Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Moblin 07-19-03, 03:49 PM	Now I wasn’t sure were to put this so feel free to move it if it belongs some were else Last night I happened to stumbled upon the film “Boondocks saints” (if people haven’t seen it I’ll be happy to write up a resume but for now I’ll just assume you have). Now I’ve seen this film plenty of times (It’s been on my hard drive for years) but it was first last night that I realised that the two main characters acted like characters in a typical DnD game. Now I’ve always had problems with the paladin code in my campaign but one of my biggest problems is the part about punishing the guilty. Well after watching the film I kind of got the idea to let my paladin’s act the same way, so my question is this: Do you consider those two characters paladins? I’ll post my argument later.
Tzalice Minoladir 07-19-03, 05:20 PM	I'm not too familiar with the movie, could you sum them up a bit? Then I'd be glad to help ^.^
Cog 07-19-03, 05:24 PM	I have the film.... but I have yet to see it.
bolognat13 07-19-03, 06:19 PM	I have seen the movie and I'd like to say that it is a great movie and I highly recommend it to all. It does not however remind me of DND but I'll still be happy to answer you question. In my opinion the stars of that movie are not at all what I would consider paladins. If I had to guess their "alignment" I would say it's chaotic good. They by no means obey the law but do do good things. A paladin would use law and order to achieve justice however. They're more of the robin hood type fellows, not a paladin. IMO a paladin would let the court/king/whoever is in charge, decide the punishment and would more likely than not refrain from chosing their own form of punishment. If however they are not near a place within reasonable distance to do this they may find it fit to take business into their own hands. As long as they're attacking something that is evil and they have decent reasoning behind their assault I would probably allow such acts.
krichaiushii 07-19-03, 07:16 PM	SPOILERS FOR THE FILM I don't know. I have heard arguments both for and against the brothers being paladins on other boards. I lean towards them being paladins - not Rocco though, he is definitely CG. Why? They follow God's law over mans'. In addition, they only kill the guilty, as seen when they hit the poker game - they wait for the kid to leave and only use a stun gun on the wife. They refuse to kill the FBI agent who knows who they are, despite the potential problems it poses. When Rocco asks why, they respond because he is a good man. I feel that the scene at the end, where the police are assisting the saints, is an excellent one - demonstrating how even mans' law recognizes that Gods' law trumps mans'. The FBI agents "confession" in the church leads towards this as well. Since they seek out evil and smite it, they are D&D paladins in that regard. Perhaps someone with better debating skills than I can take up this banner... Even if you disagree with my opinions, the film is an excellent one, which I highly recommend.
Tzalice Minoladir 07-19-03, 07:59 PM	hmm.. maybe sound paladinic... or at least defenders of good and their own law (or that of their diety). Lawful good means Lawful to the set code of conduct which isn't always legal law, but more moral law. :)
Moblin 07-19-03, 09:32 PM	The main characters are two brothers who work at a meat processing plant (not that it has any relevance). They’re both very religious (they’re Catholics and of Irish descendents). One day as they’re celebrating St. Patsy day (sp?) a coble of Russian mafia thugs shows up at their regular bar and try’s to extort money from the owner. The two brothers attack the thug’s smashing one thug’s head with a bottle and tying up the other before igniting a fire on his a**. The next morning the brothers are assaulted by the two thug’s in their apartment and one of the brothers is chained to the toilet while the second brother is take out side to be executed. The two brothers survive but kills the two thug’s in the process. After turning them self in and getting them self acquitted they decide to start their own war against the scum of the city. They buy a bunch of weapons (and some stupid rope :D) and have great success in eliminating the head of the Russian mafia. After this they are joined by a crazy delivery boy for the Italian mafia who helps them pick out the targets, and then all hell breaks loose……… It’s a really great movie (and it’s funny as well) so I can only recommend watching it if you ever get the chance. Well any way lets return to the topic
Moblin 07-19-03, 10:09 PM	Originally posted by bolognat13 I have seen the movie and I'd like to say that it is a great movie and I highly recommend it to all. It does not however remind me of DND but I'll still be happy to answer you question. What I mean by acting like DnD characters is the fact that they go out and defeat evil (killing the bad guys), loots the corpses, and then go home to plan their next “adventure”. In my opinion the stars of that movie are not at all what I would consider paladins. If I had to guess their "alignment" I would say it's chaotic good. I’d say that their alignment is LG. They’re lawful because: 1 Every morning they go to church and pray. 2 All the murders are well prepared (well all except the ones against the Russians) and they’re all condiment against people they know are evil (I DnD they’d be able to use detect evil to be completely sure). 3 Although most of the people they kill are killed during gun fights they take their time to properly execute their target if they can (the prayer the say just before killing them is just plain cool, but shows lawfulness as well). 4 After they’re done killing they arrange the body’s by crossing their arms and placing penny’s on top of the dead persons eyes. They’re good because: 1 They only kill evil persons 2 They won’t ever hurt an innocent (especially women and children) They by no means obey the law but do do good things. A paladin would use law and order to achieve justice however. They're more of the robin hood type fellows, not a paladin. IMO a paladin would let the court/king/whoever is in charge, decide the punishment and would more likely than not refrain from chosing their own form of punishment. Although I agree that normally a paladin should follow the law, I’d never allow him to follow an unjust or corrupt law. The problem is that when it comes to organised crime the system usually always corrupt. That is why the two start their vigilantly in the first place, they were tiered of watching the evil walk and decide to start punishing the after the law of god. If however they are not near a place within reasonable distance to do this they may find it fit to take business into their own hands. As long as they're attacking something that is evil and they have decent reasoning behind their assault I would probably allow such acts. Well that was what I was asking about. Is it alright for a paladin to execute that sort of punishment?
JusticeZero 07-19-03, 11:15 PM	In many D&D settings, they sound like they'd be acceptable. Not all, however. A lot of these things are situational. They don't sound like they're especially Lawful OR Chaotic, really, from what I heard - the L or C would come from their way of viewing the world with that set of behaviors. further, they are justified in acting as they are because of the incapacity of rightful authority. My quick judgement call is this: If they try to work with the authorities, but are rebuffed and have to go into their nocturnal activities, they're probably Lawful. If they scorn lawful authority without a second thought and focus more on doing right, they're probably Chaotic - Holy Liberator, perhaps? If they know that the authorities are actually incapable of helping (Not propaganda, not 'a feeling', not 'Everybody knows..', they have to have a solid reason to think this) then their 'vigilante' type behavior is neither chaotic nor lawful, and their lawfulness can only be measured in other ways.
bolognat13 07-19-03, 11:52 PM	Originally posted by Moblin Although I agree that normally a paladin should follow the law, I’d never allow him to follow an unjust or corrupt law. The problem is that when it comes to organised crime the system usually always corrupt. That is why the two start their vigilantly in the first place, they were tiered of watching the evil walk and decide to start punishing the after the law of god. I agree that if a law is corrupt in a fairly extreme manor that a paladin would do the right thing in trying to change it or at least do what he knows is morally right and possibly disobey this law. If however the paladin began to become vigilanty as you state the brothers are then he would no longer be lawful and would be chaotic. (IMO) This is the fine line between a do-gooder and a paladin. The do-gooder will go about doing what they think/know is "good" or "right" the paladin however will do what's "good" or "right" while following the law. That's why a paladin has to be Lawful good. To some extent this of course can be left up to the DM's definition of lawful. I completely agree they're good but I don't recall any unjust law in that particular movie, though I haven't seen it for a while. Also, your statement about the praying before killing although seemingly legitimate really doesn't make much difference as to whether they're a paladin or not. A chaotic evil character might pray to their god before a battle. Although the prayers would be for two different reasons I think you see my point. I love this topic, makes for great discussion.
krichaiushii 07-20-03, 12:57 AM	In the context of the movie, the law of man is not really corrupt, its just ineffective and can be played by those who know the system. How does the beginning start about the "apathy of good men being the greater evil"? I'm going to have to go watch it. Again. The brothers are put into an extraordinary situation and come out on top. They turn themselves in, as they respect the law of man. That night, they have a revelation of sorts, that the law of God is more important than the law of man. And then the killings of EVIL men begin in earnest. At the end, in the courtroom, the brothers and thier father deliver a speech that justifies thier actions (in thier eyes). Certain officers of the law (mans' law) have assisted with the vigilantes' getting into the courthouse - signifying that the law of God takes precedence over the law of man. In D&D terms, these guys have a code that they follow to the letter: They NEVER kill women or children, they always do the prayer and penny thing, and they smite EVIL vigorously and unceasingly. This is akin to the code of behavior paladin's must follow. In addition, in the black and white world of D&D alignment conventions, Good is fighting against Evil, and triumphing, albeit slowly and messily. Lastly, their support of and working with local law enforcement puts them square in the realm of the Lawful character. A bit confusing, but I understand what I mean...
Ancient Dragon 07-20-03, 06:09 AM	I've never seen that movie, but from what I've read of the descriptions, I think it's fair to consider them lawful good. Too many people think that being lawful means obeying the laws provided by the local government, when really that's not the case at all. Lawful means order and self-discipline. Chaos means passion and impulsiveness.
Roxlimn 07-20-03, 06:25 AM	If they're Catholic then they would understand that the official interpretation of God's Law at this time does not condone murder at any time and for practically any reason. Therefore, they are not Paladins of any sort. Since they're misguided Lawful seeming types who have some kind of spirituality, I'd say they were Blackguards. Killing for a cause is defined as evil in the PHB so the cornerstone of their characters throughout the plot seems to base itself around an evil action. They are, therefore, defined as evil in the PHB alignment section and cannot be Paladins. It's probably better to classify their alleigances on Modern terms, but even then, they'd probably be aligned to evil rather than good.
Ancient Dragon 07-20-03, 07:15 AM	Originally posted by Roxlimn If they're Catholic then they would understand that the official interpretation of God's Law at this time does not condone murder at any time and for practically any reason. Therefore, they are not Paladins of any sort. Since they're misguided Lawful seeming types who have some kind of spirituality, I'd say they were Blackguards. Killing for a cause is defined as evil in the PHB so the cornerstone of their characters throughout the plot seems to base itself around an evil action. They are, therefore, defined as evil in the PHB alignment section and cannot be Paladins. It's probably better to classify their alleigances on Modern terms, but even then, they'd probably be aligned to evil rather than good. Umm... no.
MinusInnocence 07-20-03, 09:20 AM	I'd just like to start by saying that although I'm of Irish descent, your butchering of St Patrick's name got a laugh out of me (St Patsy, haha, I have to remember that). Not only do the brothers view God's law as higher than Man's, it is actually described that way, word for word, by one of the priests. Of course, immediately after he says it, he begs for God's forgiveness, but at that point in time, the citizens of Irish Boston clearly felt that way: there was lawlessness and godlessness in the streets, and SOMEone had to do SOMEthing to fix it. The FBI agent, as well, feels completely inadequate in his job. "Miles of red tape..." He even says he feels the brothers are doing the right thing; that what they are doing is "necessary". By the way, the opening sequence is of a priest's sermon on the murder of Kitty Genovese; this actually occured. A woman was brutally murdered in the middle of her neighborhood, and no one did anything to help her. It was a classic example of what happens when dozens of people witness an atrocity, but every last one of them assumes that someone ELSE will step in and help. "Oh, what could I do, anyway? I'm sure at least ONE of these people is better suited to deal with the situation." Well, they listened to her cries for help, and later, her moans of anguish, and still later, the sirens as the ambulance came to carry away her corpse. "There is another evil which we should fear most; and that is the INDIFFERENCE of good men." Yes, I feel they are Paladins. Paladins who stray dangerously close to the line... Paladins whose Code is probably very different from the one most people think is "right" for a Lawful Good individual (I am part of the camp that has always felt "lawful" does not mean "law-abiding", in D&D terms, though it certainly CAN mean that)... but Paladins, certainly. And Irish, on top of that! My heroes. :)
Roxlimn 07-24-03, 01:32 AM	Ancient Dragon: Cute. I guess you really can't say anything else. MinusInnocence: As far as being Paladins is concerned, my support for this kind of "hero" stops when they stop defending people and start killing them, wherever or whoever they might be. While I have every support for a person who steps up to the plate to do good, these guys seem to be doing evil, not good. Contrary to what RL morals and pretty rhetoric might say, in D&D, standing by while your neighbor gets killed is Neutral, not evil. These people apparently STAYED Neutral because they condoned even more evil acts by these so-called Paladins, exactly because they benefitted from it. A truly Good person by D&D standard would not be so morally weak as these characters.
Felix Olafsson 08-19-03, 06:17 PM	WOHA THERE MOBLIN! ONE WORD! . . . . . . Sæælvjustits
Haradim 08-19-03, 11:40 PM	I don't think I would permit them to be Paladins, but I would probably allow them to be LG (depends on how much Good they actually are doing; otherwise, they'd be LN. but only the DM can decide that, on a case by case basis). However, it's very easy to see them slipping very quickly, and deciding to kill simply because they deem someone is wrong (or simply in a fit of emotion). After all, what would they have done if someone decided to just walk out of the courtroom, and refuse to witness a murder? They get by on the LG because they do have a code of conduct they follow, and because they are doing Good (albeit in a violent way). However, they would be right on the border, and a descent into Neutrality or even Evil is not out of the question. That's my take, anyway :) (I will note that The Duke (if I recall his nickname correctly) would probably be Evil)
Escef 08-19-03, 11:41 PM	In a D&D setting PCs kill evil humanoids for fun and profit. Isn't that evil? Killing evil isn't evil, but it isn't good either. Part of it involves motive. From what I've heard of these brothers, their motive is to protect the community. Their motives are good, and their actions aren't evil. So I wouldn't classify them as evil or neutral on moral grounds. So the question becomes their ethics. Lawful, neutral, or chaotic? By their discipline, planning, and religious devotion one could argue in favor of lawful. By taking the law into their own hands rather than trying to make positive changes to the system one could argue for chaotic. Or you could waffle and just say neutral. In a D&D setting where their actions would be provoked or approved of, I'd call them Lawful Good, In the real world, Neutral or Chaotic Good. Just my two coppers.
Veneficus 08-20-03, 05:08 PM	I've seen the movie so many times I have almost the entire script memorized. :D Friends and I have discussed this topic at length over the past 2 years. No, the brothers would not be Paladins in the traditional sense, but they are the closest thing the modern world has to Paladins. They rank up there with Batman (LN) but add their religious faith to it, making them holy avengers. "Do not rape! Do not kill! These are not polite suggestions. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace! We endure lesser forms of filth not to cross over into true corruption, into our domain. But when you do, one day you will look behind you, and you will see we three. And on that day you will repent. And we will send you to whatever god you wish." I can easily see a trio of Paladins in shining platemail saluting with their swords to that. Of course, Rocco had to die. He was evil, and had a corrupting influence on the brothers. If Rocco had lived, he would have led them down the path of evil and they would have become Blackguards.
GuyMitochondrion 08-21-03, 12:10 AM	Originally posted by Veneficus Friends and I have discussed this topic at length over the past 2 years. No, the brothers would not be Paladins in the traditional sense, but they are the closest thing the modern world has to Paladins. They rank up there with Batman (LN) but add their religious faith to it, making them holy avengers. While I cannot comment on the Boondock Saints, I simply MUST disagree with your labeling of Batman as LN. If Batman is not LG I am not sure any fictional character I have every read is. Batman is highly disciplined and motivated = Lawful Batman protects the innoncent and never (at least in most incarnations of the famed comic hero, I recognize there are varient storylines.) kills his advesary = Good Batman may be a "Dark" Paladin, but he is a Paladin nonetheless. I am not trying to start an argument, just defending a hero of mine.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-21-03, 12:22 AM	If you're looking for examples of LG, look no further than Superman and Dragnet's Sgt. Joe Friday. Although Batman in some incarnations could be considered LG, in others (particularly the Dark Knight incarnation) he is definitely LN or perhaps N. At any rate, vigilantism is definitely NOT a Paladin-like trait, so I wouldn't consider Batman a good example for Paladin characters. Both Superman and Joe Friday fit the squeaky-clean image that Paladins are supposed to live up to. I know others may have different interpretations of Paladinhood, but IMC, Paladins act like Superman or they lose their powers. More directly to the point, I would not consider the characters from Boondock Saints to be Paladin material.
PhaedrusXY 08-21-03, 12:28 AM	I saw the movie, thought it was great, and would allow such characters to be palladins in a D&D game I was DMing. The context of what they were doing was everything. The judicial system had been witnessed by them to be totally ineffective, and as someone said "Someone had to do something". They even showed the men they killed respect as human beings and treated them with dignity as much as they could, hence their treatment of the bodies. They went outside the system because the system didn't work, and evil was running rampant everywhere. If the judicial system had been working fine, they'd have never taken up the mantle of vigilanties. Despite how you may feel personally about actions such as what they did in real life, within the context of a D&D game they would clearly qualify as LG and palladins, in my opinion. Of course, trying to categorize things from the real world in terms of D&D doesn't work very well. The real world is much more complex and full of moral ambiguity than most D&D games. If they were killing orcs and other "evil" humanoids only, within exactly the same contexts as in the movie, I doubt anyone who's posted here would have a problem with them being palladins. And on a side note, I would hate to play a Palladin in Roxlimm's game, because I bet it would be difficult to stay one. :D
Wayward Son 08-21-03, 10:39 AM	I have to weigh in in favor of Paladin status for the brothers and el Duce (the Duke). As has already been pointed out: 1. They hold a strict moral code from which they do not deviate. This code roots in their religious conviction, which they hold as absolute. 2. They hold this code as paramount in their lives, even over the laws of man. There is no compromise. 3. They do what they do because their code equates permitting evil to continue with committing the evil themselves. 4. They do not try to oppress others with their particular interpretation of belief, but instead state clear and very simple guidelines of what actions will be punished. Others may believe as they wish, it's the evil acts which concern them. 5. They act for the betterment of humanity, by removing the most evil and corrupt individuals from its ranks. 6. Above all else, they do not enjoy what they do. Yes, they get a bit excited from the adrenaline rush, but they only kill those who are clearly corrupt. Innocents and bystanders are always spared. They do what they have to do to answer their calling, but exercise restraint while doing it. In short, they do exactly what Paladins in D&D do. The only difference is their lack of a supporting organization and formalized training. (Justice Blades, anyone? :) ) If the brothers start to get sloppy, then they may lose that status, but right now they are pillars of order and good. Wayward Son P.S.--I think you forgot one. As I recall it, it was "Do not rape. Do not kill. Do not steal." Of course, I may be wrong.
Roxlimn 08-22-03, 12:41 PM	PhaedrusXY: And on a side note, I would hate to play a Paladin in Roxlimm's game, because I bet it would be difficult to stay one. It depends on your POV. I always advise my Paladin players when an act they would commit is evil. Something like a Phylactery of Faithfulness for free. Seeing as how their class powers are dependent on it, they might as well have the power as an extension of their detect evil. If you agree to killing for a cause, then you are evil and so is this cause if it specifically promotes this behavior. That's just basic PHB ruling. Wayward Son: 3. They do what they do because their code equates permitting evil to continue with committing the evil themselves. A code that requires killing is an evil code. Derived from the definition of evil in the PHB. 4. They do not try to oppress others with their particular interpretation of belief, but instead state clear and very simple guidelines of what actions will be punished. Others may believe as they wish, it's the evil acts which concern them. Note that punishment and justice is not evil, whereas oppression and unjustified killing is. No, the PHB does not justify the killing of evil characters as a good or neutral act. 5. They act for the betterment of humanity, by removing the most evil and corrupt individuals from its ranks. 1. If they themselves kill other people for disagreeing with their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, then they are evil. 2. Because they promote this ideal as one to strive for, they themselves are causing the corruption anf decline of an otherwise pristine and good town. Definitely Blackguard material. 6. Above all else, they do not enjoy what they do. Yes, they get a bit excited from the adrenaline rush, but they only kill those who are clearly corrupt. Innocents and bystanders are always spared. They do what they have to do to answer their calling, but exercise restraint while doing it. The PHB does not qualify the evil of killing for a profit or a cause through the guilt of the murdered victims, or their alignment. Devils kill demons all the time because they believe that the demons are wrong. That does not make their actions good. In short, they do exactly what Paladins in D&D do. The only difference is their lack of a supporting organization and formalized training. (Justice Blades, anyone? ) If the brothers start to get sloppy, then they may lose that status, but right now they are pillars of order and good. Actually, they do what Blackguards do, they confuse the innocent and inspire evil actions from everyone else, while organizing a heirarchy in which they are supreme. They have no status left to lose, because they lost it already. Paladins in D&D are made of better and sterner stuff than this. Wherever did you get the idea that Paladins were so morally weak?
ThatGuyDann 08-22-03, 12:50 PM	I think the scene where they break into a courtroom and force everyone to watch as they publicly execute the main mafioso definitely shows a chaotic bent. There are different ways to battle evil, and doing so is not just the schtick of paladins. Them going to church has nothing to do with their alignment... neutral good and chaotic good faithful people do so, just for different reasons. They were willing to go to any length to punish the guilty... that is something a paladin would not do. Hell, the cop started as lawful neutral and shifted to a more chaotic alignment through the movie. Did you miss the confessional scene? That right there showed the difference between Chaotic good and Lawful good. The Saints did not place their importance on order... they actively flew in the face of it. That's chaotic. Just because they didn't kill innocents and followed certain codes does not necessarily equate to lawfulness. Barbarian tribes have codes... they can not be lawful according to D&D. They value personal freedom. So did the saints. I think the problem here is that most Americans (Meaning USA citizens) consider ourselves to live in a lawful country, when most of our rules are actually based on a neutral or chaotic government. We put personal rights over that of society as a whole. Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is not, but that does not make us a lawful commonwealth. If we did we'd have far more blanket codes, and far less exceptions.
Obryn Darkfell 08-22-03, 02:35 PM	Originally posted by Roxlimn Killing for a cause is defined as evil in the PHB so the cornerstone of their characters throughout the plot seems to base itself around an evil action. They are, therefore, defined as evil in the PHB alignment section and cannot be Paladins. Roxlimn, While I typically agree with many of the arguments that you've posted on other forums, I have to say, I believe you're way off base on this... 1)Where is it codified that killing for a cause is evil? Does that mean a paladin who executes (kills) a guilty party for the sake of justice is evil? His cause is justice. Period. A paladins causes are Law and Good...if he kills in carrying out those ideals, is he evil? 2) From the SRD... GOOD VS. EVIL Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. The most important part of that quote is, obviously, protecting "innocent life." Nowhere does it say that good characters cannot kill. Nowhere does it say they have to spare evil characters. Indeed, by being evil, they are, by default, not innocent. A good character can kill in the defense of themselves or other innocents and remain good. That is what the main characters in the movie are doing. Any of the "victims" would have detected as evil, if the main characters had that ability. Just my 2 cents...
Wayward Son 08-22-03, 02:37 PM	Originally posted by Roxlimn A code that requires killing is an evil code. Derived from the definition of evil in the PHB. Their code requires sending the guilty to face judgement for their crimes. Note that punishment and justice is not evil, whereas oppression and unjustified killing is. No, the PHB does not justify the killing of evil characters as a good or neutral act. I'm glad we agree. The brothers send the guilty to their punishment in the name of divine justice. 1. If they themselves kill other people for disagreeing with their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, then they are evil. They do not. The brothers don't care what beliefs are held by others. They only bring those who kill, rape or steal to face justice. 2. Because they promote this ideal as one to strive for, they themselves are causing the corruption anf decline of an otherwise pristine and good town. Definitely Blackguard material. Again, they do not. They don't encourage anyone to do as they do. They only encourage people to live their lives without killing, raping or stealing from anyone else. The calling is theirs, and they do not recruit. And, a "pristine and good town"? We are talking about Boston. It's a nice place, and all, but it has its problems. That's part of the point of the film. The brothers get a first-hand experience of how, while most of the people are decent enough, there are a corrupt few who spread incredible amounts of evil with their acts. They receive a vision to stop sitting by and allowing this to happen, then begin their crusade. The PHB does not qualify the evil of killing for a profit or a cause through the guilt of the murdered victims, or their alignment. Devils kill demons all the time because they believe that the demons are wrong. That does not make their actions good. Nice straw-man. I'll give it a passing blow. Are paladins, then, evil for killing a demon? How about a devil? Actually, they do what Blackguards do, they confuse the innocent and inspire evil actions from everyone else, while organizing a heirarchy in which they are supreme. They have no status left to lose, because they lost it already. Actually, the brothers do no such thing, as I've already stated. They promote no belief system beyond "Do not rape. Do not kill. Do not steal." Such people have already violated divine law, in their system, and spread fear and corruption among the innocent masses. These evil people are then sent to face final judgement. The brothers set up no heirarchy, they hold no politics, and they avoid material concerns that distract them from their work. They had no status to begin with, and claim none now apart from their calling to serve and protect. I'm not seeing your Blackguard parallels. Paladins in D&D are made of better and sterner stuff than this. Wherever did you get the idea that Paladins were so morally weak? [/B] Funny. I was going to ask the same question. As you seem to see evil acts, can a Paladin even pick up a weapon in your campaign world? Where does the line fall between the paladin's sworn duty to protect the innocent and defend the ideals of Law and Good, and actually combating Evil and Chaos? I'd be curious to know. One last thing, to settle a few assuptions here. I don't have my books on hand, but I do have the SRD, and, if I recall correctly, this text is identical to the book: GOOD VS. EVIL Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. And, for the particular alignments in question: Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil. As you see, you've failed to mention the "innocent" modifier in the description of good and evil, which does indeed change the entire definition. Good characters may be reluctant to take an evil life, but they are not barred from it. The specific description of Lawful Good exactly describes the outlook of the brothers, while Lawful Evil is what they strive to stop. Finally, from the description of the Paladin: 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. Which, again, is precisely what the brothers do. They respect legitimate authority (God's), they act with honor, they help those in need, and they specifically protect the innocent and punish those who would harm them. Dann: I have to disagree. They do respect order, but have no faith in the institutions of man, which they have watched fail throughout their lives. Their order is that of the divine, and it has very simple rules.
Roxlimn 08-22-03, 04:34 PM	Obryn Darkfell: 1)Where is it codified that killing for a cause is evil? Does that mean a paladin who executes (kills) a guilty party for the sake of justice is evil? His cause is justice. Period. A paladins causes are Law and Good...if he kills in carrying out those ideals, is he evil? "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." No qualification. "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." Pursuant to the first statement, an evil deity or master is presumably one who promotes hurting, oppressing, and killing others (no qualification). If the brothers are killing for the sake of a cause that calls for it, then they are following an evil cause and are evil by virute of this statement. The most important part of that quote is, obviously, protecting "innocent life." Nowhere does it say that good characters cannot kill. Nowhere does it say they have to spare evil characters. Indeed, by being evil, they are, by default, not innocent. Good characters therefore protect innocent life, not evil characters. However, because of the way evil is defined, they cannot hurt, oppress, or kill in pursuit of this goal or they would be doing evil acts. It has nothing to do with the alignment of the people they intend to kill. A good character can kill in the defense of themselves or other innocents and remain good. The most that can be said about the matter is that Good characters can kill using lethal force in equal combat as a commensurate response, or in immediate defense of others' lives (good), or their own (neutral). Wayward Son: Their code requires sending the guilty to face judgement for their crimes. ] Their code requires them to kill to do this. That's all it needs to do. They do not. The brothers don't care what beliefs are held by others. They only bring those who kill, rape or steal to face justice. The people they "bring to justice" are obviously of different beliefs. The brothers persecute and kill these others. It doesn't matter that the beliefs of these others are evil. Again, they do not. They don't encourage anyone to do as they do. They only encourage people to live their lives without killing, raping or stealing from anyone else. The calling is theirs, and they do not recruit. By being heroic examples to others, they inspire others to emulate their beliefs and support them. Formal recruitment is not necessary. And, a "pristine and good town"? We are talking about Boston. It's a nice place, and all, but it has its problems. That's part of the point of the film. The brothers get a first-hand experience of how, while most of the people are decent enough, there are a corrupt few who spread incredible amounts of evil with their acts. They receive a vision to stop sitting by and allowing this to happen, then begin their crusade. Well, in that case, the brothers simply succumbed to the evil influences in town and became evil themselves. Combatting the perpetuation and commission of evil actions does not have to involve equally evil actions. You can call it a crusade if you like. Devils in the Blood War called their war similar names. Nice straw-man. I'll give it a passing blow. Are paladins, then, evil for killing a demon? How about a devil? On the Prime Material, you can't kill a demon. You can only send it back to hell. It's still alive, and since it wasn't really alive in that sense on the Material, then destroying its manifesation here is not killing. Strictly speaking, Paladins should not kill Devils and Demons by going to their plane and ending their existence. That is not how Good wins over Evil. Nevertheless, the entire point of sparing lives of non-always evil creatures has been discussed at length and I'm willing to concede that for isolated cases of races involving "always evil", the Paladin may be enjoined to kill. Actually, the brothers do no such thing, as I've already stated. They promote no belief system beyond "Do not rape. Do not kill. Do not steal." Such people have already violated divine law, in their system, and spread fear and corruption among the innocent masses. That depends on what you mean by divine law. Divine is not commensurate with Good. There are evil dieties and even evil supernatural influences in the world. By Christian law, they are spiritually forfeit by killing people, a law strictly laid out in the Ten Commandments and supported by all dogma thereafter. These evil people are then sent to face final judgement. The brothers set up no heirarchy, they hold no politics, and they avoid material concerns that distract them from their work. They had no status to begin with, and claim none now apart from their calling to serve and protect. I'm not seeing your Blackguard parallels. In their community, are they not well respected and feared for their deeds? Does this not mean that they wield influence abov and beyond that afforded other folk of their community? Is this not also a political issue in that their cause becomes powerful through their support of it? And finally, does not their status socially become altered as a result of their actions? Funny. I was going to ask the same question. As you seem to see evil acts, can a Paladin even pick up a weapon in your campaign world? Where does the line fall between the paladin's sworn duty to protect the innocent and defend the ideals of Law and Good, and actually combating Evil and Chaos? I'd be curious to know. In my world, a Paladin can use force of arms to defend the innocent and his causes. When he is threatened with lethal force, then he responds in kind as a defense. However, he does not kill more than is absolutely necessary to defend his life and the lives of those he protects if these were in immediate and imminent danger. He never kills as a means to an end. It is merely an unfortunate effect of combat when it cannot be avoided. The line between combatting Evil and protecting Good therefore are completely in line with each other. As you see, you've failed to mention the "innocent" modifier in the description of good and evil, which does indeed change the entire definition. Good characters may be reluctant to take an evil life, but they are not barred from it. Good characters can take a life intentionally as a method of acheiving their ends, but it would be an evil act. For Paladins, this would mean loss of class abilities. Other Good characters acting consistently in this manner become evil. Good creatures defend the innocent. Not killing evil people is not the same as defending them nor is it the same as not opposing them. The specific description of Lawful Good exactly describes the outlook of the brothers, while Lawful Evil is what they strive to stop. Choice picks from Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. A villain doesn't have to adhere to the entire line hook and sinker. Clearly, because the brothers seem to follow the LE descriptions uncannily well, they well seem to be of that alignment. Just remove the word "evil" and you'll get the brother's behaviour exactly. Which, again, is precisely what the brothers do. They respect legitimate authority (God's), they act with honor, they help those in need, and they specifically protect the innocent and punish those who would harm them. No they don't. They KILL those who would harm their "innocents". Killing cannot be taken as valid form of punishment for Good characters. Since their cause calls for killing, any protection they do after is purely incidental. The Germans "defended" their "innocents" from the Jews as well. Were they good?
Wayward Son 08-22-03, 06:35 PM	Roxlimn, you are a skilled sophist, but that does not save your argument. I'm afraid that choosing to use one portion of a definition to the exclusion of the entire definition is a logical fallacy. When you look at the entire entry on "Good vs. Evil", it is plainly apparent that it is not an evil act to kill in defense of others. I dare say that is one of the premises on which the Paladin class is based. As to the differences between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, you summed it up yourself: Just remove the word "evil" and you'll get the brother's behaviour exactly. Yes, indeed, they are Lawful. I'm glad we agree on that point. However, without taking "choice picks" from either definition but rather looking at both definitions in their entirety, we see that the brothers, in addition to being Lawful, fulfill all of the criteria of Lawful Good. As they only partially meet the criteria for Lawful Evil (specifically, the Lawful portions), they are clearly Lawful Good. They: 1. Have both the commitment to oppose evil and the discipline to fight relentlessly, 2. Tell the truth, 3. Keep their word, 4. Help those in need, 5. Speak out against injustice, and 6. Hate to see the guilty go unpunished. In holding to their principles and refusing to stand aside while evil ruins or kills the innocent, they act as a good person is required to act. They do not: 1. methodically take what they want within the limits of their code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. (They take great care to avoid injuring innocents, and often forgo their own desires.) 2. care about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. (They care a great deal about freedom, dignity, and life, which is why they defend it from evil.) 3. play by the rules but without mercy or compassion. (They show compassion and mercy to those who are not their targets. The rules they play by are the ones dictated to them by their god.) 4. are comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but are willing to serve. (They have no desire to rule, only to serve their God and society.) 5. condemn others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. (They only condemn people by their actions, nothing else. They repeatedly show they are open and friendly to people of other cultures.) 6. loath to break laws or promises. (They are true to the laws of God, as the laws of man have proven ineffective in even slowing the decay caused by evil. They are true to their word and fulfill their promises to the letter and spirit.) In short, their motives certer around the protection of innocents, nothing else. They go to great lengths to ensure that no innocents are harmed by their actions, and actively prevent even their allies from doing so. Rocco in the confessional is an excellent example. The FBI agent who is closest to catching them stumbles in, drunk, and starts explaining his situation to the priest. Rocco wants to kill him because he is a danger to them and the cause, but the brothers will have none of it and insist (at gunpoint, when Rocco tries to shoot him anyway) that, "He's a good man. He's not to be touched." An evil person would have accepted Rocco's point that the agent was dangerous to them, and killed him. Wayward Son P.S.--Yes, I am aware that pointing out that your argument was based on a fallacy is a fallacy itself. If it bothers you, cut the first two sentences of this post and read on.
Roxlimn 08-23-03, 12:59 AM	Wayward Son: :OMG! P.S.--Yes, I am aware that pointing out that your argument was based on a fallacy is a fallacy itself. If it bothers you, cut the first two sentences of this post and read on. A worthy adversary, to be sure. While I do recognize the invalidity of pointing out fallacious arguments as rebuttal, allow me to clarify that the postion I've taken is NOT, in fact, flawed. I'm afraid that choosing to use one portion of a definition to the exclusion of the entire definition is a logical fallacy. When you look at the entire entry on "Good vs. Evil", it is plainly apparent that it is not an evil act to kill in defense of others. I dare say that is one of the premises on which the Paladin class is based. It is not clear to me which sections of these statments interact to produce your incredible conclusion. On the other hand: Good implies... ...respect for life... Evil implies... ...killing others. is pretty straightforward. Note that neither the respect for life statement nor the killing statement have any qualifiers. By exclusion, we can pretty confidently say that Good implies defending the innocent and protecting the dignity of life WITHOUT killing others (with one or two exceptions), while Evil is based on pursuing your goals (whatever they may be) with or through killing, hurting or oppressing. The paladin class description itself says nothing about killing evil characters and monsters as the main point of it. If you want that, you should take a look at the Fiend Hunter class (a non-good class, by the way). As they only partially meet the criteria for Lawful Evil (specifically, the Lawful portions), they are clearly Lawful Good. They: 1. Have both the commitment to oppose evil and the discipline to fight relentlessly, 2. Tell the truth, 3. Keep their word, 4. Help those in need, 5. Speak out against injustice, and 6. Hate to see the guilty go unpunished. In holding to their principles and refusing to stand aside while evil ruins or kills the innocent, they act as a good person is required to act. Until, of course, we run into this little problem of them killing people. As for the Lawful Evil description, not all Lawful Evil villain HAVE to fit the description to BE Lawful Evil. Aligning against some is good enough. More importantly, the behavior of these brothers does conform with the evil description "killing others", whereas it DOES contradict both "respect for life" and "not evil". In short, their motives certer around the protection of innocents, nothing else. It's not their motives which make them evil. It's their methods. I'll admit that they a good job of appearing to be LG, and are all the more dangerous for that, but do not be fooled. They go to great lengths to ensure that no innocents are harmed by their actions, and actively prevent even their allies from doing so. Rocco in the confessional is an excellent example. The FBI agent who is closest to catching them stumbles in, drunk, and starts explaining his situation to the priest. Rocco wants to kill him because he is a danger to them and the cause, but the brothers will have none of it and insist (at gunpoint, when Rocco tries to shoot him anyway) that, "He's a good man. He's not to be touched." An evil person would have accepted Rocco's point that the agent was dangerous to them, and killed him. Not harming innocents doesn't necessarily make them good. I daresay Ted Bundy never harmed anyone he thought was "innocent". Even the confessional incident does not absolve them of the evil status. They "imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains", don't they? Just because they have compunctions and have principles doesn't mean theyare evil. It means they are Lawful. Lots of heros can be classifed under that alignment.
Obryn Darkfell 08-23-03, 03:07 AM	You still haven't convinced me, Roxlimn. I have to say, though, that you and Wayward Son are good...;) Anyhow...is the paladin that is carrying out an execution for the cause of justice evil? Will he lose his paladinhood? 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. If paladins, as Lawful Good paragons, cannot kill without it being evil, why the stipulation against using poison? If they are not allowed to kill, then it should be a given that they can't use poisons. Poisons, quite obviously, "hurt, oppress, or kill." Also in the same quote...the threatening of innocents is hardly considered necessitating an immediate defense of others' lives. However, paladins can punish those that merely threaten innocents. It's not necessary for the evil-doers to actually do anything. There is no necessity for a commensurate response. If the "bad guy" threatens, the paladin can punish him. The most that can be said about the matter is that Good characters can kill using lethal force in equal combat as a commensurate response, or in immediate defense of others' lives (good), or their own (neutral). According to the way you look at things, a paladin...or any Good character...could do nothing to a goblin horde that was intent on destroying a village until they actually attacked. But, according to the definition of what a paladin is, he has the responsibility to "punish" the goblins that are merely threatening the village in order protect the innocents of the village. Does this mean he has to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with them? No...he has to confront them, in some manner, knowing that he may, in all likelihood, have to kill if they attack him and his companions first. If he goes into the situation knowing there is a likelihood he will have to kill, he is "willfully committing an evil act." If he stays in the village to protect it from the goblin attack, he is failing in his duty to punish those who threaten innocents. Everything escalates into violence, however this time, more innocents are at risk, due to them being right in the thick of the battle. The paladin fails in his duty to protect those same innocents. To keep this on topic, the main characters do just this sort of thing. The "victims" have a track record of harming and threatening innocents. The laws of man failed to protect these innocents. The Laws of God were simple and direct and when enforced worked. If the main characters actually were DnD paladins, they could have cast Detect Evil and yes, each and everyone of their victims would have turned up as evil...the "paladins" had a duty from above to punish those evildoers, in order to protect the innocents of the area from the threat of these evil men. To do any less than kill would allow the threat to continue to exist. Just the way I look at it...
GreenKnight 08-23-03, 04:23 AM	Just one quick point on the subject. S M I T E E V I L If Paladins aren't allowed to kill, they why do they have a power which allows them to more efficiently kill evil beings? If they're not supposed to kill, then shouldn't it be Subdue Evil, or something similar, so you can take the evil opponent alive? While we're at it, look at their spell list. At 1st-level, they've got Bless Weapon and Magic Weapon. What purpose do those spells serve other than making the Paladin a more efficient killing machine? At 2nd-level they've got Bull's Strength. Is that so they can more successfully grapple the enemy and subdue him?At 3rd-level they get Greater Magic Weapon. And at 4th-level they get Holy Sword and Mark of Justice. Doesn't Holy Sword really only have one use? Doesn't Mark of Justice oppress those it's cast upon? And finally, look at the Holy Avenger, the penultimate Paladin weapon. Why doesn't it have the Subdual enchantment on it, if Paladins can't kill? The whole "Paladins can't kill" notion is ludicrous, and wholly unsupported by anything resembling a fact. Methinks those that believe that are letting their own beliefs color their view of the Paladin, rather than basing it on what the books themselves say.
Roxlimn 08-23-03, 08:44 AM	Obryn Darkfell: :bows: We aim to please. :) Anyhow...is the paladin that is carrying out an execution for the cause of justice evil? Will he lose his paladinhood? The best justification that has been made in favor of executing people is for convenience. Killing for convenience is an evil act, meaning that the ruling power executing this option performs an evil act when they do so. If the Paladin allows himself to be an instrument of this evil act, then he will lose his class abilities as according to the last sentence of the basic evil alignment description. If paladins, as Lawful Good paragons, cannot kill without it being evil, why the stipulation against using poison? If they are not allowed to kill, then it should be a given that they can't use poisons. Poisons, quite obviously, "hurt, oppress, or kill." You're mistaken. I did outline several acceptable avenues in which a Paladin might kill another without the action being evil. Poison, amusingly enough, rarely kills people in D&D. Only Con reducig poisons do so. Also in the same quote...the threatening of innocents is hardly considered necessitating an immediate defense of others' lives. However, paladins can punish those that merely threaten innocents. It's not necessary for the evil-doers to actually do anything. There is no necessity for a commensurate response. If the "bad guy" threatens, the paladin can punish him. That's really quite questionable. In the first place, how can the Paladin determine who is innocent and who is not in a given situation? Furthermore, punishment of evildoers following a Good paradigm cannot kill or oppress them. It must be a suitable punishment, but one that preserves their lives and dignities as sentient and living beings. Anything less is not GOOD and could very well be evil. The necessity for a character or organization to actually DO something evil or threaten it without a doubt are strict. An Evil character or organization CAN do good deeds in the same way a Good character may succmb to evil deeds from time to time. Thus, even if a character is evil, unless he shows incortrovertible proof of threat or immediate action to do evil, the Paladin, being a Paragon of Good, is required to treat him with dignity (though not associate with or defend him), and cannot hurt or oppress him in any way. "Punishment" of someone based on alignment is an evil act. It's even somewhat mentioned in the Lawful Evil alignment. According to the way you look at things, a paladin...or any Good character...could do nothing to a goblin horde that was intent on destroying a village until they actually attacked. Incorrect. This is only true if you believe that killing goblins is the only avenue of activity. This is not the way a Good character thinks. These characters can ascertain the truth and immediacy of the threat. They can shore up defenses. They can mediate between the groups, if possible. They can relocate one group or the other. They can even parley. If the intent and immediacy of the goblin horde is proven and other options have been extensively attempted and failed, then force of arms (not murder) may be the only avenue for defending the innocent, and is then acceptable. But, according to the definition of what a paladin is, he has the responsibility to "punish" the goblins that are merely threatening the village in order protect the innocents of the village. Does this mean he has to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with them? No...he has to confront them, in some manner, knowing that he may, in all likelihood, have to kill if they attack him and his companions first. He knows that he may have to engage in lethal combat. That's his role. He doesn't initiate or relish it. He might kill something in the chaos of combat, but that is largely an undesirable result. Sitting down to have a "heart-to-heart talk" is ridicule and nothing more. A Paladin can parley and probably should before adventuring combat. If he goes into the situation knowing there is a likelihood he will have to kill, he is "willfully committing an evil act." Using lethal force in combat is what leads to kills therein. Because it is a side effect of the combat over which the Paladin had no choice but to enter, the side effect of a kill in this scenario cannot be taken to be evil. If he stays in the village to protect it from the goblin attack, he is failing in his duty to punish those who threaten innocents. Everything escalates into violence, however this time, more innocents are at risk, due to them being right in the thick of the battle. The paladin fails in his duty to protect those same innocents. He would be lapse because he did nothing. You don't HAVE to kill something to accomplish change, you know. To keep this on topic, the main characters do just this sort of thing. The "victims" have a track record of harming and threatening innocents. The laws of man failed to protect these innocents. The Laws of God were simple and direct and when enforced worked. If they were Christian, then they were breaking God's Law, not enforcing it. NO Christian doctrine at the time of this setting will support the murder or assassination as "punishment" or "judgement" of criminals of this sort. Heck, the Vatican is against Capital Punishment! Green Knight: If Paladins aren't allowed to kill, they why do they have a power which allows them to more efficiently kill evil beings? If they're not supposed to kill, then shouldn't it be Subdue Evil, or something similar, so you can take the evil opponent alive? Paladins are good at dealing damage to evil creatures. Damage MIGHT kill them in combat, but it's by no means assured. The ability to do damage does not directly translate to a mandate to kill. All other arguments stem from this. Being better in combat doesn't mean that you WANT to kill people as a matter of doing business. The whole "Paladins can't kill" notion is ludicrous, and wholly unsupported by anything resembling a fact. Methinks those that believe that are letting their own beliefs color their view of the Paladin, rather than basing it on what the books themselves say. Evil implies... ...killing others. That's a fact. It's in the PHB. Alignment Section Good vs. Evil.
The Abominable Darkling 08-23-03, 10:47 AM	I find the number of people who think those two maniacs were "good" quite disturbing. You can't just go around murdering people because you think they are evil or have done something wrong. We have due process for a reason you know. And yes, most "good" D&D characters are murderers and thieves and wouldn't be considered "good" anywhere but in D&D.
Roxlimn 08-23-03, 10:56 AM	Not in 3e D&D. 3e D&D morality is more strict and severe than even my considerably puritanical opinions. If you're good, you're good. If you're not, you're not. Unfortunately, many people color their reading of a black-and-white statement by suppositions and conditions that they feel are required to make the rules "make sense". THAT's what's disturbing.
lordmaxwell 08-23-03, 02:23 PM	In the Dungeons and Dragons morality they are good. They murder evil beings, being judge, jury and executioner all in one. Heck, they even loot the evil beings, and carry around rope because it's always good to have. The script writer has to have been a role-player atleast sometime. But they aren't lawful. They do not follow the law of the land, nor the law of god. A plea for lawfulness might have been made had they not been christian, had they strictly believed in the old testament a case for them following god's law migth have been made. But Christ makes it abundantly clear that man is never righteous in slaying another man. In case someone managed to miss this point Paul expands upon it. But in any modern sense of the word they are most definitely NOT good. While the legal systems of many countries are bogged down in red tape vigilantism is NOT the answer to the problem. Self-appointed executioners roaming the streets looking for bad guys isn't my idea of a safe neighbourhood.
Haradim 08-23-03, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling I find the number of people who think those two maniacs were "good" quite disturbing. That's because they are being compared to a DnD setting, not a realistic one. And it can go either way, really. In a setting where simply opposing Evil can make you Good, then these guys are indeed Good, and probably even perfectly within the bounds of all but the most strict Paladin CoCs. However, if the Good alignment is given a few more conditions, one might find they only fit as LN or LG. I, as I mentioned, would place them as LG, but very close to the edge. And they would probably not qualify for the Paladin class due to their extremely violent methods; I'd be more likely to make them closer to some kind of modern vigilante Fighter than anything else. But they aren't lawful. They do not follow the law of the land, nor the law of god You don't need to follow laws to be Lawful. You simply need to have a personal code of ethics, or a certain order to your life that you rarely deviate from. You don't even need to be aware of any actual laws.
Matrixy 08-23-03, 03:56 PM	Roxlimn: The fact that your argument is based on one part of the description, notably "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" while Wayward Son compares his arguments against many more criteria makes his argument more valid, in my eyes. Additionally, keep in mind the definition of "imply": imply: transitive verb inflected forms: im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies: To express or indicate indirectly: "His tone implied disapproval." Implication is by no means definition. //definition provided by the american heritage® dictionary of the english language, fourth edition. copyright © 2000 by houghton mifflin company.
The Abominable Darkling 08-23-03, 06:33 PM	Originally posted by lordmaxwell In the Dungeons and Dragons morality they are good. They murder evil beings, being judge, jury and executioner all in one. Well, that depends on your definition of good and evil I guess. In my campaigns, running around killing evil things is not good. I consider it neutral (just so the players can get away with it). Good people must hold themselves to a higher standard. They do not discard their moral values just because their adversary is "evil."
lordmaxwell 08-23-03, 08:35 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling Well, that depends on your definition of good and evil I guess. In my campaigns, running around killing evil things is not good. I consider it neutral (just so the players can get away with it). Good people must hold themselves to a higher standard. They do not discard their moral values just because their adversary is "evil." I do that in more serious campaigns, though those rarely use the d20 mechanics. D&D is a great system for playing in the vein of Hollywood films. Simple, fun and with no moral ambiguity what so ever. Your character bashes some orcs, you eat some snacks. It's just like going to the theatre to see the latest braindead action movie like Matrix. And that's the purpose alignment serves, to make the protagonists right and the opponents evil and only deserving of death.
Veneficus 08-24-03, 05:13 AM	This thread has now gone from being about the greatest movie ever filmed to being a scene in the movie. Doesn't it remind anyone else of the closing credits scene where the news reporter is opinion-polling people on the street about the Saints? "You people are giving them power, by putting that microphone in my face, you're giving them power." "Yeah! Love the Saints!" "I think they just get off on killing people." "They should be in every major city." "Killing for good? I can't believe you are saying that! Listen to yourself." "Sign me up." "You'll walk into some kid's bedroom and it will be there; there's Batman, Superman, and... and these 'Saints'." "hell yeah, I believe in capital punishment. If they'd let me I'd pull the switch."
The Abominable Darkling 08-24-03, 05:28 AM	Greatest movie ever filmed? Who are you kidding? It was apalling trash.
Roxlimn 08-24-03, 06:32 AM	Matrixy: My argument is based on one of the most basic definitions of what Evil is in D&D, something which is not thereafter contradicted in any of the other descriptions. Wayward Son's mistake is that he only uses complex criteria to classify the behavior of the brothers without checking against the most basic criteria. Additionally, keep in mind the definition of "imply": imply: transitive verb inflected forms: im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies: To express or indicate indirectly: "His tone implied disapproval." Implication is by no means definition. No, it's not, but it is suggestive. When you say Evil implies killing others and Good implies respect for life, then when a person kills people just acheive his ends, then the implication is that he is evil. provided that nothing precludes this from being true. Just because a character complies with all other descriptors of how good is doesn't mean that he is automatically good just as not complying with all descriptors of Evil doesn't mean he automatically isn't. A dedicated German officier working in Auschwitz could very well have all the characteristics of the Lawful Good trait, except that he also believes that killing is a good way to achieve a noble cause, just as the brothers did.
DrakeRunner 08-24-03, 11:25 AM	I'd say they were barely Lawful Good. They were skirting several gray areas, and maybe be 2 steps from an alignment change. And lay off the freaking Paladins already. I'm sick of you DMs who hold Paladins to a higher moral code than the Avatars of the gods you force them to worship. I haven't seen a single Paladin without a patron diety, even though the game says you don't have to. It specifically says for Paladins that they don't need a diety. But every Paladin I've seen is a blind frothing zealot of whatever god it is, or a failed Paladin who didn't ride the train to Buttrodville.
Wayward Son 08-24-03, 02:47 PM	Not as a rebuttal (as I believe my earlier comments regarding whole definitions still stand well against the counter-arguments), but just as a further point to ponder, I decided to look to other points of the cannon rules for some clarification. Since the point of killing versus killing innocents seems to be in dispute, here's what the Book of Vile Darkness has to say on murder (page 7, second column): MURDER: Killing is one of the most horrible acts that a creature can commit. Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like. The heroes who go into the green dragon's woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not an evil act (although it's not a good act), because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons. Enjoy. {Edit for typo}
The Abominable Darkling 08-24-03, 03:04 PM	Sophistry! I agree that killing in defense of others is at times acceptable, but we all know that the heroes don't go and kill the dragon to "stop its predations." They murder it so they can steal its belongings. ;)
Roxlimn 08-25-03, 08:40 AM	Wayward Son: An interesting quote. Allow me to direct you to the important portion of the defintion: Such a justification, however, works only for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons. It is difficult to prove that any creature that has any "usually" attached to its alignment cannot change its alignment eventually. Thus, killing such creatures for personal gain or really much anything else, still qualifies as evil. This is even indirectly implied by the quote. Since the justification works ONLY for creatures of "consummate irredeemable evil", it follows that such justifications cannot be used for any other evil creature.
Wayward Son 08-25-03, 09:14 AM	Originally posted by Roxlimn It is difficult to prove that any creature that has any "usually" attached to its alignment cannot change its alignment eventually. Thus, killing such creatures for personal gain or really much anything else, still qualifies as evil. This is even indirectly implied by the quote. Since the justification works ONLY for creatures of "consummate irredeemable evil", it follows that such justifications cannot be used for any other evil creature. On the contrary, within the scope of the film, the brothers' targets have shown themselves to be "consummate, irredeemable evil." They kill, rob and oppress without regard to any authority apart from their own power, and show no willingness, inclination, nor even ability to alter their ways. Even when faced with immenent death, their pleas for mercy are followed in the same breath with promises of wealth and power, but never redemption. However, I offered the quote with an eye toward showing the brothers were not murdering by ending the predation of their targets. As the definition states, murder is killing for a nefarious purpose, such as theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, and so on. The brothers, on the other hand, kill only to defend the innocent and fight against an oppressive evil. Lesser measures have been shown to fail with their targets, and they cannot abide with the harm to innocents any longer. This is one of the reasons they issue their warning in the courtroom. Any of a lesser evil, who are not committed to their ways, will see the warning and the immediate consequence of these evil ways and stop doing them. They are offering an out to those who are not yet truly corrupted. They are showing mercy. If they were merciless, no warning would be issued, and they would ruthlessly hunt down even the smallest transgressor (and would cease to be good). This way, they allow the lesser evils the chance to reform and focus their efforts on those who are devoted to their evil path. Wayward Son P.S.--Actually, the definition is pretty clear that killing an evil foe for personal gain is neutral, not evil, because it still ends that creature's predations on the innocent. ("Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not an evil act (although it's not a good act), because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.) The brothers don't use the money for their own gain, however, but to further the fight against evil. They still maintain their humble lifestyle.
Wayward Son 08-25-03, 09:20 AM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling Sophistry! I agree that killing in defense of others is at times acceptable, but we all know that the heroes don't go and kill the dragon to "stop its predations." They murder it so they can steal its belongings. ;) True, but, as the quote states, that's not an evil act. It's neutral. They kill an irredeemablly evil foe for personal gain, but the effect is that this foe can no longer prey on the innocent and weak in the area. Now, if they are killing metallic dragons . . . that's a different story. :)
Roxlimn 08-25-03, 10:13 AM	However, I offered the quote with an eye toward showing the brothers were not murdering by ending the predation of their targets. As the definition states, murder is killing for a nefarious purpose, such as theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, and so on. The brothers, on the other hand, kill only to defend the innocent and fight against an oppressive evil. The brothers kill to further their cause. The fact that this cause is superficially noble is irrelevant. This is one of the reasons they issue their warning in the courtroom. Any of a lesser evil, who are not committed to their ways, will see the warning and the immediate consequence of these evil ways and stop doing them. They are offering an out to those who are not yet truly corrupted. They are showing mercy. They show "scruples" believing that these superfical actions make them better than common murderers. If they were merciless, no warning would be issued, and they would ruthlessly hunt down even the smallest transgressor (and would cease to be good). This way, they allow the lesser evils the chance to reform and focus their efforts on those who are devoted to their evil path. Devotion to an evil path hardly counts as "irredeemable" nor "consummate". These people can still change, though it may be unlikely. This small likelihood makes killing them evil. The qualifier in the quote even says so, even if the PHB alignment section didn't say so.
DrakeRunner 08-25-03, 11:01 AM	You could say the EXACT same thing about actual Paladins, or even King Arthur. "Superficially noble" Nobility is in the eye of the beholder. Their actions were still good. "Only to further the cause" And a Paladin isn't interested in furthering his cause of good? Hell, if Jesus stepped on a bug you'd probably tear him apart this way.
Wayward Son 08-25-03, 01:49 PM	Hmm, we've been over these points before. Again, I still stand by my arguments to date. Reading the definitions involved from a balanced perspective leaves little doubt that, in the D&D game world with its objective morality, killing to protect innocents is a good act, while killing needlessly or for your own pleasure is evil. So, Roxlimn, if I may, allow me to ask you this: If killing the mob bosses who are oppressing and killing the innocent people of Boston was the wrong answer for a paladin, what would have been the correct way? How, under your arguments, could a paladin (or two) under the brothers' circumstances have responded to fulfill his duty to oppose evil, support order, and protect the innocent?
Roxlimn 08-26-03, 11:23 PM	Wayward Son: The correct way would have been to use their efforts to change the Law or to have the judicial system cleared up in order to make justice just again. Or to otherwise protect these innocents in manner appropriate to Good - without killing or hurting or oppressing. The problem they had was that they were more focused on the "vengeance" part and the "punishment" part that they were on the "helping" part. There are many numerous ways to help people without killing them.
Wayward Son 08-27-03, 11:12 AM	I see. I believe this is the point where we agree to disagree. :D Yes, while in an ideal world a democratic/representational republic allows for all voices to be heard and to influence change, that was not the world in which the brothers existed. The brothers had no money, access or influence to change the system, and their grassroot efforts would have been in vain as those with access, money and influence bent any changes to perpetuate the status quo. The system had failed, growing corrupt and ineffectual, and this was a baseline premise of the film. Lesser means had been tried, repeatedly, and had failed, repeatedly. The only option open to the brothers (and only opened when they received their divine calling in their dream in the cell) was to directly oppose these evil men. If new laws might change the situation, or if cleaning up the system were possible within the existing situation, the brothers, being very intelligent and good at heart, would gladly embrace the idea. The situation had shown, however, that such changes would ultimately be corrupted to maintain those with the power and money, as they always had been.
Roxlimn 08-27-03, 11:35 AM	Wayward Son: I was resigned to it from the start. It's difficult to change minds around here, mine most of all :) Yes, while in an ideal world a democratic/representational republic allows for all voices to be heard and to influence change, that was not the world in which the brothers existed. One can then argue that the existence of the Paladin, such as he was, in the world the film was made was impossible, just as it is in the world of Darksun. The Paladin is larger than life, and a shining example of good. If this does not exist in that world, then Paladins are unsuitable for that world and they cannot exist. Lawful Good would probably tend to take a backseat to LE and LN as well. The brothers had no money, access or influence to change the system, and their grassroot efforts would have been in vain as those with access, money and influence bent any changes to perpetuate the status quo. It wouldn't matter to a Paladin. His faith in the ultimate triumph of Goodness will convince him to keep to his path no matter what. The system had failed, growing corrupt and ineffectual, and this was a baseline premise of the film. Lesser means had been tried, repeatedly, and had failed, repeatedly. The only option open to the brothers (and only opened when they received their divine calling in their dream in the cell) was to directly oppose these evil men. By killing them unlawfully. That's the dictionary definition of murder, by the way. In this film, means other than killing was portrayed as "lesser" whereas in the RL, changing the world without violence is considered difficult and typically the route stronger, better heros would take. Gandhi and Paul, for example, did not compromise their principles yet changed the world as no assassin has ever done. Al Capone's nemesis (I forget his name) worked in just such an environment, yet while he did employ occasionally unlawful means, he himself did not shoot people in cold blood nor plot their death as "justice". He did win in the end. Lack of options is an illusion or a flavor setting. It is rarely the truth. You always have the option to do the Good thing. If new laws might change the situation, or if cleaning up the system were possible within the existing situation, the brothers, being very intelligent and good at heart, would gladly embrace the idea. By thinking that they could not do so, they gave in to despair or fear. Neither are traits a Paladin would possess. A blackguard could be a Paladin who gave in to despair, and would possess many of the same powers. The situation had shown, however, that such changes would ultimately be corrupted to maintain those with the power and money, as they always had been. The situation showed that no one had done it before. Such obstacles are not daunting to those who would be true heroes. How many times have D&D Paladins faced odds that "no one has survived before"? Why should an urban risk be any different from a draconic one?
BenjCano 08-27-03, 11:46 AM	I don't know. I just can't help but think about The Two Towers, Book III. In a couple of different places here, we're shown an evil character discovered ad apprehended by the heroes. Grima Wormtongue is exposed as a servant of Saruman. He's given the opportunity to redeem himself, he refuses, but even so is treated with mercy. He is let go to wander where he will, even if that will take him back to Saruman to do more wickedness. I think the message here that to wantonly kill or imprison woud be evil and socould bring forth no good. Chapters later, the men of Rohan have triumphed over Saruman with the aid of Gandalf and the Ents, and have catptured Isengard. Gandalf and Saruman talk at the foot of Saruman's tower, a place where Gandalf was once imprisoned. Saruman had betrayed the forces of good, made war against Rohan, and bred the Uruk-hai for his own purposes, not the least of which was attempting to capture the One Ring and gain dominion over all Middle-earth, failing that, to serve Sauron as he did the same. Now what does Gandalf do? He says, "Give me your staff, and the keys to Orthanc, and you can go free this very day. If you would redeem yourself, you can join us now and help to stop Sauron." Gandalf shows mercy to Saruman even when he would have least cause to do so, even knowing that Saruman would probably reject it out of hand. Saruman does so, and Gandalf's response is not to allow Eomer and Theoden to kill him, which is plainly what the Riders of Rohan want to do, but Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff and has Fangorn keep him in Orthanc. Later in The Return of the King, we learn that Saruman persuaded Fangorn to let him go after Sauron's overthrow. Gandalf says that he believes Saruman will still try to do wickedness (and indeed he does, scouring the Shire) he does not believe it right to kill Saruman because it is convenient now, and will save trouble later. The hobbits later get a chance to make the same choice as Gandalf when Saruman is revealed to have practically destroyed the Shire. And they make the same choice, showing him mercy even though he has shown that he probably doesn't deserve it, and will try to do evil later (that he is then killed by Wormtongue is incidental). Now, to talk about the two characters from Boondock Saints, I'd have to voice my opinion with the minority, and say that by the end of the film, they've crossed the line into Lawful Evil. When they start out, defending the fellow in deep to the loan sharks, their actions probably wouldn't have cost them paladin status, if they started with it. They defended a neighbor of theirs, had a little fun, but didn't kill anybody. Later, when the mafioso (is their a Russian equivalent of that phrase?) shows up and reveals his plan to kill one of the brothers, the one left chained in their apartment frees himself and drops a toilet on the mafioso before bravely leaping from the roof onto the other thug. Though they killed, I would still say Lawful Good, because there was a clear and present danger that necessitated their killing; he was acting to defend his brother's life. Later, however, the brothers move from defender to hunter, arming themselves with some IRA fellows they know, crawling through an air shaft, and surprising a room full of goodfellahs with a spray of machine gun fire. There was no clear and present danger that necessitated this act; they believed (either rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) that they were acting as agents of their god's vengeance, shepherds protecting the flock from yada-yada-yada. Does that make it right? In D&D, does that make their actions good? No. Murder (by which I mean the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought) is, and please, listen closely because this is kind of important, never ever, ever, is never, under any circumstances, in no way, shape, or form a good act. Not on Thursdays, not to protect the innocent at a future time, not at the behest of a god, not to avenge the slaying of your baby sister, not on a train, not on a plane, not with green eggs and ham, Sam I am. It is not good, it is evil, and it is that simple.
archcomponent 08-27-03, 12:00 PM	Wow. I guess most of my previous characters were evil and I just didn't know it. Think of all those goblins...
Roxlimn 08-27-03, 12:40 PM	Yes, actually, if you're of that mindset, then the D&D alignment system classifies your characters as evil. Despite being usually evil creatures, there's nothing good that justifies invading a goblin held land for nothing better than getting money or treasure and killing goblins. I don't see what all the fuss is about anyway. So your character is evil, so what? You're bothered by the spell effects?
archcomponent 08-27-03, 01:02 PM	Originally posted by Roxlimn Despite being usually evil creatures, there's nothing good that justifies invading a goblin held land for nothing better than getting money or treasure and killing goblins. Oh no, my character, in the last case, wasn't after the piddling wealth that goblins might possess, rather it was the fact that there were several bands poisoning and murdering townsfolk. Still.
Wayward Son 08-27-03, 06:00 PM	Originally posted by Roxlimn Wayward Son: I was resigned to it from the start. It's difficult to change minds around here, mine most of all :) Salute, then, and once more unto the breech. One can then argue that the existence of the Paladin, such as he was, in the world the film was made was impossible, just as it is in the world of Darksun. The Paladin is larger than life, and a shining example of good. If this does not exist in that world, then Paladins are unsuitable for that world and they cannot exist. Lawful Good would probably tend to take a backseat to LE and LN as well. One could argue anything, really, but I wouldn't argue that point. The brothers are extolling one virtue over others, but still recognize and honor the rest. They have been called to the defense of the weak and the oppressed, serving their god and their cause while living to the highest moral standard they can. This, as I see it, is the calling of the paladin. To serve good and order, to protect the innocent and weak against the predation of evil, and to live to the highest moral standard. The two are in concert. It wouldn't matter to a Paladin. His faith in the ultimate triumph of Goodness will convince him to keep to his path no matter what. And if keeping to his path of non-violent change meant watching more innocent people die at the hands of evil, because the change wasn't fast enough, would he still be holding to his oath of defense? The paladin has to hold to all of his code, does he not? Not just the parts referring to good? By killing them unlawfully. That's the dictionary definition of murder, by the way. In this film, means other than killing was portrayed as "lesser" whereas in the RL, changing the world without violence is considered difficult and typically the route stronger, better heros would take. Gandhi and Paul, for example, did not compromise their principles yet changed the world as no assassin has ever done. Al Capone's nemesis (I forget his name) worked in just such an environment, yet while he did employ occasionally unlawful means, he himself did not shoot people in cold blood nor plot their death as "justice". He did win in the end. First, we're not dealing with the dictionary definition, we're dealing with the D&D definition. (Do we need to get back into logical fallacies? ;) ) As such, we are also not dealing with real life. The question is if the brothers, acting as they do within the framework of their fictional world, meet up to the goals and standards of the paladin class in another, different fictional setting. On that basis, I believe that they do an exceptional job. For your examples, I would rule out Paul on the lack of unbiased accounts of his actions. What we know, for the most part, comes from a very biased source. :) Ghandi did achieve great things, but he allowed considerable suffering and death to continue for decades before his method proved too costly to the British (who, I might add, weren't evil, but a bureaucracy, against which attrition is a good method). As to Capone's nemesis (I forget the name, too), there we have a good example of the scrupled villian, assigning unsightly tasks to henchmen so to keep his hands clean. Lack of options is an illusion or a flavor setting. It is rarely the truth. You always have the option to do the Good thing. True. The lack of options is not strictly true. The lack of acceptable options, however, is. In the brothers' case, they had options. They could have turned a blind eye to the suffering of others and maintained their quiet lives of exemplary good virtue, holding to their faith that, by providing a good example, others would change and the world, eventually, would be a better place. They also could have worked actively within the system they had seen fail over and over, to restore the system to its intended strength and efficiency. To do either, however, they would be forced to ignore the immediate suffering of innocents and allow the evil to be rewarded for it's efforts, if even in the short term. This their calling would not allow, making those options unacceptable. The remaining, acceptable option was to protect the lives of those who had no defense and place themselves at risk to do it. They could ask no one else to take their place, because the responsibility was theirs. They were called to defend the weak and the good against the predations of evil, and they showed the personal constitution and commitment to do so. By thinking that they could not do so, they gave in to despair or fear. Neither are traits a Paladin would possess. A blackguard could be a Paladin who gave in to despair, and would possess many of the same powers. They recognized the need to act directly. Had they given in to fear, they would not place themselves in danger to protect others. Had they given in to despair, they would have stopped before they got started, knowing the cause to be futile. If anything, they are displaying great hope and courage in doing what they do. As to your last sentence here, a farmer could also be a paladin who gave in to despair, as could a baker or an inn keeper. Saying something could be something else to imply that it is does not present a causal relationship. (Those durn fallacies again. :D ) The situation showed that no one had done it before. Such obstacles are not daunting to those who would be true heroes. How many times have D&D Paladins faced odds that "no one has survived before"? Why should an urban risk be any different from a draconic one? As the situation was based on our actual history, it had, in fact, been done many times. We have had countless efforts to clean up corruption, to put "teeth" in our legal system, and to make the streets safer, but all have had a single problem at its heart: normal, fallable people wrote the laws and conducted the campaigns, and normal, fallable people can (and often do) make mistakes. Within the film, evil has exploited the mistakes and manipulated them to greatest advantage, allowing the true heads of the organizations to live untouched while the system can do nothing. Evil has shown the system to be both imperfect and ineffective, and the only thing that hasn't been tried (recently) is the brothers' method of eliminating the evil so the good can thrive. I think there one premise that's causing a lot of confusion here. Commiting an act that is "not good" is not automatically "evil." Commiting and act that is not good and not evil is a neutral act. And paladins are not barred from commiting neutral acts. Only evil ones. By holding that a paladin can take no action that is not explicitly good, you are distorting the class and the alignment system of the game. As you state, paladins should be the paragons of good and order, and I agree, but that does not bar them from fulfilling their oaths and defending the innocent. Good is the ideal, but neutral acts, in balance with good, are acceptable. To play it otherwise is to turn the class into a caricature of its intended role: the honorable knight-defender, righteous in his cause and true in his faith, but still a noble warrior fighting the good fight against evil.
Roxlimn 08-27-03, 06:46 PM	Wayward Son: Those are thoroughly enjoyable arguments to consider. Please allow me to reciprocate; And if keeping to his path of non-violent change meant watching more innocent people die at the hands of evil, because the change wasn't fast enough, would he still be holding to his oath of defense? The paladin has to hold to all of his code, does he not? Not just the parts referring to good? {/quote] Note that I did not say "non-violent". Obviously, the Paladin is a class built around martial discipline. This is not something that can successfully be asserted. The option to perform evil acts to "prevent more evil" is almost always present. The thing to understand is that doing evil acts to "further good" doesn't further good at all, but furthers evil by corrupting those who would "do good". If all Good methods of proceeding cannot prevent the evil acts from occuring, then those who do these good acts are not to be faulted for staying true. [quote] First, we're not dealing with the dictionary definition, we're dealing with the D&D definition. Core rules don't define murder. Even your quote isn't really a definition but a commentary on it. In the absence of a true definition, it is not unreasonable to presume the English one. As such, we are also not dealing with real life. The question is if the brothers, acting as they do within the framework of their fictional world, meet up to the goals and standards of the paladin class in another, different fictional setting. On that basis, I believe that they do an exceptional job. And I believe otherwise, whether or not we are dealing with RL. Qiud pro quo, eh? For your examples, I would rule out Paul on the lack of unbiased accounts of his actions. What we know, for the most part, comes from a very biased source. It doesn't have to be accurate. Based strictly on the accounts, the character "Paul" in those accounts who may or may be an accurate representation of the real person, is a Good person who acheived change through Good means. Ghandi did achieve great things, but he allowed considerable suffering and death to continue for decades before his method proved too costly to the British (who, I might add, weren't evil, but a bureaucracy, against which attrition is a good method). The responsibility you assign is false. First of all, Gandhi himself is not the orgiginator of these evil actions, so he is not responsible for them. Secondly, he is acting against those evil acts, so he isn't "allowing them to happen", he's simply proceeding at his own pace. To his credit, there were others who were "not allowing those things to happen" using less scrupulous means, yet they failed as well, and even more, they failed miserably. Did they "allow it to happen" as well? It seems succeess is a requirement for Paladinhood? As to Capone's nemesis (I forget the name, too), there we have a good example of the scrupled villian, assigning unsightly tasks to henchmen so to keep his hands clean. These acts are not evil acts. He (the film version to which I'm referring, anyway) does not assign people to do evil acts. True. The lack of options is not strictly true. The lack of acceptable options, however, is. Previous ineffectiveness is not a valid reason for justifying what would otherwise be an evil act. There is likewise no such thing as "lack of acceptable Good options". The acceptability of actions is dependent on your criteria, and if this criteria does not involve virtues involving Good, then it is not surprising that this will occasionally involve evil acts. In the brothers' case, they had options. They could have turned a blind eye to the suffering of others and maintained their quiet lives of exemplary good virtue, holding to their faith that, by providing a good example, others would change and the world, eventually, would be a better place. They could also try to change the world themselves, without performing evil acts. This is the only option valid for a Good person. They also could have worked actively within the system they had seen fail over and over, to restore the system to its intended strength and efficiency. This reflects a Lawful tendency, not a Good one. They can work within the system and still be evil. To do either, however, they would be forced to ignore the immediate suffering of innocents and allow the evil to be rewarded for it's efforts, if even in the short term. It seems to follow that if you are striving to change the world in the name of alleviating suffering, then you are not ignoring it, are you? Even if the current methods you are using seem to be ineffective. Success is not indicative of intent and intent is not a guarantee of success. This their calling would not allow, making those options unacceptable. The remaining, acceptable option was to protect the lives of those who had no defense and place themselves at risk to do it. They could ask no one else to take their place, because the responsibility was theirs. They were called to defend the weak and the good against the predations of evil, and they showed the personal constitution and commitment to do so. You conveniently forget to mention that they kill people to do so. They actually assassinate people to do so, by all accounts. If their calling does not accept limited success, but accepts killing people to acheive its ends, then it can be defined as an evil cause, can it not? No matter how noble it seems at first blush. The fact that they risk their lives shows their dedication and bravery, not their morality. Evil people can be brave and committed, too. They recognized the need to act directly. Had they given in to fear, they would not place themselves in danger to protect others. Had they given in to despair, they would have stopped before they got started, knowing the cause to be futile. If anything, they are displaying great hope and courage in doing what they do. They lost hope in acheiving their ends without resorting to killing people. That's despairing of Good as a way of life, isn't it? Their fear is not personal fear but moral fear. Fear that they would not make a difference if they persisted in Good ways. Despair because of this fear. Within the film, evil has exploited the mistakes and manipulated them to greatest advantage, allowing the true heads of the organizations to live untouched while the system can do nothing. Evil has shown the system to be both imperfect and ineffective, and the only thing that hasn't been tried (recently) is the brothers' method of eliminating the evil so the good can thrive. That's pretty, but it's not logical. Failure of previous efforts does not preclude the success of the next, particularly a well thought out and different effort of Good nature. It doesn't matter what "the system" can or can't do, it only matters what the brothers can do, and how they do it. I think there one premise that's causing a lot of confusion here. Commiting an act that is "not good" is not automatically "evil." Commiting and act that is not good and not evil is a neutral act. If I believed that they were merely committing neutral acts, then I would not label them evil. I believe that killing people as a matter of doing business, acheiving your goals, is an evil act as defined in the PHB. Let's say for a moment that these brothers were in a D&D setting. They kill people out of a calling, they protect specific portions of the population at the choosing of their cause, while killing those who do not adhere to their beliefs (by committing acts they are opposed to). I challenge you to differentiate these actions in a broad sense (without specifics) from those made by an evil cleric of Wee Jas. By holding that a paladin can take no action that is not explicitly good, you are distorting the class and the alignment system of the game. As you state, paladins should be the paragons of good and order, and I agree, but that does not bar them from fulfilling their oaths and defending the innocent. That's simply not true. I don't hold that Paladins can perform no actions but good ones. If that were true, they'd have problems eating breakfast every morning! Paladins are, above all, paragons of Good and virtue. They defend innocents and fulfill their oaths because they're paragons of Good and virtue, not in spite of it. Therefore, "defending" the "innocent" by performing evil acts violates the very precepts through which they act. To play it otherwise is to turn the class into a caricature of its intended role: the honorable knight-defender, righteous in his cause and true in his faith, but still a noble warrior fighting the good fight against evil. The Paladin is a Knight-Defender. The very word "paladin" means 'guardian' or 'protector'.
bitnine 08-27-03, 08:12 PM	Originally posted by Roxlimn Evil implies... ...killing others. That's a fact. It's in the PHB. Alignment Section Good vs. Evil. Hmm. I'm not sure I'm clear on this. Let me make sure that I understand you. You think that any form of killing in D&D is an evil act?
K'man 08-27-03, 11:18 PM	In spite of all the arguments above to the contrary, I'm convinced the McManus brothers are CG, in DnD terms, they'd probably be holy liberators or vigilantes. Originally posted by Wayward Son They: 1. Have both the commitment to oppose evil and the discipline to fight relentlessly, 2. Tell the truth, 3. Keep their word, 4. Help those in need, 5. Speak out against injustice, and 6. Hate to see the guilty go unpunished. In holding to their principles and refusing to stand aside while evil ruins or kills the innocent, they act as a good person is required to act. They do not: 1. methodically take what they want within the limits of their code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts... 2. care about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life... 3. play by the rules but without mercy or compassion... 4. are comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but are willing to serve... 5. condemn others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank... 6. loath to break laws or promises. (They are true to the laws of God, as the laws of man have proven ineffective in even slowing the decay caused by evil. They are true to their word and fulfill their promises to the letter and spirit.) In short, their motives certer around the protection of innocents, nothing else. They go to great lengths to ensure that no innocents are harmed by their actions, and actively prevent even their allies from doing so. Most of these are arguments against LE, and for CG. Chaotic characters can have a personal code too, they just choose their morals rather over society's ethics. They can keep their word also, as long as it doesn't go against the greater good. Their willingness to break the same laws as the criminals they hunt because it's a lesser evel sounds like what most paladins would consider the first step on the path to blackguardhood. They break God's and society's laws themselves rather than turning the other cheek, but they're convinced that breaking both society's laws and their personal code is justifiable in the greater good. And the emphasis on freedom and actions of the individual, for society's sake, but against society's laws mark them as CG to me.
Wayward Son 08-28-03, 10:10 AM	Again, I'll point out the crux of our disagreement, Roxlimn. You see the killing of evil, oppressive men to defend the innocent against their predations as an evil act. I see it as a neutral act undertaken for a good cause. I still stand by the arguments to date as showing that the rules, as written, directly support that conclusion. As to your "challenge", the difference (as I've said before, repeatedly) lays in the fact that they do not kill those who merely disagree with their beliefs, but rather those who actively kill and oppress the innocent. Their targets' acts are not just an expression of a moral or ethical disagreement, they are direct harm to the innocent and weak. The brothers' killing is also not as casual and matter-of-fact as you make it out to be. Their targets are chosen carefully and after much deliberation, so they can be sure they are not killing an innocent man themselves, reflecting not only their abhorrance to committing an evil act, but their measured determination to strike at only the guilty. These points all show that the brothers hold the life and dignity of others in high regard, and only kill when absolutely necessary. K'Man, good arguments, indeed, but (you guessed it :) ) I disagree. The brothers do not choose their own code over society's laws, they are, rather, presented with two different external codes of conduct which run in opposition. If they choose the laws of man, they have to stand aside while the evil men continue to kill and oppress the innocent. Instead, they choose the laws of god, which they feel to be higher and more binding. In this system, they are given the moral duty to oppose evil and protect the weak and innocent. If they stand by and do nothing, they are as guilty as the murderers themselves. They are bound to the system in which god has placed them, and they follow its rules closely. While these rules don't match to the popular conception of "WWJD", they do conform to older biblical teachings.
Roxlimn 08-28-03, 10:40 AM	Wayward Son: Incisive as ever, my friend. It's a good thing you are or we'll have longer and longer posts answering each other's points. I'm sorry to say that I cannot rise to such a challenge, however. Please forgive me, but I must reply in the usual (inferior) manner of quoting to highlight my points. :sigh: Again, I'll point out the crux of our disagreement, Roxlimn. You see the killing of evil, oppressive men to defend the innocent against their predations as an evil act. I see it as a neutral act undertaken for a good cause. I still stand by the arguments to date as showing that the rules, as written, directly support that conclusion. Well put. I will likewise state this disagreed upon point, in my own fashion, begging your pardon: That the killing of men is wholly unnecessary and never the only method to acheive an end. If you kill people to acheive an end, it must be because you prefer doing so over more difficult means - a convenience, therefore. This is evil as defined in the PHB. Just because it's easier to do "good" by killing doesn't make it Good. That your arguments have been replied to and contested without counter. As to your "challenge", the difference (as I've said before, repeatedly) lays in the fact that they do not kill those who merely disagree with their beliefs, but rather those who actively kill and oppress the innocent. Because that is what those evil men believe in - they believe that killing and oppressing are valid means to an end. Teh difference is in what the end is. This difference in belief on what's important in life doesn't justify killing, anymore than any other end. The brothers' killing is also not as casual and matter-of-fact as you make it out to be. Their targets are chosen carefully and after much deliberation, so they can be sure they are not killing an innocent man It doesn't matter if it's casual or not. In fact, it's worse because it's deliberate and premeditated. Premeditated murder is, after all, a worse crime than one done because of emotion (though one is no less evil). Whether or not it's an innocent man is beside the point. The target MUST be consummately and irredeemably evil, which is difficult to establish in humans, at best. bitnine: No. You can kill in defense of your own life, or in case of immediate danger to life or dignity to another living or sentient being. This is not a good act, but it is not an evil one. You can also kill in the course of battle, as an unfortunate result of commensurate response using armed force. There may be other attenuating circumstances, but that's about the most of them.
bitnine 08-28-03, 10:56 AM	Originally posted by Roxlimn bitnine: No. You can kill in defense of your own life, or in case of immediate danger to life or dignity to another living or sentient being. This is not a good act, but it is not an evil one. You can also kill in the course of battle, as an unfortunate result of commensurate response using armed force. There may be other attenuating circumstances, but that's about the most of them. [/B] Gotcha. I can understand that distinction. The thing that threw me for a little bit of a loop was the phrase: Evil implies... ...killing others. That's a fact. Which, at least how I read it, could just as easily be applied to the act of killing in self-defense, killing always evil creatures, or things of the like. But, given your explanation, I probably glossed over some other points without realizing it - an unfortunate side effect of coming in late to a thread and having to read a number of posts.