids" and then give concrete examples with plans for the various contingencies that will arise. To think that one only need to "supply some love" to turn beings who are predisposed to evil and chaos into something else smacks of high fantasy. See, I go through the whole gambit of issues. Like RL politicians, the 10 second sound bite will not do it for me. Maybe I over think the games. My games take a lot of the different problems, curves, etc., that would come into play. Great, a good church takes the kids in. The good believers of that faith, many of whom may have had loved ones killed, gutted and eaten by "those filfthy monsters" may not take to well to it. what then when few come to church or pay lip service to get the healing when they need it? Oh, so the priests are going to punish them for their feelings? Shyahh right. What it may end up being is a completely different style of play. In my world, when the end of the fighting is near, the backstabbing, inter-factional politics raise its ugly head and those are the good guys. It gets worse from there. No good deed goes unpunished. With Orcs with a tendency for CE, it can only be much, much worse.
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 05:03 PM	I'm not sure, LCD2YOU, what point you're trying to make here. (snip)I wish I could type as fast as I think. The only thing I'm trying to show is those who think that there is some large welfare state that wil take care of Orc babies hasn't thought things through at all. Another thing is if they are going to have the Paladin take care of said babies, me, as a BBEG, will just make sure that all of my evil minions have babies. That wil stop the do-gooders in their tracks while I launch against places to expand my empire. People really don't think through their ideas. That is fine if your stories are episodic with little connection to each other. The hero rides in, sets things up and leaves it to others to implement their ideas.
Drachasor 06-13-06, 05:05 PM	So, in a similar situation you'd say the Paladin should kill human babies, LCD2YOU? Your arguement applies equally well to both cases concerning bad foster care and finances. It is also take the cowardly and weak way out. A Paladin adventurer could easily afford to pay for the raising of a few hundred kids (remember, a silver each week is a lot of money, and a 5th+ level adventurer could easily give a few hundred gold each month, especially as he levels). As for the people of the community, the priests dang well better be lecturing them on forgiveness and compassion. This hypothetical Church you bring up is Good, remember? That means compassion for the innocent. Also, try to distinguish between your house rules, where you treat Orcs like Demons or Devils, and the Core Rules, where Orcs are more like the other humanoid races (e.g. free will, ability to be good, etc). -Drachasor
wrecan 06-13-06, 05:08 PM	Modifying the code is making a house rule. My bad. I had thought we were done with that discussion. Yes, stating the origin of the code, whether it be divine, from the paladin's order, invented from his imagination, or spontaneously generated, is perforce a house rule because the rules nowhere state from where these codes of conduct originate in-game. I thought you were saying that we'd have to alter written rules -- rather than fill in the silences -- in order ot make it work. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 05:10 PM	(said nothing of consequence but likes to bait)Don't take what I said out of context and I won't take you for baiting.
Drachasor 06-13-06, 05:20 PM	Don't take what I said out of context and I won't take you for baiting. I gave a perfectly valid way for a Paladin adventurer to handle orphans. I pointed out that most of your arguements for killing them apply to human babies as well. I then added that a good church would preach the protection of the innocent. Indeed, a good church has a responsibility to protect and care for the innocent, such as orc babies. It should have considerable influence with its flock in the town, which would make the life of an orc baby easier than you depict. How did I take what you said out of context? Human babies cost just as much as orc babies to raise. Your arguement against foster homes was quite general as well. The Orc baby only has some more teasing and bullying to deal with than the human (a minor issue, especially given what I said above). You then said it is better to kill them in that case -- something I doubt you'd say in the real world, because it is so insanely inhumane. I suspect that is why you don't want to respond to my post; because you don't have a good response. -Drachasor PS. I would also re-emphasize that how Orcs are in your campaign world appears to be different from how they are in Core D&D. You would do well to keep that in mind. In Core D&D there is no reason to think an Orc baby is predisposed to evil. Clearly their society is, but that's a quite different matter.
wrecan 06-13-06, 05:25 PM	Who'd a thought, "Orcs are not human" would generate such responses?That's not the defect in your argument, LCD2YOU. it's the manner in which they are inhuman qualities you ascribe to them that is the problem. in my game Orcs, with very few exceptions and they stand out, are vermin to be erradicated. Bully for you. We're not discussing your game. And that's the odd part of this whole discussion. you seem to be thinking that we're all agreeing to have this discussion take place in your campaign world in which orcs are usually evil, have a natural tendency to evil, and have been deliberately twisted by divine forces to be evil. That's lovely... for your campaign, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. witness the racial "lower intelligence" they start off on.Stupid does not evil make. Lantern Archons have a 6 Intelligence and they're always lawful good. You are assuming that the low intelligence of orcs leads to their evilness. That's not in the MM description. so I have it as the way some powers wanted it to be. Again, what does your campaign have to do with this discussion? we in RL can't raise human kids that well in foster homes. And yet, as bad as foster homes might be, we don't think infaniticide to be a reasonable alternative. Fancy that. Then there's the issue of as they get older, the Orcs, although they aren't bright aren't totally stupid, making their own groups, gangs if you will. Yeah, that's a great recipe for disaster. Still not seeing infanticide as the preferable alternative. Good churches are given a bunch of orcs to take care of and they ask for money. Unless you have rich nation states or even a rich city state, the costs would bankrupt them. Hardly. Children can be used as untrained laborers and will generally feed themselves, since in most fantasy campaigns, there is no guaranteed education system and child labor doesn't generally involve sweatshops. Far better to send them off to die So you think it's better for children to die than to be hungry in the inner cities. You should write your Congressman that proposal and see how far it goes. Ok, so you do find away to hold some of the Orcs. But wait, the Orcish gods, don't you think they'll be mad too?If this were with respect to my player, Id kind of hope that my gods were stronger than the orcish gods. Particularly in the Greyhawk campaign in which it is clear that the gods change over time as their worshippers change. heck, maybe in a thousand years, one of those orc gods will turn out good. To think that one only need to "supply some love" to turn beings who are predisposed to evil and chaos into something else smacks of high fantasy. Wow. it's a good thing we aren't playing a game of high fantasy. Oh. Wait a minute. We are! Maybe I over think the games. LCD2YOU, I respect you. you know that. but on this point I can't figure out where you're coming from. Great, a good church takes the kids in. The good believers of that faith, many of whom may have had loved ones killed, gutted and eaten by "those filfthy monsters" may not take to well to it. Gee, a church might have to deal with the racism of its own members?! What, of what, should a cleric of Pelor, Cuthbert, Pholtus or other good-aligned god do? Oh yeah. Counsel them to be Good.
LCD2YOU 06-13-06, 05:26 PM	On second thought, I'll bite again.So, in a similar situation you'd say the Paladin should kill human babies, LCD2YOU?Nope. As I have stated and you won't or can't comprehend, ORCS ARE NOT HUMAN. Treating them as such is in a word, foolish.Your arguement applies equally well to both cases concerning bad foster care and finances. It is also take the cowardly and weak way out. A Paladin adventurer could easily afford to pay for the raising of a few hundred kids (remember, a silver each week is a lot of money, and a 5th+ level adventurer could easily give a few hundred gold each month, especially as he levels).No it does not. Can you figure it out or should I spell it out for you?[QUOTE=Drachasor]As for the people of the community, the priests dang well better be lecturing them on forgiveness and compassion. This hypothetical Church you bring up is Good, remember? That means compassion for the innocent.If you consider them innocent. While they may be so considered using 21st Century morals and ethics, unless you run a game that is the 21st Century in disguise, you will have a hard time with that one.Also, try to distinguish between your house rules, where you treat Orcs like Demons or Devils, and the Core Rules, where Orcs are more like the other humanoid races (e.g. free will, ability to be good, etc). -DrachasorOh really? Where did I say that? Come on now speak up. While the Orcs can learn to be good, they have a tendency (that's the inconvenient "Often CE" thing you ignore) it is difficult and it is going to be hard and like this very thing shows, only divisive and makes for bad feelings.
Drachasor 06-13-06, 05:28 PM	My bad. I had thought we were done with that discussion. Yes, stating the origin of the code, whether it be divine, from the paladin's order, invented from his imagination, or spontaneously generated, is perforce a house rule because the rules nowhere state from where these codes of conduct originate in-game. I thought you were saying that we'd have to alter written rules -- rather than fill in the silences -- in order ot make it work. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am probably being more than a little pedantic. I don't think stating the origin of the code is a house rule. That is just campaign scenery. A house rule has to change the core rules in some way. Going beyond merely stating the origin then, and adding or modifying a game mechanic to reflect this (such as "Obey thy Lord" to the Paladin code) would be adding a house rule. Though, as before, the purely campaign scenery parts of the addition are not house rules, just fluff. I am just trying to make a clear difference between house rules, which change the game mechanics in some manner, and flavor added in to descriptions (but not rules) that flesh out a world. As another example, saying there is a specific order of monks in the world is not a house rule. Saying that all monks were trained by this order is probably not a house rule (borderline at worst anyhow). Saying that all monks trained by this order must obey its dictates or be killed (or lose their powers) is a house rule. The latter changes how the monks work in the game and adds more restrictions to how they can be played. It's perhaps not as clearly a house rule as adjusting the stat modifiers for a race or adding in a new feat, but it is just as much a house rule none-the-less. That's how I see it, anyhow. Again, probably me just being a bit pedantic. -Drachasor
wrecan 06-13-06, 05:34 PM	Going beyond merely stating the origin then, and adding or modifying a game mechanic to reflect this (such as "Obey thy Lord" to the Paladin code) would be adding a house rule. Except the game itself explicitly requires the DM to add requirements to the paladin code. The SRD states: "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." How can you interpret the words "and so forth" except that the code includes other requirements of honor that are not detailed in the rules. So if the DM adds as an element of acting with honor "Obery Thy God" he is not altering a game mechanic; he is fulfilling one! At worst, it is campaign scenery, but I cannot fathom what mechanic is changed by adding an "obey thy god" to the paladin's code of conduct. Saying that all monks trained by this order must obey its dictates or be killed (or lose their powers) is a house rule. But a monk has no code of conduct. He must merely remain lawfully aligned. What mechanic is changed by deciding that obey one's god is acting with honor?
wrecan 06-13-06, 05:36 PM	Gruumish is a very powerful force in the lives of Orcs and he is CE. Why the powers that be at Wizards call Orcs only "Often" CE is beyond me. Moradin is a very powerful force in the lives of Dwarves and he is LG. And yet the powers that be at Wizards call Dwarves only "Often LG". Maybe Moradin and Gruumsh don't have as tight a hold on their followers as they would liek to have?
Drachasor 06-13-06, 05:44 PM	On second thought, I'll bite again.Nope. As I have stated and you won't or can't comprehend, ORCS ARE NOT HUMAN. Treating them as such is in a word, foolish. Yes, you could say the same thing about elves. They are probably less "human" than Orcs are. Both can breed with humans, in any case. Though I don't think that matters. The point is Orcs can think, they are capable of reasoning, and in D&D they have the ability to choose between being good and evil: free will. As such for the purposes of killing them or letting them survive there is NO reason not to treat them the same as humans/dwarves/gnomes/halflings/kender/elves/etc. Your arguement applies equally well to both cases concerning bad foster care and finances. It is also take the cowardly and weak way out. A Paladin adventurer could easily afford to pay for the raising of a few hundred kids (remember, a silver each week is a lot of money, and a 5th+ level adventurer could easily give a few hundred gold each month, especially as he levels). No it does not. Can you figure it out or should I spell it out for you? Apparently I have to spell it out to you: As for "raising Orc kids", hell, we in RL can't raise human kids that well in foster homes. Orcish kids, who at best are "not as smart" as their human counterparts, and unless you have a person watching for Orcs bullying their human peers, you are going to have issues there. Then there's the issue of as they get older, the Orcs, although they aren't bright aren't totally stupid, making their own groups, gangs if you will. Yeah, that's a great recipe for disaster. The same is true of humans. Unless you are suggesting we should kill off any humans that don't meet a certain level of intelligence. Or perhaps we should just kill off minorities in a population so that their kids won't be made fun off? Come on! One fights against bigotry, one doesn't give into it. Especially if one is a Paladin or a member of a Good Church in D&D. And a Good church would additionally make sure its flock understood you should not punish the son for the crimes of the father. In any case, the children of human bandits would face pretty much all of the same problems. Or are you trying to say stupid people are more likely to be evil? That is also ridiculous. If you consider them innocent. While they may be so considered using 21st Century morals and ethics, unless you run a game that is the 21st Century in disguise, you will have a hard time with that one. Nope. Innocence is an essential concept in D&D. I guess you just have some sort of problem with babies. In any case, Orcs clearly have free will. Where did I say that? Come on now speak up. While the Orcs can learn to be good, they have a tendency (that's the inconvenient "Often CE" thing you ignore) it is difficult and it is going to be hard and like this very thing shows, only divisive and makes for bad feelings. You got me here. You didn't say that. I was trying to give you a graceful way out of this arguement so you could look at Core D&D and not worry about it upsetting how you run your game. Though I suppose you can ignore this thread in any case. In any case you do need to watch yourself. You throw in your own house-rule statistics on Orcs into the arguement which has no bearing on Core D&D. Of course your arguement isn't any better in your campaign world. -Drachasor
Drachasor 06-13-06, 05:55 PM	What mechanic is changed by deciding that obey one's god is acting with honor? By acting with honor? None, since that's basically already in there. When someone says "and so forth," they are saying "and other things of this nature." Now, none of the listed items in the Code of Conduct say that a Paladin need obey anyone. He need only have RESPECT for legitimate authority, which is quite different from obeying. Additionally, there is no hint of any hiearchy in the code, and hence there is no hint that the Paladin can lose his powers by disobeying anyone. I think adding "Obey Thy Lord" to the Code of Conduct then goes beyond "and other things of this nature" as it makes the Paladin bound tightly to the desires of one individual (wether god or mortal), when nothing explicitely listed in the Code of Conduct implies this at all. Putting the paladin into a hiearchical structure isn't a problem. That's campaign flavor (afterall, he could always leave, even if it caused personal difficulties). Making him stay in that structure and obey or lose his powers is changing how the class works. I do see, however, how one could make powers come from a god and not change the code of conduct. It would be a little weird when the Paladin didn't listen to a god, but a god not taking the Paladin's powers away for disobedience is understandable and explainable (in the game fiction) if the Paladin stays true to the PHB restrictions. There is definitely a clear and distinct difference between Paladin power coming from a god and a Paladin having to obey that god.* -Drachasor *Though in a campaign the practical differences can range from almost negligible to extremely different, depending on how it is run. Most often I think the differences would be pretty small.
wrecan 06-13-06, 06:13 PM	By acting with honor? None, since that's basically already in there. When someone says "and so forth," they are saying "and other things of this nature." Of what nature? Honor is a vague term and the rules, by using "and so forth" demand that the DM add to that. Obeying the commandments of one's god is a fairly common way one shows honor to the deity and certainly it is setting flavor, rather than a house rule, to include obedience to the deity as the "and so forth". I think adding "Obey Thy Lord" to the Code of Conduct then goes beyond "and other things of this nature" as it makes the Paladin bound tightly to the desires of one individual (wether god or mortal), when nothing explicitely listed in the Code of Conduct implies this at all. Whatever you decide "and so forth" means is going to impose a restriction that is not listed explicitly in the Code of Conduct because that's what "and so forth" means! If you decide "and so forth" means that you may not refuse an honorable challenge by your fellows, then you've just added a requirement that isn't in the PHB's code of conduct. But so what? The PHB's Code of Conduct compels the DM to add requirements in order to give meaning to the phrase "and so forth". There is nothing peculiar about deciding "and so forth" means "obey your god's commands". Making him stay in that structure and obey or lose his powers is changing how the class works. No, it really doesn't, since the Code of Conduct requires at least one more item be listed as an act of honor and obeying one's god's commands fits the bill as well as anything else. Please explain what you mean by a "mechanic" and what "and fo forth" could entail that would not involve a mechanical change. Because at this point it appears to me that you have an arbitrary bias against religious paladins, even though that's the historical archetype from which the class is based.
terrainmonkey 06-13-06, 06:15 PM	its funny, i think LCD2YOU and I share the same mentality about how orcs are designed in the game. Sure, it's all well and good to quote the SRD and say they are "Often CE". But think about this for a moment: The orcs in this situation were chaotic evil. i think we can all agree on that. so, what makes one think that the babies, upon seeing that thier brethren, fathers, uncles, brothers, slain by the heroes, would turn nice and good? The adventurers came in and slaughtered all of thier kin. wouldn't an orc, a creature that is predominantly evil and chaotic, harbor thoughts of revenge? i should think so. So what you have here, if you take them back to a good monastery or church, which i find ridiculous to even fathom, is a bunch of angry children, bent upon the eventual revenge killing of any good steward that was taking care of them. Even if they were integrated into a "good" society at a convent to a "Good" god, they would more than likely harbor intense feelings of hate and contempt for the "good" people that were trying to take care of them. A lot of folks are using 21st century sensibilities to justify the "take them back to a convent and let them be raised by good folks" argument. This can not be further from the truth when you are talking about the majority of Humans in the world. Witness the rampant racism going on in the rest of the world and ask yourself, "Would humans really actually try to raise orcs, a race that is predominantly evil, as they would an orphaned human child?" the answer logically is "no." so there's that argument busted. Sure, i'd like to believe that the D&D world is a "Star Trekkian" utopia where all races get along and there are exceptions to the rule, but that is not the case here. Orcs by and large are chaotic, evil, and a verminous race bent on the slaughter and destruction of human lands. Even though the orc children in the above case are "non aligned" for the purposes of the RAW, how would you think that they would turn out good, even though they are raised by a "good" aligned society? They wouldn't. I may be looking at this whole argument wrong here, but that's the case, logically and looking at it from a world truth standpoint. sure, it sucks being an orc baby in this case, and at the risk of being called a bigot, i would have to see them as a potential threat, and end the problem quickly and swiftly with as little pain as possible to said orc children. i'm sorry that's the way it has to go, but logic and reason dictates this position, and sadly a lot of people who say differently are not getting this point.
wrecan 06-13-06, 06:25 PM	iThe orcs in this situation were chaotic evil. i think we can all agree on that. so, what makes one think that the babies, upon seeing that thier brethren, fathers, uncles, brothers, slain by the heroes, would turn nice and good?The same thing that makes me think we don't automatically imprison people for the crime of being raised by a sociopath. wouldn't an orc, a creature that is predominantly evil and chaotic, harbor thoughts of revenge? i should think so.But individual orcs might not. And just as it's obvious that the adult orcs were evil, it is equally obvious from the OP's post that the child orcs were not, at least not yet. if you take them back to a good monastery or church, which i find ridiculous to even fathom, is a bunch of angry children, bent upon the eventual revenge killing of any good steward that was taking care of them. And yet when the Saracens slaughtered Christians and then took the children back to their orphanages they mostly managed to be raised as good devout Muslims, even having seen the Muslims slaughter their parents. The orcs can be dealt with just like a human child who sees a paladin kill his necromancer dad. Witness the rampant racism going on in the rest of the world and ask yourself, "Would humans really actually try to raise orcs, a race that is predominantly evil, as they would an orphaned human child?" the answer logically is "no." so there's that argument busted. Actually, we do. Causasian Americans are adopting Asian babies by the truckload. We give enormous quantities of money to honest and good volunteers who try to help Africans out of poverty. So, yes, despite the amount of racism in the world, people get past it and try to help people different than they. But what's more, in the real world, most people are not Good. But in D&D, paladin and clerical orders are. So that argument is not busted and you really should stop trying to criticize people for using real world analogies when you try to do the same. I may be looking at this whole argument wrong here You are. And as you admit that you don't use orcs of the SRD then I'm not sure why you think your opinion is relevant in the slightest. Sure, the orcs in your campaign are irredeemable little monsters, but the orcs in the SRD are not. logic and reason dictates this position, and sadly a lot of people who say differently are not getting this point. Logic and reason say nothing of the sort. You are starting with assumptions unsupported by the rules and following them with analogies unsupported by reality.
Drachasor 06-13-06, 06:56 PM	Please explain what you mean by a "mechanic" and what "and fo forth" could entail that would not involve a mechanical change. Because at this point it appears to me that you have an arbitrary bias against religious paladins, even though that's the historical archetype from which the class is based. Well, going to the dictionary: further in the same or similar manner; more of the same or a similar kind I don't think that obeying anyone fits into the "and so forth" of the Paladin's CoC becuase it doesn't seem to be a similar type of restriction. Nothing before the "and so forth" requires obediance to anyone or thing. I think we can probably both agree that acting honorably does fit. Beyond that I am prepared to agree to disagree. I can see how someone could read it differently. So, touche' -Drachasor PS. You switched TerrainMonkey's name with mine in your post before this.
wrecan 06-13-06, 07:20 PM	I don't think that obeying anyone fits into the "and so forth" of the Paladin's CoC becuase it doesn't seem to be a similar type of restriction.Similar to what? "and so forth" appears in the "honor" category of the CoC for the paladin and you agree that "acting honorably does fit". Do you agree that obeying one's LG god can be considered honorable conduct? Nothing before the "and so forth" requires obediance to anyone or thing.I think "no cheating", which is right before the "and so forth" requires obedience to a set of external rules, so I disagree with you. Obedience to a god is very similar to not cheating. You switched TerrainMonkey's name with mine in your post before this.Sorry! Fixed!
astute1 06-13-06, 09:31 PM	The orcs in this situation were chaotic evil. i think we can all agree on that. so, what makes one think that the babies, upon seeing that thier brethren, fathers, uncles, brothers, slain by the heroes, would turn nice and good? The adventurers came in and slaughtered all of thier kin. That's entirely beside the point. It could have been demon-worshipping human cultists who were wiped out by the adventurers, the babies get found, and then because they're a core race we're obligated to protect them? That seems silly. wouldn't an orc, a creature that is predominantly evil and chaotic, harbor thoughts of revenge? i should think so. That's a blanket statement. Individual orcs might not harbor thoughts of revenge, especially if brought up in civilized society. It's also equally likely that a human infant brought up in similar situations might turn to revenge, yet we're all in agreement that killing human infants is bad. I'd expect any character of good alignment, not just a paladin, to take mercy upon orc youths. Good is a difficult path, because it requires you to trust and cooperate with others.
Whisper_Swiftblade 06-13-06, 09:41 PM	this is what I would do, start weakning his powers/ taking away big powers and don't inform him why unless he spicficly asks or begins to get agitated over it. if he contiues to do "unpallyish" things weaken them more untill at some point they are removed compleatly, when he does things in a less questinable waystart puting powers back
terrainmonkey 06-14-06, 12:17 AM	That's entirely beside the point. It could have been demon-worshipping human cultists who were wiped out by the adventurers, the babies get found, and then because they're a core race we're obligated to protect them? That seems silly. That's a blanket statement. Individual orcs might not harbor thoughts of revenge, especially if brought up in civilized society. It's also equally likely that a human infant brought up in similar situations might turn to revenge, yet we're all in agreement that killing human infants is bad. I'd expect any character of good alignment, not just a paladin, to take mercy upon orc youths. Good is a difficult path, because it requires you to trust and cooperate with others. okay, we're still going with the human/orc comparisons. let's end that fallacy once and for all. humans-- yes, a core race. and one that is predominant on any world in game. capable of all alignments, and perhaps the children would be capable as well. also, regionally accepted by all faiths and societies. orcs-- monster manual race, thugish brutish humanoids, mostly chaotic, evil, ugly beings who only think of slaughter, destruction, and wholesale slaughter of humanity. looked down upon by a majority of humans. if human children in any guise were to be integrated into a good society, one would have no problem believing they would turn to the path of good with some direction. like minded beings would more than likely take them in as orphans and raise them without hate or prejudice. if one attempted to integrate orc children into society, the results would be far less successful. they would be looked at with scorn and hatred, even by those claiming to be "good". children would mock them, others would mock them, and hold them with contempt. i say you are doing them a favor by ending the problem quick and clean, thus saving yourself and future societies the hassle. sorry to be so cold hearted, but that's the way i would run it if i were a paladin, and would have no problem if a pally in my campaign did the same.
terrainmonkey 06-14-06, 12:21 AM	oh, and in the case of demon worshipping humans, i would expect that the children would be evil demon spawn, and thus be incapable of being turned to the path of good. yeah, they would go too. sorry. a paladin would have to take matters into his own hands to see no demon spawn children would survive. wipe out the entire group. its the only way to be sure.
Whisper_Swiftblade 06-14-06, 12:56 AM	[QUOTE=terrainmonkey] orcs-- monster manual race, thugish brutish humanoids, mostly chaotic, evil, ugly beings who only think of slaughter, destruction, and wholesale slaughter of humanity. looked down upon by a majority of humans. QUOTE] well their you have it mostly finnaly means all, after all 50.0000000000001% is all you need to determen the fate of a child, but hold on...... lets assume that good neutral and evil are equally represented in humans in D&D that means that evil has 33% of the population, which means that they are tied for a plorality, which would leed to humans being mostly evil if evil ever gained 1%. OH NO! if evil parents are more likely to have evil children then that means that evil will always be tied with good, and hence always exist. So what we need to do is go and kill as many children of evil (that includes all half orcs because they are 50% the children of the mostly evil race that is orcs) in the world as we can before they can defend themselves, but that may not be enuff, I mean the children of neutral parents could go either way what if they all become evil! We better hunt down all the neutrals too just to be safe. Ok problem solved we killed the "evil" kids and the neutral "potentuly evil" kids now that means we killed off the dangerous 60% of the populati......... hold on !!! if 60% of all humans are dangerous then thats most of them we better kill them all just to be safe, because because it is ok to kill children if you think more than 50.00000000000000001 % of them might grow up to be evil and who cares about the good/neutral 49.99999999999999999% anyway? see how genralising works, not a pretty picture is it?
pres_man 06-14-06, 01:01 AM	The orcs in this situation were chaotic evil. i think we can all agree on that. I'm not at all certain that they were all CE. They might have been, but since the OP only described one of them, and that one merely struck out at its capturers (by spitting), it is hard to say what their alignment really is. so, what makes one think that the babies, upon seeing that thier brethren, fathers, uncles, brothers, slain by the heroes, would turn nice and good? Why would they see it? Were they in the middle of the combat area? From the sounds of it they were off away from the rest. Besides, I personally never claimed they would turn out "nice and good", but I would claim that they 1)have a much better chance of it being exposed to good behaviour, and 2)that as long as they don't grow up "mean and evil", then it will be a vast improvement. The adventurers came in and slaughtered all of thier kin. wouldn't an orc, a creature that is predominantly evil and chaotic, harbor thoughts of revenge? i should think so. Some might, others might through education and care see that the evil orcs brought the destruction on themselves by the evil acts they had done. Of course, it seems that you have a view that it is the PCs jobs to slaughter everyone. If that is how you play good, then I wonder what the difference is between your run of the mill psycho and your PCs, they seem pretty similiar. On the other hand if the PCs are suppose to be doing good, then they will only kill when necessary, and can perhaps change some of the orcs through example (by showing mercy and compassion). The current example being advocated by yourself and others is to destroy all of your foes and their families and friends, orcs already know enough of those examples, that is why they tend towards CE, but following CE examples. So what you have here, if you take them back to a good monastery or church, which i find ridiculous to even fathom, is a bunch of angry children, bent upon the eventual revenge killing of any good steward that was taking care of them. Well I have said that it depends on the setting, if there are such places in place by the DM, if there are not, sending them away with other non-combatants would be an acceptable choice. And no this is not a death sentence, orcs being "uncivilized" as so many claim can get along in the wilds, as long as you are not slaughter every adult, including the noncombatants. But again, why one would think that good examples have no effect on any of them, is lost on me. Even if they were integrated into a "good" society at a convent to a "Good" god, they would more than likely harbor intense feelings of hate and contempt for the "good" people that were trying to take care of them. Some indeed could, while others may see the light and even embrace good behaviour. Of course I believe that faiths closer to an orc culture would be more effective then ones not. So clerics of kord probably could have a better chance of redeeming orcs than clerics of heironeous. Sure, i'd like to believe that the D&D world is a "Star Trekkian" utopia where all races get along and there are exceptions to the rule, but that is not the case here. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying in the star trek universe that all races get along? The romulans and the klingons? The Breen and the Gorn? Ferengi and the founders? Really in ST there are a lot of competing races and some of them are quite ruthless towards one another. Though most will unite against a common foe because it makes sense to do so. Orcs by and large are chaotic, evil, and a verminous race bent on the slaughter and destruction of human lands. Well first off, under the vermin catagory, orcs are not listed, so that term is meaningless in this discussion. Secondly, orcs are more interested in the lands of the dwarves then of the humans. A large portion are likely not to be evil, thus killing them based only on their race is still an evil act. Even though the orc children in the above case are "non aligned" for the purposes of the RAW, how would you think that they would turn out good, even though they are raised by a "good" aligned society? They wouldn't. Why not? Do you have logical reason or merely an emotional one? Why are some humans good? Why? What do they get out of it? Is it possible that an orc educated by individuals that do not judge it based on its race might have a chance of being good? Bring in druids or other shifting types and show that form is meaningless. Bring in half-orcs and show them how they can get along. sure, it sucks being an orc baby in this case, and at the risk of being called a bigot, i would have to see them as a potential threat, and end the problem quickly and swiftly with as little pain as possible to said orc children. i'm sorry that's the way it has to go, but logic and reason dictates this position, and sadly a lot of people who say differently are not getting this point. Well logic can also lead one to want to exterminate all races outside of one's own. Look at dwarves, they can see in the dark without difficulty. What is to stop them from coming in the middle of the night and cutting all of the humans' throats? What guarentee do the humans have that the dwarves will not do this, their word? That and a sack is worth the sack. Humans should kill all of the dwarves just to be safe, dwarves have unfair advantages, and so humans have to destroy them. Similiar arguments could be made for the other races except perhaps halflings that might be pushed into a slave race, but eventually they should probably be put down, before they attempt to rise, don't want any "Planet of the Pecks" coming about, "You damn dirty halfling!" I will say to the folks who claim clerical orders would be bankrupt for helping care for orphans and refugees from "monster" humanoids. I'm not sure why one would think that. Clerics have amazing talents granted by their deities, they can create food out of thin air, make water, heal the sick and wounded, calm the emotions of the distraught, shape the stones of the earth, etc. Training some orc young shouldn't be too difficult, especially since they can look into the hearts (detect spells) to see if they are getting off course. As for common folk messing with them, well it isn't unreasonable for these organizations to have more remote locations for the training of these types of humanoids.
pres_man 06-14-06, 01:25 AM	Also if someone wants to continue to say that killing non-combatants is something appropriate for paladins, I think they should supply an example of high fantasy story where the good heroes of the story went about killing non-combatants. Please show how this behaviour is appropriate for a high fantasy game. Frankly all I'm really seeing is people wanting to play D&D like a dungeon crawl table top game where the goal is to kill all of the "monsters". I have some of those, my good old HeroQuest game provided hours of fun. Still if you are going to play a game like that, you probably should stay away from any type of moral issues. Only have combatants in the game and make them all fight to the death, no prisoners, no noncombatants, nothing but unadulterated bloodletting.
Cantankerous 06-14-06, 01:35 AM	If one uses wrecan's or my % of "good" orcs, the numbers are still small. It is also most likely that the "good Orcs" really aren't around but if they are lucky, form "good aligned" Orcs communities which as they go against Gruumish, are mercilessly hunted down by the other Orcs. Only "good Orcs" who have friendly relations, and these relations would be known and not a secret, with outside help or live far away on land that nobody wants, would that society live. The amount of saying things are this way, "good Orcs", without taking into account the issues they would face is truly a fantasy setting. It doesn't matter what you, or I, or the man in the moon thinks the numbers are. What matters is what WotC thinks the numbers are. AGAIN, there is a bloody reason for the Alignment descriptors. There is a reason why some races are labled as "always" Evil. No matter how you try to song and dance it, Orcs are NOT one of the "always" evil races any more than man is. What you are talking about is individual campaign flavor. NOT the standard from the RAW. I've got (in the present set up of the nine worlds) two were Men are the "often" evil race, one where Ogres are a "usually chaotic good" race and a third where the Elves are "usually chaotic evil" and almost earn the "always" qualifier. But that's just individual flavor TOO. From WotC, from the RAW, Orcs are NOT smite on sightable, or slaughter at leisurable. Orc babies are not human. So what? They are every bit as sapient as human babies. On this planet we live on their are no other sapient races, so it is by human that WE judge relative worth. THAT CAN NOT WORK IN D&D. You don't like Orc babies? Elven babies then, or how about Dwarven ones? Those are two decidedly non-human races. One so non-human that UNLIKE Orcs, they can not crossbreed succesfully with humans (except in Athas, where they're then sterile, like mules.) Would slaughtering a cave full of dwarven babies be any less Evil? NOT in D&D; where Orcs are "often chaotic evil" and dwarves are "often lawful good". Isshia
Whisper_Swiftblade 06-14-06, 01:47 AM	according to my ph3 evil "implies oppressing and killing others. Some evil creachers simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doeing so is convenent". there you have it killing something because it is easyer to do so then do the good thing and try to lead it on the path of good, therefor the pally did evil and whether he knows it or not , his god does and in this case that is all that matters.
Traevanon 06-14-06, 07:31 AM	Or you and your DM have an honest difference of opinion about the meaning of "honor" and "dignity" that could easily have been resolved by the DM and Player talking about what is expected of paladins in the campaign world... a conversatoin that would not occur is the DM stays out of it except in the guise of playing actual NPCs, as you suggested. There is a difference though between hashing out the differences in definition of honor, dignity, innocence and the rest (which could go on longer than the campaign) and forcing your definition down a player's throat. It aught to be the player's reasonable definition of the paladin's code that is used when questions and disputes arise rather than the DMs. As DM give the Paladin player the benefit of the doubt...and dont get personally involved. Realize that the Paladin has a primary duty and some secondary duties. Also understand that one person's good can easily be another person's evil. Finally, remember that there are a limited number of people or dieties that have the ability to take a Paladin's power away and that mostly those people are of like mind and face the same moral dilemmas as the Paladin in question. Are these like minded people likely to judge one of their peers lacking at the first opportunity? "Among the savage humanoids Paladins are almost unheard of." Its D&D... where the players play their characters and the DM plays the others. The players dont tell you that you are playing your Orcs wrong, give the Paladin player the same courtesy over his own character.
astute1 06-14-06, 08:55 AM	orcs-- monster manual race, thugish brutish humanoids, mostly chaotic, evil, ugly beings who only think of slaughter, destruction, and wholesale slaughter of humanity. looked down upon by a majority of humans. You're adding the stuff in bold. That's not part of the core description of an orc. The thing is, your arguement falls apart if you don't add that stuff to the orc description. oh, and in the case of demon worshipping humans, i would expect that the children would be evil demon spawn, and thus be incapable of being turned to the path of good. yeah, they would go too. sorry. a paladin would have to take matters into his own hands to see no demon spawn children would survive. wipe out the entire group. its the only way to be sure. I guess in your world, it's ok for good aligned people to commit infanticide on the slightest of whims and without any proof to back you up. That's an interesting take on the "altruism", and "respect for life" that are the hallmarks of a good alignment. Basically, what you've admitted so far is that you think it's acceptable for good aligned characters to commit genocide and kill the children of their enemies. What seperates good from evil in your game? The proponents of the "evil orc" theory have made the arguement that in D&D good and evil are black and white - total opposites. However, from what you're saying, they look the same to me.
Cantankerous 06-14-06, 09:02 AM	errr- sorry, my computer must have gone insane---triple post Isshia
Cantankerous 06-14-06, 09:03 AM	disregard---double post Isshia
Cantankerous 06-14-06, 09:09 AM	oh, and in the case of demon worshipping humans, i would expect that the children would be evil demon spawn, and thus be incapable of being turned to the path of good. yeah, they would go too. sorry. a paladin would have to take matters into his own hands to see no demon spawn children would survive. wipe out the entire group. its the only way to be sure. Oh, dear God! ANY excuse to be able to slaughter ehh? As long as an excuse can be contrived, no matter how inane or insane, slaughter is well and fine? Notch up another victory for the propaganda machine. Paladins are the warriors of Good. Not the warriors of expediency and excuse, but the warriors of Good. Exactly what way does a Paladin differ from a Blackguard when he's slaughtering whomever, to his hearts content, when he can come up with a mealy mouthed excuse to cover his actions? Isshia
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 09:39 AM	Funny, I'm getting the "You racist SOB", in polite and of so dignified terms. Equating what I think a paladin should do with other non human babies well bite me. First, read that there are more than one god for the Dwarves, etc. The Orcish god Gruumish, as per the MM, doesn't take kindly, even more so than the other species specific deities. Again read up. Another thing, A half-orc Paladin, the one that many here allude to when talking about how the "orc" joins the Church of St. Cuthbert and goes out to find the ones who killed her family is a HALF ORC. I think it even says that being a Paladin is possible due to their HUMAN side. Please, get your sources correct. No, it not I using homebrew, unless you consider filling in the gaps using other parts of the Core rules to fill them in. Yeah Drachasor you're using your homebrew rules and feelings not I and as for giving me a "way out", I'll give you a way out, stop using your shoulders as a seat cushion and see what you've been shovelling. Don't post like you're taking the moral high ground as you're nowhere close. Yeah you've ****** me off with your condensending and totally WRONG assumptions. As for Human babies, if the paladin is human that is easier. Giving the babies up for "adoption" to a human settlement is not out of the realm of possibilities. If the babies are Elven, dwarven, gnomish or halfling, going to any of their respective enclaves is a good idea as well. Besides the obvious choice of saving the kids, the political and social chances to bond and make or strengthen bonds between the groups. The idea that Orcish communities would welcome them, they are after all "outsiders and Orcs barely tolerate those in their own group, hey read the MM on Orcs (after reading that you'l see where I blame the authors for saying the Orcs are "Often" CE when you read more about them and see they aren't even close to being "nice"). The babies, if one were to drop them off, would live as slaves, if they are lucky. But hey, I'm sure there's some "good orc" (shyah right) that'll help them. Read the part in the MM where Gruumish doesn't allow his Orcs to live peacably. Orcish babies. Hmmmm. Who wants them? So far it seems the the only ones who'll want them are those who have 21st Century sensibilities, hint don't use your homebrew stuff here - again read the MM about orcs, could stomach them. If the number is few, less than 10, sending them to a monastary, a temple dedicated to a good or to the Paladin's fighting order is a great idea. If you're talking dozens, that's not a small easily individualized group. For groups bigger, you are going to have many issues. First, there is the "nature vs nurture" agrument. Honestly, I haven't read where the Core rules say that humaniods can be taught differently. Let's for arguements sake say that is true. It doesn't say how many out of a group it would be successful for when tried on them. If one is saying that even for Orcs that they all can be converted I'd say that is a "homebrewed rule" just as I'm sure some will say mine is a homebrew when I give the chance that the chances aren't good to begin with. The more Orcs you have, the lesser the possibility. Like my moniker LCD, Orcs do sink further and faster than humans, etc. The more Orcs you have the harder it is going to be to convert them to good. For human babies, if you have a bunch of human orphans in a human city, they can quickly assimilate as there are little if any differences between one human from another. Orcs aren't so lucky. That is why Orc babies would need to be spread out over a wide area to keep the concentration down and the chances much higher for success. What gets me is that many heere are holding the player to incredibly hard ideals when they themselves haven't even thought part the way through on how it would work or the ramifications behind it. Am I being "too through"? Not if DMs are going to put paladin traps out there. The consequences are many and the thought behind the "cures" are minimal. Like these: 1: If a Paladin or Good Cleric, say Pelor, come across a bunch of Orcish babies, does that mean if they end up with the babies they are supposed to stop their quests, if they are on one, and take these babies somewhere? What about any timeline they need to be at point "A" to challenge the BBEG plans? If so, any BBEG worth the title would be sprinkling babies or evil humaniods all over to slow down if not stop the do gooders. 2: Ok, the Paladin takes the babies and pays for their upkeep. Ok, great. Then what? The Paladin just sends $$$$? Do they need to check up on the kids? How often? After 6 such rescues, sounds like the Paladin is going from "orphanage to orphanage" checking on things. Okay, the as long as the money is sent, the paladin need not worry about it. Great. How do they know the money is being spent on the kids. After all, not everyone will see the Orcs as "works in progress" and as Orcs are strong, they can "earn their keep" and make their "caretaker even richer". So the Orcs are used like beast of burden out in the fields. Yeah, that'll teach them to be good. There are many more examples on just how little too many DMs and people on these boards just don't think about the consequences of the actions they think OTHERS should take. It is too easy to say, "Oh, there's another group that will take care of that". I call that "Passing the Buck". My complaint is not that people want to help the Orcs, mine is that they don't think about it. Trust me, if I was playing in the games of those who are deriding me on my callous attitude towards Orcs (which would be so laughable if it weren't so pathetic) you'd be impressed. As for Orcs though, here's something for you: They don't exist and to me personally (Terrainmonkey is correct) I see Orcs as vermin (too much LoTR I guess). If my paladin was saddled with a whole clutch of Orc babies, he'd take them to his fighting order if he had one, and stay for a while. He'd see them raised the best way possible. I don't pass the buck. So, if one is going to want essentially "real life decisions" of which the want someone else to solve, think about what you're shoveling.
wrecan 06-14-06, 09:42 AM	okay, we're still going with the human/orc comparisons. let's end that fallacy once and for all.I'm ready. Oh, wait... you think we're the ones committing the fallacy. :rolleyes: humans-- yes, a core race. and one that is predominant on any world in game. capable of all alignments, and perhaps the children would be capable as well. also, regionally accepted by all faiths and societies. Orcs are listed in the MM as a player race. I'm not sure why you think the distinction between core and MM races are important. (Elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings appear in the MM too.) Orcs are capable of all alignments (they are merely "often" CE), so the children are as well. How are humans "regionally accepted by all faiths and societies"? I'm pretty sure Llolth is not seeking human worshippers. Nor is Moradin. orcs-- monster manual race, thugish brutish humanoids, mostly chaotic, evil, ugly beings who only think of slaughter, destruction, and wholesale slaughter of humanity. looked down upon by a majority of humans. I think the only thing you got right there was "monster manual race", "humanoid", and "ugly". They are not mostly chaotic evil. They are often CE, which is actually less than 50% of the time. if human children in any guise were to be integrated into a good society, one would have no problem believing they would turn to the path of good with some direction. like minded beings would more than likely take them in as orphans and raise them without hate or prejudice. Wha-huh? So you think a paladin would turn over orphans... to CE foester parents? sorry to be so cold hearted, but that's the way i would run it if i were a paladin, and would have no problem if a pally in my campaign did the same. Yes, well you've made it quite clear that the orcs in your campaign are a home-brew. Me? I use the orcs in the actual MM and I would make it clear to you before you played a palaidn in my camapigns that the wholesale slaughter of orc children is a quick road to being an ex-paladin.
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 09:47 AM	Ok Tank, If some group is "Often CE", what does that mean to you for the alignments of the others, as a group? What would be the genereal breakdown of the other alignments, % wise. Last, how do you reconcile that with the passage on the Orcs in the MM?
wrecan 06-14-06, 09:52 AM	I'm getting the "You racist SOB", in polite and of so dignified terms. Calm down, LCD2YOU. Nobody's calling you a racist in real life. We're trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to show you that the approach you are advocating with regard ot orcs doesn't make logical sense unless you assum orcs lack the free will associated with other sentient beings like dwarves and humans. The fact that an orc is as likely to be CE as a dwarf is likely to be LG indicates that an orc has as much free will as a dwarf. First, read that there are more than one god for the Dwarves, etc. The Orcish god Gruumish, as per the MM, doesn't take kindly, even more so than the other species specific deities.Nothing says that every ord worships Gruumsh. The orcs only have one race-specific deity, but there are dozens of non-race specific deities. Nothing prevents a LG orc from worshiping Pelor. not I using homebrew Oc course you do, since you play that 99% of orcs are evil. Yeah you've ****** me off with your condensending and totally WRONG assumptions. LCD2YOU, you have got to take a breath. Honestly, I haven't read where the Core rules say that humaniods can be taught differently. It's in the alignment section avout frequency. 1: If a Paladin or Good Cleric, say Pelor, come across a bunch of Orcish babies, does that mean if they end up with the babies they are supposed to stop their quests, if they are on one, and take these babies somewhere?It's the same dilemma when the paladin finds a human baby in the middle of nowhere. The race of the baby is unimportant to this dilemma. The Paladin just sends $$$$? Do they need to check up on the kids? Paladins are members of paladin orders. That's the great thing about being Lawful. You are supposed to have an organization backing you up on this stuff. So, no, the paladin doesn't need to check up. He tithes to the Church of Pelor and they run the orphanages. Why? Because they are a LG organization. how little too many DMs and people on these boards just don't think about the consequences of the actions they think OTHERS should take.And it's easy to be a condescending **** who doesn't read what we're saying and just assumes the other side is stupid because he doesn't understand the argument. See? I'm guessing that paragraph did not convince you. Stop taking the angry martyr route, LCD2YOU. It's an ineffective means of argument. Trust me, if I was playing in the games of those who are deriding me on my callous attitude towards Orcs (which would be so laughable if it weren't so pathetic) you'd be impressed.On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
wrecan 06-14-06, 09:57 AM	Last, how do you reconcile that with the passage on the Orcs in the MM? The MM describes the typical members of a race. The dwarf description describes the dwarves who are LG. (Which is "often") Similarly, the descriptive text under orc only describes the orcs who are CE (which is also "often"). I believe there are as many good orcs as there are evil non-duergar dwarves. Maybe 10% of the population. I think most evil dwarves would be LE and most good orcs would be CG. But they most certainlt exist. They might even exist in the orc horde, trying to redeem them or to figure out a way to survive without being discovered, paying lip service to Gruumsh while meeting in secret, doing what good they can, avoiding the random carnage their evil brethren crave. Much as I assume the LE dwarf survives in a LG community of dwarves, dodging the dwarven paladins, trying to fulfill his sadistic pleasures in secret, finding other evil dwarves and forming secret cults.
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 10:51 AM	Calm down, LCD2YOU. Nobody's calling you a racist in real life. We're trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to show you that the approach you are advocating with regard ot orcs doesn't make logical sense unless you assum orcs lack the free will associated with other sentient beings like dwarves and humans. The fact that an orc is as likely to be CE as a dwarf is likely to be LG indicates that an orc has as much free will as a dwarf.Well, I'm not saying, at least I am trying not to say, that Orcs have no freewill. I am just saying that Orcs are prone to Chaos and Evil. Getting them to "change stripes" is no easy or trivial matter. It is even more difficult when they are in groups.Nothing says that every ord worships Gruumsh. The orcs only have one race-specific deity, but there are dozens of non-race specific deities. Nothing prevents a LG orc from worshiping Pelor.True. But I guess it is how we look at the Core and what often means and then what the breakdown of the other alignments are afterward.Oc course you do, since you play that 99% of orcs are evil. LCD2YOU, you have got to take a breath.Actually, I have it at 70% are evil and of the 30% left over, 66% of them have evil tendencies. That's ONLY 90%. Give me some credit here. :D It's in the alignment section avout frequency.I've read it. I guess I don't read it the same way. I take it that the creatures won't stray too far from that and are predisposed to their "racial" alignment. Can they be trained? Yeah, maybe, but it is not easy and it will take time, hard work AND a speration from others of their species. Whichever way it takes is not spelled out in the Core so that is the way I see it.It's the same dilemma when the paladin finds a human baby in the middle of nowhere. The race of the baby is unimportant to this dilemma.I disagree entirely. The species, there are not "races" of humans again the Core is silent on this, is very relevant as the upbringing of the baby depends on it.Paladins are members of paladin orders. That's the great thing about being Lawful. You are supposed to have an organization backing you up on this stuff. So, no, the paladin doesn't need to check up. He tithes to the Church of Pelor and they run the orphanages. Why? Because they are a LG organization.Which is all well and true, and seldom pointed out by the DM. Such is my condemnation of many DMs who practice these types of traps on paladins. My comment is not against such things happening as much as it is against DMs who demand things like that without prepping beofre hand or thinking about it. That and I don't like Orcs, or Elves they suck too.And it's easy to be a condescending **** who doesn't read what we're saying and just assumes the other side is stupid because he doesn't understand the argument. See? I'm guessing that paragraph did not convince you. Stop taking the angry martyr route, LCD2YOU. It's an ineffective means of argument.Hey, I'm going with my strengths.On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.Loyal, friendly, trainable, loves to sniff peopl.....hey that's uncalled for. ;) As far as the MM, I was taking the write up on the Orcs to be in general, ie the majority of them. Is it written that is only for the most prevelant alignment?
wrecan 06-14-06, 11:31 AM	I disagree entirely. The species, there are not "races" of humans again the Core is silent on this, is very relevant as the upbringing of the baby depends on it. You're misunderstanding me. You're saying that if a paladin must stop for an orc baby, then every BBEG should litter the area with orc babies to keep paladins from bugging him. But that dilemma exists no matter what species of baby the BBEG uses. In your world, the BBEG should litter the area with human babies. The dilemma you presented was false. The race of the baby is not what is causing the dilemma. Such is my condemnation of many DMs who practice these types of traps on paladins. As do I. But we have no idea if the OP is one of those DMs. In fact, the OP made it clear that the orcs were very close to human civilization, as they were harassing said civilization. It is also clear that the party just came from that place. In the OP's scenario, the availability of a LG church available to care for the children seems pretty secure. As far as the MM, I was taking the write up on the Orcs to be in general, ie the majority of them. Is it written that is only for the most prevelant alignment? "The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature." So the entry on orcs describes CE orcs, the most commonly encountered version of an orc, just as the entry on dwarves describes LG dwarves, the most commonly encountered dwarf.
Ankalagon 06-14-06, 11:39 AM	"The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature." True enough. Also if you take 90% as often or even 70% then 70% - 90% of orcs are lvl1 warriors. Based on all the fighting and killing they do can that be the percentage?
wrecan 06-14-06, 12:04 PM	wrecan: "The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature." Ankalagon: if you take 90% as often or even 70% then 70% - 90% of orcs are lvl1 warriors. [/QUOTE] What? The rule I cited does say "often". It says the "most commonly encountered". 1st level warrior orcs are the most common level and class combo of orc. That doesn't tell you how common they are. You need ot look at other rules for that. For example, the alignment entry tells you how "common" a CE orc is: "often" which is about 40%.
Ankalagon 06-14-06, 12:15 PM	For example, the alignment entry tells you how "common" a CE orc is: "often" which is about 40%. I agree sir, I was referring to the fact LDC2YOU looks at "often" as 70%-90%. By that same measure as per MM, 70%-90% are level 1 warriors. I don't think those stats stack up and I was demonstrating why - badly apparently err sorry. I agree with you and I mentioned the commonly encountered earlier in the thread.
wrecan 06-14-06, 12:38 PM	:embarrass Whew! Welll, that makes a lot more sense. Sorry for the confusion!
Always-Late 06-14-06, 12:57 PM	I disagree entirely. The species, there are not "races" of humans again the Core is silent on this, is very relevant as the upbringing of the baby depends on it.Your argument was, "What if they found a orc baby in the middle of nowhere? Should they drop their quest to bring it somewhere?" And of course, your rhetorical answer is no. Now, what if they found a human baby in the middle of nowhere? Should they bring the baby somewhere? And if the answers are different, why? Well, duh, because orcs aren't human, and it's okay to leave an orc baby to starve, but not a human one. Or is there something I'm missing?
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 12:57 PM	I agree sir, I was referring to the fact LDC2YOU looks at "often" as 70%-90%. By that same measure as per MM, 70%-90% are level 1 warriors. I don't think those stats stack up and I was demonstrating why - badly apparently err sorry. I agree with you and I mentioned the commonly encountered earlier in the thread.Too bad you can't read. I take 45% to be "often" as per the MM. What I take as 70% to 90% are those that are Evil or tending to evil when the group as a whole is often, 45%, CE. If you're going to try and brow beat me, at least get a few things right.
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 12:59 PM	Your argument was, "What if they found a orc baby in the middle of nowhere? Should they drop their quest to bring it somewhere?" And of course, your rhetorical answer is no. Now, what if they found a human baby in the middle of nowhere? Should they bring the baby somewhere? And if the answers are different, why? Well, duh, because orcs aren't human, and it's okay to leave an orc baby to starve, but not a human one. Or is there something I'm missing?Yes. Namely WTF would a DM do that?
wrecan 06-14-06, 01:03 PM	Yes. Namely WTF would a DM do that? I don't know--it's your absurd hypothetical. It's not the one put forth by the OP.
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 01:13 PM	I don't know--it's your absurd hypothetical. It's not the one put forth by the OP.Actually wrecan, it's Always-Late's absurd hypothetical. I asked why would a DM would do that. I don't think the OP was in that particular exchange.
wrecan 06-14-06, 01:54 PM	Actually wrecan, it's Always-Late's absurd hypothetical. No, LCD2YOU. It was yours. you first raised the "cave full of baby orcs" here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9371953&postcount=107). (Well before Always Late showed up). And then in this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9381719&postcount=203), you said, "if they are going to have the Paladin take care of said babies, me, as a BBEG, will just make sure that all of my evil minions have babies. That wil stop the do-gooders in their tracks while I launch against places to expand my empire." That was the first time anybody mentioned BBEGs using babies as the equivalent of paladin caltrops. (And it's still prior to the arrival of Always-Late.) So, yes. It was your bizarre hypothetical.
Evingolis 06-14-06, 02:11 PM	well, my impression is that LCD2YOU´s "main" problem is not "was killing the babies a GOOD deed", but "should a DM trap the pcs" and in this point, I agree to LCD2YOU that he should not. I agree that it is VERY interesting who-said-what-when-why and so on, but my experience with discussions where people quote sentence by sentence and counter word by word is that these discussions - are much TOO interesting for me to follow. ok, I expect to be bombed now from both (all) sides, let the show begin ;)
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 02:12 PM	No, LCD2YOU. It was yours. you first raised the "cave full of baby orcs" here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9371953&postcount=107). (Well before Always Late showed up). And then in this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9381719&postcount=203), you said, "if they are going to have the Paladin take care of said babies, me, as a BBEG, will just make sure that all of my evil minions have babies. That wil stop the do-gooders in their tracks while I launch against places to expand my empire." That was the first time anybody mentioned BBEGs using babies as the equivalent of paladin caltrops. (And it's still prior to the arrival of Always-Late.) So, yes. It was your bizarre hypothetical.No. The first, with Moradin was about the relationships with the Gods and the babies of hated enemies. The second was a statement, Another thing is if they are going to have the Paladin take care of said babies, me, as a BBEG, will just make sure that all of my evil minions have babies. That wil stop the do-gooders in their tracks while I launch against places to expand my empire.on how to stop good characters, if I were the BBEG. If you want to link Always-Late's question to those, you are most certainly welcomed to do so. It doesn't make it any more my question. Still, the question does stand. Why would a DM do that?
Drachasor 06-14-06, 02:30 PM	The second was a statement, on how to stop good characters, if I were the BBEG. Which was made in the context of orc babies if I recall correctly. It was part of an arguement about why a Paladin shouldn't have to take care of said babies. As others have noted however, the BBEG can use any sort of baby and such an arguement is hence independent of the orcly status of said babies. Still, the question does stand. Why would a DM do that? If the DM is putting this in his campaign, then clearly he wants the Paladin, and players, to deal with the multidimensional challenges of juggling their responsibilities to the babies (protecting the innocent) and their goal of stopping the BBEG. Probably not something worth doing a lot, but it could fit into a campaign now and then certainly. Of course it depends on the players, DM, and what type of roleplaying the enjoy most. -Drachasor
wrecan 06-14-06, 02:51 PM	If you want to link Always-Late's question to those, you are most certainly welcomed to do so. It doesn't make it any more my question. Yes. Yes, it does. Let's review: In post 203 you wrote "if they are going to have the Paladin take care of said babies, me, as a BBEG, will just make sure that all of my evil minions have babies. That wil stop the do-gooders in their tracks while I launch against places to expand my empire." In post 245, Always Late restated your argument: "Your argument was, 'What if they found a orc baby in the middle of nowhere? Should they drop their quest to bring it somewhere?'" And let's be clear. He accurately restated your argument. Actually, your first argument didn't specify "orc" babies, so he was actually giving your argument more credit than it was due. In post 247, you responded, "WTF would a DM do that?" And the appropriate answer is... You're the one who thinks a DM would do that! So you answer the question. So stop it, LCD2YOU. I don't know where you think this discussion is headed, but it's been derailed pretty solidly.
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 02:58 PM	Which was made in the context of orc babies if I recall correctly.You remember correctly.It was part of an arguement about why a Paladin shouldn't have to take care of said babies.I will go over that section again, but I think I wa more concerned, ie ranting, about why DMs do that.As others have noted however, the BBEG can use any sort of baby and such an arguement is hence independent of the orcly status of said babies.In a quest environment, where the PCs are on a time table and not just "cleaning out" an Orc encampment, hmmm, that is where we went in seperate directions. I will take the blame and accept that I was wrong if that is what it is. It is most likely I did and didn't really read (just thought) all were talking about the former and not the latter. Ok, now I'm calm(er). If the former, damn that's a tough decision. On one hand, you have the babies or small children who need your help. On the other hand you have your duty. As a Paladin, what is the duty? If it's a "save the city of Zyzzyx and its 150,000 inhabitants" and you absolutely positively must be there by 6:15am, next Tuesday there are a lot of innocent children and babies in that city too. The choice between that and taking back 10 to 20 babies of any race to your chapter's home base, which means you'll get back to Zyzzyx, oh sometime next planting season, I think the choice is very clear: You take the kids with you. If you're going deep into the BBEG's territory, like in the story of "Destroy the Ring of Power", or the world is lost, you still take the kids with you. If you have any luck, you'll be able to drop them off with someone who is sympathetic to your cause. If you somehow can't or know that the kids will die, end of story as the "anti-life field" you party must go throught drain 50 HP, you leave the kids. No, I don't like that and I may take the kids just on the chance, but while the "good side" says "Save everyone", the lawful side says, "Save the most you can as the good of the many out weighs the good of the few, or the one". All I needed to learn I learn on STOS. If that costs me my character Paladin status, sacrifices will be made. I may punch the MF on the other side of the screen in the mouth, but I'd play on.If the DM is putting this in his campaign, then clearly he wants the Paladin, and players, to deal with the multidimensional challenges of juggling their responsibilities to the babies (protecting the innocent) and their goal of stopping the BBEG. Probably not something worth doing a lot, but it could fit into a campaign now and then certainly. Of course it depends on the players, DM, and what type of roleplaying the enjoy most. -DrachasorYeah do that, your best, save as many as you can and succeed at that still have your character's Paladinhood irrevocably stripped and get back to me on that.
Evingolis 06-14-06, 03:02 PM	@wrecan: >And the appropriate answer is... You're the one who thinks a DM would do that! So you answer the question. sry, but.. the original posting DM did that, so its quite a good idea to ask "why do that". and thinking that one does something that one díd is not really stupid/obscure/funny, is it? you are absolutely right saying that the discussion is derailed, so..
astute1 06-14-06, 03:07 PM	Still, the question does stand. Why would a DM do that? You can't please everyone all the time. The people who play rogues and scouts groan every time that an undead or construct shows up. But I'm not going to go without undead and constructs just because it's "rogue-baiting". In the same vein, the half-orc barbarian who made his charisma the dump stat doesn't like the "talking" parts of the game, where he has to, you know, communicate with other people. But I still make him do it once in a while. Likewise with moral dilemnas. They're tough for the paladins (although, in all honesty, I expect a lot out of anyone with a good alignment.) But I'm not going to have a game with no moral dilemnas just because it's tough for the paladin.
LCD2YOU 06-14-06, 03:21 PM	You can't please everyone all the time. The people who play rogues and scouts groan every time that an undead or construct shows up. But I'm not going to go without undead and constructs just because it's "rogue-baiting". In the same vein, the half-orc barbarian who made his charisma the dump stat doesn't like the "talking" parts of the game, where he has to, you know, communicate with other people. But I still make him do it once in a while. Likewise with moral dilemnas. They're tough for the paladins (although, in all honesty, I expect a lot out of anyone with a good alignment.) But I'm not going to have a game with no moral dilemnas just because it's tough for the paladin.I like that answer. Here's a question for you. You decide to do that and you shove a couple of kids escaping from a war zone in front of a Paladin. The palyer decides that, from the POV their character, he leaves the kids behind to go on and finish the quest. The kids die but the quest is successful. What happens to the Paladin? On the other hand, the paladin saves the kids but 100s if not 1000s more die because the paladin didn't do what they were supposed to do. What happens to the Paladin?
wrecan 06-14-06, 03:36 PM	the original posting DM did that Not really. In the OP's scenario, the paladin was not far from civilization and there was no imminent need to catch the BBEG. Nothing logistically was preventing the party from taking the women and children to the local authorities. Or, at least, nothing that we can discern in the post.
Traevanon 06-14-06, 03:40 PM	Maybe they should just add a seventh stat we'll call "Morality" where a Paladin who has spent a full 18 points in it can simply make a d20 check to simulate the right and moral call even if the player cant sort it out such as we do with diplomacy now. Yeah, that's it. Then we can have Character Optimizations based on trying to hit Post-Epic DC200 Morality checks.
pres_man 06-14-06, 03:42 PM	Likewise with moral dilemnas. They're tough for the paladins (although, in all honesty, I expect a lot out of anyone with a good alignment.) But I'm not going to have a game with no moral dilemnas just because it's tough for the paladin. And that is what cracks me up about these discussions. They are not tough at all. "Gee, I'm a shining example of good and law, should I put these baby orcs on pikes or not, hmmm, that is a tough choice. Oh wait, no its not, because paladins should never kill innocents." sry, but.. the original posting DM did that, so its quite a good idea to ask "why do that". and thinking that one does something that one díd is not really stupid/obscure/funny, is it? Well again this wasn't really a "test" as such. I mean what not to do should have pretty clear to anyone who is not a psychopath. You don't run around putting young humanoids on pikes. So it might have been a challenge as how to keep them from alerting the evil adult combatants, but actually to kill them or not should have not been a problem for a paladin. Also the OP was quite correct to include them if the group of orcs was of a significant size. ORC Organization: Gang (2–4), squad (11–20 plus 2 3rd-level sergeants and 1 leader of 3rd–6th level), or band (30–100 plus 150% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 10 adults, 5 5th-level lieutenants, and 3 7th-level captains) Almost all humanoids have a similiar entry. Now the player could have been under the impression that orcs in the game world are like in LotR, and thus they might get excused once, though why the DM didn't stop the game for a second and explain to the player what the character should know (orcs aren't born evil, but they tend to turn out that way when raised by evil orcs) I don't know. You decide to do that and you shove a couple of kids escaping from a war zone in front of a Paladin. The palyer decides that, from the POV their character, he leaves the kids behind to go on and finish the quest. The kids die but the quest is successful. What happens to the Paladin? Well technically, leaving them behind was a neutral act. If a DM takes away the paladin's abilities for doing a neutral act, then that is a problem with the DM. Though extreme circumstances might lead to a paladin being punished for it, usually these deal with the paladin not doing things to aid these children in ways that would neither jeopardize his quest or harm him. For example let's say it was cold out, the paladin had an extra winter blanket (one of his companions had recently died in battle), the paladin also has extra rations. Yet the paladin consciously offers neither of these to the children, that might lead to fall. But a paladin could probably give some aid and directions without fear of falling, "There is a town two days from here where church of pelor is, ask there for aid, now take this food and blankets and get off it is not safe for you here." On the other hand, the paladin saves the kids but 100s if not 1000s more die because the paladin didn't do what they were supposed to do. What happens to the Paladin? Well the paladin might have some explaining to do to people not as devoted to good as he is, but again this is not something that should make a paladin fall. A paladin can not be responsible for others actions but his own. If a kidnapper kills an innocent because the paladin didn't give him some ancient relic, that isn't the fault of the paladin, but of the kidnapper. As long as the paladin is working on doing good somewhere then he is doing his duty. A paladin should have faith that should he die or get sidetracked that the world will continue on, to do otherwise is to fall to the sin of pride (only I can do this). Now how about a third one: Q: A paladin decides it is best to kill the children since then there is no chance of dying on their own, and they also will not delay his mission. What should happen to the paladin? A: Dishonor on you! Dishonor on your horse! Dishonor on your whole family!
Evingolis 06-14-06, 03:59 PM	@wrecan: see my answer to pres_man below please ;) @pres_man: it was a test, it was meant as a test/trap, it was not necessary, and it is no working replacement for communication. if the DM knows much better how to play a paladin, why not tell the player instead of trying to teach them? @LCD2YOU: if you are a paladin and you are in a dilemma, remember your sword, get yourself cut into 2 and have each half of you solve his part of the problem. no good idea? hm. maybe then this: you are doing the same as the OP did: build a trap. building traps is not good for dnd, and its not good for a discussion. there may be several options to solve the problem(try to find them!): split the party, send some with the kids to safety, take the kids with you, pray to your god for help, or - simply - do what you can. in my view, a paladin will never ever leave children in lethal danger, and on the other hand I as a DM will never ever have such a situation to get a paladin "punished" he may take the children, ride to sunset, and some other paladins may come and solve the quest. do what you can and trust the gods, and everything will be fine
astute1 06-14-06, 04:12 PM	You decide to do that and you shove a couple of kids escaping from a war zone in front of a Paladin. The palyer decides that, from the POV their character, he leaves the kids behind to go on and finish the quest. The kids die but the quest is successful. What happens to the Paladin? On the other hand, the paladin saves the kids but 100s if not 1000s more die because the paladin didn't do what they were supposed to do. What happens to the Paladin? I think in either case if the paladin really, honestly thought about it and tried to to the "right thing," I'd probably let them off the hook. You can't see into the future, and you don't know for certain whether you're leaving the kids to die or whether your quest will even be successful. What's important is the intent behind your actions. A good character doesn't look for shortcuts or seek the easy path, but should really try to help people in the best way he can think of. And that is what cracks me up about these discussions. They are not tough at all. "Gee, I'm a shining example of good and law, should I put these baby orcs on pikes or not, hmmm, that is a tough choice. Oh wait, no its not, because paladins should never kill innocents." Well, the examples people bring up on the boards are the extreme cases. The more interesting (and difficult) choices are the ones you see in good adventures. "Do we go after the vampire in his lair, even though he might kill the hostages if we do?" "Is it right to kill the good-aligned guards who are just doing their job protecting the evil-aligned king." Even better is if you can just have people roleplay their alignments without thinking "hm, I'm good, I better not kill this guy"
Traevanon 06-14-06, 05:03 PM	I dont understand the theory that it is correct of the DM to police a Paladin's behavior. The DM doesnt go around the table to the Wizard and say "I'm sorry, you arent playing your 24 Intelligence properly, I'm going to have to lower you to at most a 12." You dont roleplay a whole hunt with the party Ranger and then tell him "I dont think you know anything about the wilderness, your class abilities are revoked. You are now a Fighter." Likewise why should the DM assume he is more wise in the ways of morals and alignment than the player when even us "experts" debate the subject endlessly. If the Paladin begins acting questionably, do the obvious and question them. Ask them to justify their behavior. If they can do so within reason, leave them alone. Go back to playing. Most of all dont try to pretend that you know more about good and evil than the next person. Stick to reasonable interpretations of the rules and remember the basics: That this is an adventure game and the people you are playing with are your friends. Your NPCs however, can be judgemental and opinionated and even completely wrong.
pres_man 06-14-06, 06:07 PM	I dont understand the theory that it is correct of the DM to police a Paladin's behavior. They shouldn't be, unless the player is not doing their duty and policing their own character's behaviour. For example, if a paladin were to kill a bunch of non-combatants like in the OP, the player should have decided to do that because they wanted their character to fall. It should have been done for a roleplaying decision. The problem is a lot of players aren't capable or willing to police themselves and thus it falls to the DM's shoulders since the DM is the final authority of what is the standards for good-evil-lawful-chaotic in the campaign setting. The DM doesnt go around the table to the Wizard and say "I'm sorry, you arent playing your 24 Intelligence properly, I'm going to have to lower you to at most a 12." You dont roleplay a whole hunt with the party Ranger and then tell him "I dont think you know anything about the wilderness, your class abilities are revoked. You are now a Fighter." Likewise why should the DM assume he is more wise in the ways of morals and alignment than the player when even us "experts" debate the subject endlessly. None of those class can "fall". A better example would be talking about druids, monks, and clerics, who have alignment restrictions closer to that of the paladin (though still not as strict). For these if a DM is not speaking up when a druid player is destroying nature left and right, or when a monk is acting honorlessly all the time, or if a cleric is actively going against his own code, then the DM is failing in his job. If the Paladin begins acting questionably, do the obvious and question them. Ask them to justify their behavior. If they can do so within reason, leave them alone. Go back to playing. And if they do not do so "within reason"? Who decides what "within reason" is? Still it falls on the DM's shoulders to make the final determination. If what you are saying is that a DM should talk to the player before an abilities are lost (possible be due to false assumptions, eg orcs are spawned as in LotR and not born and develop) then I whole-heartedly agree. Most of all dont try to pretend that you know more about good and evil than the next person. Stick to reasonable interpretations of the rules and remember the basics: That this is an adventure game and the people you are playing with are your friends. Within a specific game setting though the DM DOES know more about good and evil. People who don't want to play pillar of goodness and lawfulness should ... not play a paladin. It is that simple. If a player tries to say things like, "Sure it would be better to not kill them but it was more convenient this way." They haven't a clue as to what the paladin class is. They recognize what would have been the best choice (the most good choice), but then didn't do it. Your NPCs however, can be judgemental and opinionated and even completely wrong. I would argue any character could be. Just because there is suppose to be an objective good, doesn't mean everyone knows what it is. Thus some people could be doing things they think are good but are actually evil. This doesn't mean that they get a free pass, just because they were wrong. They still may detect as evil, despite doing what they thought was good. The difference is they might be willing to change if shown the error of their ways, which most creatures who do evil knowingly would not. ****************EDIT******************** *** I will say that no player should ever have a paladin fall due to ignorance. A DM should make it clear to at least the player that a certain act would make them fall. Especially if it is something obvious that the character should know. Like in the OP, the DM should have told the player, before the player began attacking the young, that his character would know that almost all humanoids, including orcs and goblinoids, aren't born evil and that attacking non-combatants is dishonorable behaviour. Those are things any paladin would know. I don't think this is "hand-holding", instead it is understanding that the player is not the character and there are things the character would know that the player may be ignorant of. This type of thing should be for glaringly "obvious" issues, not all issues. For all the issues a phylactery of faithfulness would be needed. But the "obvious" issues should all have been covered during a paladin's training and when he takes his oath.
Gold Medal Jedi 06-14-06, 07:48 PM	They shouldn't be, unless the player is not doing their duty and policing their own character's behaviour. Policing?!! when the hell did this game turn into a job? Come on stop taking this crap so seriously... its supposed to be fun. Policing is not fun. The big question i am seeing here is did the guy break any rules? Contrary to what many may think, alignments were never meant to be used as rules. They were only meant to be devices to allow for certain in-game mechanics to work similarly as earlier editions of the game. Did he follow his stated alignment? Maybe he did maybe he didnt. If he didnt then its up to the player and the DM to decide. If they decide he broke with his stated alignment, and if this is ruled as abberant behavior in accordance with the rules as written then they will conduct themselves as they see fit. The game is supposed to be a give and take on the part of both player and DM. Without this give and take, the game becomes work and work is never fun. I dont know about some of you but i spend 9 hours a day at work sometimes more and the last thing I want to do to relax and enjoy myself is work another 4 to 5 on my weekends. Also everyone will have their own ideas on how things will work in these situations, and not one of us will be wrong. Why is this you may ask? Because alignment is based on a persons morality and sense of order. Both things are both conceptual and perceptual. The core books give us a general guideline that most can agree on. But the book can not and can never cover all situations that may arise. Because of this you will have a thousand different takes on just one situation. None of those thousand are invalid, just different. The best anyone can hope for in these types of stituations is to find a common ground that will appease all involved. I guess what im trying to get at is if you find yourself using phrases like; policing their actions, administering punshiment, fullfilling duties, or so on, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your game a bit and see where all the fun has gone off too. GMJ
Ankalagon 06-14-06, 08:03 PM	Too bad you can't read. I take 45% to be "often" as per the MM. What I take as 70% to 90% are those that are Evil or tending to evil when the group as a whole is often, 45%, CE. If you're going to try and brow beat me, at least get a few things right. Dude, :embarrass Cursory reference deserves a slap upside the head. I thought though as you picked me up on being a nob I'd take a closer look at where you are coming from apart from the "enthusiastic tone of response" which is excellently more vehement than mine, keep it up ;) H'mmm orcs are chaotic fundamentally, even the 1/2orc writeup points to genetics over environment. Cool. But LCD2YOU, I think you are taking CE @45% on the standard linear line of alignment and bumping left and right based on that standard line. That's a little unclear so I'll explain. CE <----> CN <----> CG. Am I right here? You simply cannot see how on the standard line how the vermin (Orc) can get to Good in any derivative, although you accept it's slightly plausible. Now then the Orc is often CE so how about this, as it's often CE and chaotic fundamentally then I think the line should look like CN <----> CE <----> CG So at the centre you have CE @45% then you have I don't know 30% @CN? 10% @CG and the other 15% split around. Assuming 5% of CE can be redeemed to CN and 1% of that to CG. Assuming 15% of CN can be redeemed to CG You then have fully 26% can be good, violent, quick tempered good but still good and that's based upon fully grown "often encountered". Genocidally slaughtering 1/4+ of a race of good or potentially good creatures isn't a decent thing. Giving those offspring a chance is a decent thing. In the alignment details where you have a sentient race with an often alignment your common old garden Pally has to accept that does he not? It's late and I'm tired so while I think I am quite clear, I may be mud like. Also slagging of Tolkien elves is fightin' talk big boy, but I guess that's for another day.
pres_man 06-14-06, 09:42 PM	I guess what im trying to get at is if you find yourself using phrases like; policing their actions, administering punshiment, fullfilling duties, or so on, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your game a bit and see where all the fun has gone off too. GMJ Well we are talking about a role-playing game and of a class with specific requirements for the types of roles it can be involved with. So sure if player wants to play their paladin as a child murdering pyschopath, the DM shouldn't be stopping him. Of course, if they are following the rules the player will then be playing an ex-paladin, or do you think following the rules is too restrictive for game play?
Traevanon 06-14-06, 09:52 PM	And if they do not do so "within reason"? Who decides what "within reason" is? Still it falls on the DM's shoulders to make the final determination. If what you are saying is that a DM should talk to the player before an abilities are lost (possible be due to false assumptions, eg orcs are spawned as in LotR and not born and develop) then I whole-heartedly agree. Actually what I mean by "Within reason" is realizing that there are multiple interpretations and that even though you are the DM yours is not the only valid one. I mean so long as they are using an interpretation that a reasonable person could believe. I mean that once a Paladin reaches level 1 they are respected enough to be allowed some latitude. They might even be setting an example. I mean, before you as a DM get suckered into debating morals with your Paladin player consider that they have some tough calls to make and that sometimes there is not one perfect right answer.
Gold Medal Jedi 06-14-06, 11:55 PM	Well we are talking about a role-playing game and of a class with specific requirements for the types of roles it can be involved with. So sure if player wants to play their paladin as a child murdering pyschopath, the DM shouldn't be stopping him. Of course, if they are following the rules the player will then be playing an ex-paladin, or do you think following the rules is too restrictive for game play? and what you are implying is that yours is the only way a paladin can be played. All Im saying is that different people play things differently. It all depends on who it is that is playing the game. If the DM and the Player come to an agreement on how things should be for said class or what ever other dynamic the group may be playing at the time, then its all good to go.. The key, and i have read it here earlier, is that the lines of communication is well established between player and DM. But at no point should the game ever be considered work or tedious to anyone at the table, and that includes the DM. When it crosses that line of fun and merriment to dulldrum and tedium due to some miscommunication of intent or some ruling that just doesnt fit the sense of enjoyment of the group as a whole, then its time to rethink how things are being accomplished in their games. The other key is to remain consistent. If a rule is changed or completely disregarded, then maintain that dynamic throughout the life of the campaign or adventure. Also, communicate this change well and fully to the players. Time and time again, i have seen not only my own games but others posted here going to crap because of misunderstandings due to lack of communication. Often the paladin is one of those things that arent communicated well. I myself am very harsh on how good and lawful they must be with little room for any "isunderstandings" or "blindness" to others actions. But others may feel a necessity for some leeway in response to their actions. So which is right? Simple, both. Why? Because one is my game and my interpretation of the class and the other is someone elses. But the players in my game know how i handle paladins and I vehemently make my new players aware of just how hard it is to play one. It is truly the only class where the DM is given power over how they are played. That power is defined by the DM's interpretation of Order and Morality. If I am soft on crime then my sense of order is going to be soft, so paladins in my game would be able to get away with the occasional murder. But if im hard on crime, then it goes that my sense of order and discipline will reflect this, thusly paladins in my game will be closely monitored and weighed against their actions. But its not only the DM's interpretations of Order and Morality, it also takes the choice of religion into account too. The choice of religion also affects the power that a paladin weilds and as such their sense of order and morality is also reflective by this same choice. But once again, its the DM's interpretation of that religions dogma that governs the level of morality and order necessary to adhere to that religions code of ethics. The only other class (i am of course excluding all prestige classes) that allows this much power to the DM is the cleric. But the alignment restrictions arent nearly as harsh. so are following rules too restrictive? No... so long as everyone is following the same rules from the get go. Not all of us here are playing by the same rules. Im sure there are more than one house rule that you play by that i would disagree with as well as vice versa. Its just the nature of the beast. All im getting at is when playing by the rules makes the game not fun anymore then its time to rethink those rules making it not fun. As i have said before though, the answer to the paladin delimma is in the new PHB2. Most times people want to play a paladin because they want to be a knight in shining armor. The PHB2 introduced the base class Knight. It is well balanced and allows for common discretions without taking away all the things that make a knight a knight. Everyone has a bad day, should a person be judged on a bad day? In my game yes. But in others that may not be the case. Yet as i read it the Paladin is the paragon of good and law, so without flaw that he is near god like, thusly carrying the powers of his chosen deity. Gods dont dole out their power to just anyone, especially if they arent members of their church. The knight doesnt allow the DM the power to strip them of their power completely. Just deny them use of it for a while. Well thats enough for now... Hope this helps. GMJ
Always-Late 06-15-06, 12:14 AM	Okay, sorry, it's after eleven and I just got back from a class where I failed at everything and vented in the room for about half an hour. So I'm ******, and that doesn't excuse my attitude at all, but yes, I'm an ass, thxuvrymch. Now, on to the argument. So WHY THE FREAKING HELL WOULD YOU RUN INTO THE CAVE FULL OF THE KINDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? I mean, it's a kid in the wild. Then there's the orc kids in the cave. Despite the fact that, of course, the orc-human baby debate's been spiraling around for a while, and there's absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever. So, why the hell would a DM put a cave full of orc kids in the first place? Or, you know, kids of enemies. Or even possible collateral damage involving kids. Or, you know, collateral damage involving humans. Or god forbid that you run into a, you know, ethical dilemma. Because a game that avoids ethical dilemmas entirely is just a really, really stupid game. And no-win situations are also really, really, stupid. And don't use the ******* STUPID AS HELL obviously one-sided rhetorical arguments, please. No DM's dumb enough to say, "Hey, you left a kid by himself. And then a billion people died. You fall," and at the same time say, "Hey, you saved a billion people, but that kid died. You fall." I don't know what kind of brain-dead DMs you play with, or what kind of stupid standards you think we impose in our games, but most BBEG situations don't have, "Hey, you blew a sending on calling the nearest temple. You could have used that spell slot on something else which you drastically needed ot stop the BBEG. Some people died. You fall."
LCD2YOU 06-15-06, 12:26 AM	(snip Orc stuff)Also slagging of Tolkien elves is fightin' talk big boy, but I guess that's for another day.First, your numbers. While you MAY get to convert some, others may slide back. To do that, the logistics and trainers needed would be staggering. If you had a sampling of 100 Orcs, well, better to teach elves how not to be annoying. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. As for elves, they suck. They suck hard. I hate them. I think it's because I don't think I ever seen one played correctly* *Hell no don't ask what that entails as I'll know it when I see it, kinda like pornography.
pres_man 06-15-06, 09:50 AM	and what you are implying is that yours is the only way a paladin can be played. No, that is what you are inferring, not what I am implying. I have never, ever, claimed to know the absolute correct way to play a paladin. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize a wrong way to play one (according to the RAW). Players that have their paladins run around and murder young non-combatant humanoids are playing a paladin incorrectly, from everything I have read. This is due to them being innocent. I find it humorous that you get up in arms about me using the term "policing" and then discuss how you "closely monitor", same difference if you ask me. I mean so long as they are using an interpretation that a reasonable person could believe. I mean that once a Paladin reaches level 1 they are respected enough to be allowed some latitude. They might even be setting an example. I agree there may be different interpretations, but that doesn't make EVERY interpretation valid. In a game where "monster" humanoids are not born evil and are in fact initially innocent, where not all even grow up to be evil, where a paladin is to protect the innocent and punish those that harm them, it is "unreasonable" for a paladin to go around murdering "monster" humanoid young and to try to justify it as doing "good". Now it is possible that the individual player may not have known that they are not born evil and are in fact innocent, and thus may have made an honest mistake, but that is why a DM should warn them of things their character would know (having grown up and trained in the setting) that they the player may not. Yet, it typically is the DM that does set the standard as to what is good/evil/lawful/chaotic. This is due to practicality, there is suppose to be an objective alignment structure, how this comes about can be done subjectively, but its application should be objective (why are touchdowns worth 6 points and not 4 or 5 or 10? subjective decision, but what constitutes a touch down is judged objectively, as much as possible). As the DM is charged with keeping all alignment issues throughout the game consistent, it only makes sense that it is the DM that sets them. This does not mean it is set on the DM's personal beliefs, though it usually is for simplicity, or that the DM should not discuss these issues with the players, they should. Yet in a given setting the DM does know (or should know) more about what is good or evil in that setting (not in RL, not in other settings run by other DMs). Of course with all things, a DM should inform his players before any house interpretations become an issue.
Ankalagon 06-15-06, 10:18 AM	First, your numbers. While you MAY get to convert some, others may slide back. 50% one way and then 50% the other, still 26% but the numbers don't matter it's still about the actual goodness or potential for it. To do that, the logistics and trainers needed would be staggering. Staggering by the measure of............ If you had a sampling of 100 Orcs,. That would be 100 orc children, sentient, as yet innocent and potentially good, well at least non evil. well, better to teach elves how not to be annoying., That's easy, simply be (an elf) ;) For that matter what tuition? Simply let them be in a decent, none destructive setting. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. And that means exactly what? As for elves, they suck. They suck hard. I hate them. I think it's because I don't think I ever seen one played correctly* You have a hatred of something that's based on nothing you can detail....do I need to be explicit about what exactly that constitutes. *Hell no don't ask what that entails as I'll know it when I see it, kinda like pornography. H'mmmm interesting, out of all the possible analogies you choose that one
pres_man 06-15-06, 10:37 AM	I should say that though I can find absolutely no support in the RAW for a paladin killing innocent non-combatant young humanoids (irregardless of race), had the paladin in question actually used his detect-evil ability and merely showed no mercy to the evil creatures he faced, whether they were combatants or not, I would be supporting the player's position at least initially. A strict reading of the PHB (though not necessarily the SRD), can give a player the impression that paladins may treat evil beings differently then other beings, they may destroy the evil beings and can show no mercy to them if they choose. Yet the player in the OP doesn't even have that on his side, he didn't kill known evil creatures (using his ability), he merely killed creatures from a race that tends towards evil. There is no support for that type of behaviour in the RAW any place.
astute1 06-15-06, 10:48 AM	I should say that though I can find absolutely no support in the RAW for a paladin killing innocent non-combatant young humanoids (irregardless of race), had the paladin in question actually used his detect-evil ability and merely showed no mercy to the evil creatures he faced, whether they were combatants or not, I would be supporting the player's position at least initially. I can agree with this. Although I think a paladin should try to protect innocent life and convert evil creatures to good whenever possible, there is certainly more cause to destroy life if you know that the life you're killing is evil. I wouldn't have the paladin "fall" for killing evil youths, although I might have his deity send him disturbing dreams that he's not quite living up to the expectations of the his code. Whereas killing youths without even knowing whether they are good or evil is a "falling" offense. On the other hand, babies and even young children probably don't have an alignment, as they are incapable of knowing good from evil.
Gold Medal Jedi 06-15-06, 09:01 PM	No, that is what you are inferring, not what I am implying. I have never, ever, claimed to know the absolute correct way to play a paladin. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize a wrong way to play one (according to the RAW). Players that have their paladins run around and murder young non-combatant humanoids are playing a paladin incorrectly, from everything I have read. This is due to them being innocent. I find it humorous that you get up in arms about me using the term "policing" and then discuss how you "closely monitor", same difference if you ask me. You see your term there.. RAW... that in my opinion is you implying that the RAW is the only way one should be played... and that there, is what appears to be ,in your opinion, a wrong way to play one, suggests that you know the right way to play one. Also, that you have an opinion of what is right and wrong for a paladin to do or not do... Yes the book lays out guidelines for their actions. But by no means is it set in stone by the authors the only way or even necessarily the right way. It was just right for them at the time. Further more my choice of words "to monitor" was for how I handle them, but by no means am i policing them. Policing implies that there are consequences when they dont hold to some ideal. Monitoring is just observing said situation. And I observe my PC's actions rather than dole out punishment for role playing, be it bad or good role playing, any role playing in my opinion is better than no role playing. Its not my job to determine how they role play in the sense of whether they are adhering to certain dynamics. My job is to steer the story for them to develope. Yes there are rules, but like many rules, they were made to be broken from time to time. And that time in my opinion is when the rules interfere with the overall enjoyment of the game. Does this mean the paladin can go on a murdering rampage? No... because i can assure you that others at the table will begin to not enjoy the game any longer and so my ideal stands true. If the paladins murderous actions begin to impinge upon the enjoyment of the game of my other players or myself then its time to discuss his actions with him and find a middle ground that we as a group can all agree on. If that calls for a rules revision then so be it. There also seems to be some disagreement that his actions were in error over an apparent murder of innocents. This is could be a fallacy. How does the DM view the dogma of this paladins order? Does the paladins order consider an entire race to be beyond redemption? If the answer is yes... well then the paladin can kill every last one of them even if the cord isnt cut, kill them all... No murder... at least not in the eyes of his order or god. But again thats all up to interpretation... If i recall it was Cuthbert in this instance... well what i read into his dogma may not be the same as what you read into it. I may read it as zero tolerance to all of the Orc race. But you may read it as all evil members of this race. See the difference there, well if i got a paladin in my campaign its my duty to let him know exactly how i view the dogma, so that there is no confusion on what might happen if this situation arises. It is also my opinion that when a DM has a PC that chooses to play an class that is alignment intensive, the DM should have a nice long talk about these things before the game begins so that there is no confusion on the view points of alignment and consequences of mechanics involved with that class. If i had my druthers i would eliminate all concepts of alignment from the game. It would certainly make things like this moot, and thusly alot easier for everyone. But then how would all those nifty divine abilities and spells work eh? Not sure, but im certain there is a better way. GMJ
Nephlite 06-15-06, 09:37 PM	And that is what cracks me up about these discussions. They are not tough at all. "Gee, I'm a shining example of good and law, should I put these baby orcs on pikes or not, hmmm, that is a tough choice. Oh wait, no its not, because paladins should never kill innocents." Can't prove by RAW that babies are innocent (meaning good) can you? I bet you House Rule it though. But that means nothing. Since that changes from DM to DM (as house rules usually so) so that proves nothing.
pres_man 06-15-06, 09:46 PM	You see your term there.. RAW... that in my opinion is you implying that the RAW is the only way one should be played... and that there, is what appears to be ,in your opinion, a wrong way to play one, suggests that you know the right way to play one. Also, that you have an opinion of what is right and wrong for a paladin to do or not do... Yes the book lays out guidelines for their actions. But by no means is it set in stone by the authors the only way or even necessarily the right way. It was just right for them at the time. GMJ Well, I'm sorry but you are still inferring things I am not implying. My discussion of the RAW is based on the fact that we are not discussing my game setting or your game setting or anyone elses except for the OP's. It is generally assumed that everyone starts from the RAW and then deviates from there, thus since the RAW is suppose to be at least an initial commonground before houserules are put in place, discussions on these boards usually center on the RAW. If the OP has some rules in place where alignments of humanoids and paladins are different then the RAW that would be useful to know. But without some indication of some different houserules, it is assumed that in the game being discussed the group is following the RAW, at least for this aspect. Nobody has complained that other posters are playing their games wrong when they say that 90%+ of orcs are evil and that it is essentially impossible to redeem them. That is fine for their games, at the same time, those are irrelevent when discussing whether the paladin's actions in the OP are reasonable, since that paladin isn't in these other DMs' games. So poster can certainly say, "In my game what he did would have been fine, but that is because all orcs are evil spawn, much like mortal demons." I probably wouldn't have any problem playing in a game like that (though I'd find it a little shallow for my tastes.) Nobody is asking anyone else to say, "Hey the RAW is always the best way to play!" No, but we are discussing, given the RAW and no other houserules with regard to alignments, no matter how flawed those rules are in our opinion, could the paladin's behaviour be justified. This is a matter of being intellectually honest with ourselves, no matter how stupid we think the RAW is on this matter. And so I have said, "No, I don't find anything in the RAW that can justify this behaviour." I'm waiting for someone to find something in the RAW that could justify it, but all we hear is houserules. Unlike for example the claim of the detect-smite paladin concept which does have support in the PHB material, and thus should be house-ruled/clarified prior to game play. And I'm sorry, I cannot envision a well run game where every player gets to change any rule they wish whenever it becomes a hinderous to them, perhaps that is a fault of my limited imagination.
pres_man 06-15-06, 09:51 PM	Can't prove by RAW that babies are innocent (meaning good) can you? I bet you House Rule it though. But that means nothing. Since that changes from DM to DM (as house rules usually so) so that proves nothing. If you mean that I can't prove that the term "innocent" is defined in the game, then you are correct. Yet when a term is not defined in the game, you should assume the common definitions apply. Now if you would be willing to show a definition of innocent that would exclude babies, then I'd be happy to discuss it. And no, innocent does not mean good, it means without guilt or sin, so can include neutral as well as good, and under some settings possible even evil creatures could be innocent (though personally, I feel to be evil one has to have sinned or been guilty of something, but that is not an actual rule so that has no bearing on the issue).
Cantankerous 06-16-06, 02:34 AM	Can't prove by RAW that babies are innocent (meaning good) can you? I bet you House Rule it though. But that means nothing. Since that changes from DM to DM (as house rules usually so) so that proves nothing. If you are going solely by what is written in the RAW, then you'd have a really hard time running the game at all. By what is written in the RAW you can't prove that water is wet or that if you drop and fifty pound spear on the crown of your head, point down, from twenty feet above you that it'll kill you dead, but common sense tells you the answer to both those little conundrums as well.
Evingolis 06-16-06, 03:01 AM	its not important that the babies are good. killing them is NOT good when they are not evil. even then, its not necessarily good and absolutely unneeded - people may change (pcs do that, too..) and no pc can see the future (can the DM? maybe). all this is butchery, not heroic. and in no case something an original dnd paladin will do if you want to play that murderer and call him paladin: no problem, make your house rule. but please dont try to tell people that you play original paladin. you dont after all: where is the problem?
Puskara 06-16-06, 05:46 AM	okay, i'll bite first off, You as a DM need to really stop and consider this before you take his powers. the paladin can justify everything he did here, by the rules, and within the context of his god, Saint Cuthbert. Here's how. The tenets of the faith of saint cuthbert are justice, devotion to duty, and the destruction of evil and chaos. Orcs are chaotic evil. they demand no mercy at all. whether they register on the evilmeter or not makes no difference to the paladin who is charged with destroying evil. Sure, stepping on the guys arm was a little much, but hardly worthy of having powers stripped because the orc was a chaotic being and is undeserving of kindness. Now we get on to the orc younglings. perfectly fine. i would have done the same. A dead orc child is one i don't have to fight later. like i said, orcs are vermin and under no circumstances should any of them in a tribe be allowed to live. That's how i would see it as a player, and as a DM, and a Player of paladins for a while now. i would have no problem with a pally in my group doing the same. I don't think you should strip his powers at all. he remains lawful good, but yes, show him the shadowbane inquisitor because that sounds like it would be more to his liking and there are far fewer alignment problems with it. the goblin incident, that's something else, though. a goblin who surrenders to you is good for information. maybe you can take him under your wing and make him change his evil ways and show him the errors of evil. the orc young and mothers? vermin, exterminate them. its the only way to be sure they don't come back and become foes later on. So a creature is redeamable if they are usefull to you but not if they are a crying infant? In general I agree with most of the people here. Sounds like a communication issue. I woudl certainly say that he lacks mercy and compassion. he sounds as if he is putting law first instead of good. Which if we check the books carefully we find that paladins and LG outsiders are directed to prefer good over law given the choice. If you did not lay this out for him then I would handle it this way. 1. Have the parties social-mover pick up word of a Paladin os St. Cuthbert that is becoming famous in the northern wastes (or other out of the way place) and is slandering the Paladin, his teacher, his order as being false prophets, etc. 2. When he inevitably the paladin goes to check this out have him discover that this "rogue" paladin has organized the artic orcs and firbolgs into a rigidly structured socialist state based around the concept of compassion and social responsability to fellow-creature. They should be very strongly opposed to whatever traditional governments you have in your game. 3. After they have a few encounters (do not make these outright combats but tense sitations are good) have a messenger deliver him a challenge (a think a single artic orc child in studded armor would work, no weapon other than an quarterstaff with a white ribbon tied to it) 4. This "rogue" paladin is shrouded in a large cape with a hood and demands that the paladin face him in single combat. The "rogue" paladin should be an Aleax (Book of Exalted Deeds) with access to all the exaulted paladin spells. Since an Aleax (as I recall) has all the same levels and abilities of their target plus the bonus of being identicle to them save the glowing eyes it shoudl be fun. 5. If the Aleax wins have him break the Paladins arm and stomp on it a bit until he begs for mercy, then the Aleax can say "I am your mercy!" and brain the Paladin. The Aleax will then self-immoliate leaving behind a holy book written by the saint on the nature of justice and good. 6. If the Aleax loses then have him beg for mercy, if it is granted then he can say "Finally you begin to learn." and immoliates himself, leaving behind a holy book written by the saint on the nature of justice and good. This holy book should grant no bonuses of any kind but you shoudl give him a handout to remmeber it by and the handout shoudl detail the paladin code for St. Cuthbert with some commentary on good, law, and ethics. If it is in chararater all the better. Also note that the book should be very valuable in terms of gold value and it was penned by a god after all. Should he ever destroy it, lose it (stolen does not count), or sell it, THAT would be a great reason to take his powers. Good luck! Puskara PS: If the party interferes I would suggest bringing in some lantern archons to discourage them. Make them look like glowy St. Cuthbert emblems, advance them if need be (Hmm Point Blank Shot + Lantern Archon = fun)
Traevanon 06-16-06, 07:24 AM	...and common sense also tells you that orc babies grow up to be orcs. ...it also tells you that if you are going to individually take the time to convert these savage, barbaric, vermin to civility and goodness you will no longer be able to play the game with your friends. You will also no longer be having fun. Some rules have to be bent a bit to keep a group of friends around the table, adventuring for months worth of weekends. If the Paladin plays the Social Worker in this case, he's going to be breaking roleplaying commandment #3: Thou Shalt Not break away from the group to adventure singly, nor shall ye demand overly the DMs time on your individual behalf lest ye be smited for being annoying.
Evingolis 06-16-06, 08:01 AM	theres no need for the paladin to become a nurse. he simply has to do something NOT: leave the orc babies and their nurses alive. if a nurse attacks, kill her yes, some/most of them will raise to orcish warriors. so what? if you want to kill anyone who may become your enemy in the future, you have to kill anyone. good luck with this, anyway it will not be a paladins trail there is no need to kill the babies. leave them alone, if you have no better idea. fate (gods, DM) will care for them. always better than butchery
LCD2YOU 06-16-06, 08:05 AM	50% one way and then 50% the other, still 26% but the numbers don't matter it's still about the actual goodness or potential for it.There "wishful thinking" and actual potential. If you think that 1/2 are going one way and the other half are going the other way, I think you're exagerating.Staggering by the measure of........... Money, even in today's society adding 100 extra kids would take a lot of resources. Hell, many in the US consider themselves "good" but go through convulsions when asked for a 1/2 cent sales tax to help pay for hot meals for school kids in poor areas.That would be 100 orc children, sentient, as yet innocent and potentially good, well at least non evil.Well, I like the case Nephlite made of that it is a house rule that Orc babies are innocent. I'll agree that they have some potential of being if not good, at least not evil. Also, if anything happens that is a major setback, like a paladin who has tasted the light and turned evil, these kids could be working to be good and only fall that much harder and farther into evil if something goes south.That's easy, simply be (an elf) ;) I'd rather be on a stretcher, on life support in the middle of a scrum between the New Zealand All Blacks and Ireland last Saturday.For that matter what tuition? Simply let them be in a decent, none destructive setting.The elves or the Orcs?And that means exactly what?That is just an expression. It's like looking at a desert and saying, "A few trees, a pool over there, maybe some Bermuda grass and it will all be better".You have a hatred of something that's based on nothing you can detail....do I need to be explicit about what exactly that constitutes.Yes, I found too many players who play elves irratating in the extreme.H'mmmm interesting, out of all the possible analogies you choose that oneHey, we all have our hobbies. :D
Ankalagon 06-16-06, 09:18 AM	Hey, we all have our hobbies. :D :rofl:
pres_man 06-16-06, 12:09 PM	...it also tells you that if you are going to individually take the time to convert these savage, barbaric, vermin to civility and goodness you will no longer be able to play the game with your friends. Unless this is something they all want to do. Or the individual character could retire while the player brings in a new character. Of if everybody in the party is of a long lived race (elves, dwarves), they could simply cut to sometime in the future. Lots of choices, of course if the DM had in place NPCs that could take care of the raising, that would be more ideal in most cases. You will also no longer be having fun. Unless you are. I've had a player who's character as one of his goals was to redeem as many evil guys as he could. And quite a bit of down time was used to do it, of course as a DM I assisted by having sympathetic NPCs that assisted with the care of these evil doers. I fail to see why someone couldn't want to do something similiar for non-evil younglings. Heck I could see a monk order taking them in and training them. Some rules have to be bent a bit to keep a group of friends around the table, adventuring for months worth of weekends. If the Paladin plays the Social Worker in this case, he's going to be breaking roleplaying commandment #3: Thou Shalt Not break away from the group to adventure singly, nor shall ye demand overly the DMs time on your individual behalf lest ye be smited for being annoying. Evingolis answered this, but I would like to expand on it. theres no need for the paladin to become a nurse. he simply has to do something NOT: leave the orc babies and their nurses alive. if a nurse attacks, kill her People are confusing actions with inactions. Nothing in the RAW says paladins have to care for these younglings (though helping those in need might apply). Yet just because you don't have to help them, doesn't mean that gives you a right to slaughter them. It is not one or the other, there are other choices. How about not killing all the adults, especially if they are non-combatants. It is when a party slaughters every single adult, combatant or not, that they run into these problems of "what do we do with the younglings?" Though I will say if a DM makes all of the adults combatants then that is a major problem as well.
Cantankerous 06-17-06, 04:50 AM	...and common sense also tells you that orc babies grow up to be orcs. ...it also tells you that if you are going to individually take the time to convert these savage, barbaric, vermin to civility and goodness you will no longer be able to play the game with your friends. You will also no longer be having fun. Some rules have to be bent a bit to keep a group of friends around the table, adventuring for months worth of weekends. If the Paladin plays the Social Worker in this case, he's going to be breaking roleplaying commandment #3: Thou Shalt Not break away from the group to adventure singly, nor shall ye demand overly the DMs time on your individual behalf lest ye be smited for being annoying. Common sense also tells you that the only people who judge others solely on their race (when it is an essential part of the game as a whole that it is only a MINORITY who are the way you attribute ALL of them to being) is simply incapable of doing otherwise. There is no need to take captives for a Paladin in this situation unless the enemies simply surrender. There is also no need, or no feasable way to excuse slaughtering sentient beings, capable of Good, as innocent infants. THAT simply is the absolute nadir of Paladinhood. NOTHING could be less in line with a Paladin's proper actions. Being a Paladin isn't about expedience or convenience. It is about doing the most difficult of jobs and doing it correctly. It isn't for everyone. If it isn't for you, don't protray one, but for pity sake, don't try to drag the entire bunch into the sewer to for the sake of expediency, which is the opposite of the STATED Paladial mindset. Isshia
Traevanon 06-17-06, 07:15 AM	Common sense also tells you that the only people who judge others solely on their race (when it is an essential part of the game as a whole that it is only a MINORITY who are the way you attribute ALL of them to being) is simply incapable of doing otherwise. "Orcs are aggressive humanoids that raid, pillage, and battle other creatures. They have a hatred of elves and dwarves that began generations ago and often kill these creatures on sight. [...talks about what Orcs look like...] When not actually fighting other creatures, orcs are usually planning raids or practicing their fighting skills." 40-50% Chaotic Evil doesnt mean 50-60% Lawful Good. There is no need to take captives for a Paladin in this situation unless the enemies simply surrender. There is also no need, or no feasable way to excuse slaughtering sentient beings, capable of Good, as innocent infants. THAT simply is the absolute nadir of Paladinhood. NOTHING could be less in line with a Paladin's proper actions. You're right... after all a Paladin cannot fight an unarmed foe, but if the *player* did it in order to be expedient to *the game* I would let it slide. Being a Paladin isn't about expedience or convenience. It is about doing the most difficult of jobs and doing it correctly. It isn't for everyone. If it isn't for you, don't protray one, but for pity sake, don't try to drag the entire bunch into the sewer to for the sake of expediency, which is the opposite of the STATED Paladial mindset. Being a Paladin may not be, but being a *player* sometimes must be. I have to go work on the house, dont expect any new replies for a few days.
Cantankerous 06-19-06, 05:47 AM	"Orcs are aggressive humanoids that raid, pillage, and battle other creatures. They have a hatred of elves and dwarves that began generations ago and often kill these creatures on sight. [...talks about what Orcs look like...] When not actually fighting other creatures, orcs are usually planning raids or practicing their fighting skills." 40-50% Chaotic Evil doesnt mean 50-60% Lawful Good. So what? Your parents being Lawful Good is not the litmus test for being innocent as a infant. Too, doesn't it seem obvious that this applies to the stereo-typical "often chaotic evil" Orc and not to all Orcs? It seems rather obvious to me. But then, I don't tend to lump entire groups together under single headings when the official word on their behavior doesn't include the "always" qualifier. You're right... after all a Paladin cannot fight an unarmed foe, but if the *player* did it in order to be expedient to *the game* I would let it slide. Being a Paladin may not be, but being a *player* sometimes must be. There is no seperation here. The Player is protraying the Paladin. If he does not protray one in the manner in line with the rules, then the normal consequences of that occur. Simple. Isshia