| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Hurin02-09-04, 06:42 PM | Hello everyone I have a quick scenario to lay out for all of you and I'd like your opinion on how I should progress with my character in regards to it. So we've entered this huge complex set into an old diamond mine in an extinct volcano. We've snuck in the front doors disguised as members of this dastardly Elder eye cult who've been stirring trouble up in the region. After successfully strolling in through the front door we took a wrong turn and meandered directly into the private quarters of what appears to be the cleric cultist in charge of the complex's defenses. After a harrowing fight we have won the entrance and now command this entrance into their mine complex. And we also have a prisoner ... the very same troglodyte cleric I mentioned above. To progress without getting our butts kicked we'd like to get some information out of this stinky little lizard. My character is a paladin, and so of course is Lawful Good. How can I navigate the drawing of information from our prisoner in a manner that befits a glowing symbol of justice, protection and valour? The way I see it this lizard is a vanquished foe and should be accorded some respect, but in the same breath I might say that this creature represents everything that the paladin opposes; tyranny, destruction, oppression and all manner of vile deeds we likely aren't aware of. So now you see his dilemma, what do you think? How do you propose my paladin contributes to the upcoming "interviewing" of this creature? |
| Malben02-09-04, 07:04 PM | One popular solution is that you should say that you're going to go keep watch in the hall. Let the party's rogue do his thing while you're being a vigilant meat-shield. I'm only partially joking. The rogue won't even necessarily have to lay a finger on the troglodyte -- but if you're not in the room, his bluff attempt is going to be a lot more convincing. If you're lucky enough to have a 3.5 sorcerer in your party, too, that character might also have some Bluff, in which case they can do the whole "bad cop, bad cop" routine. You know, the one that goes like this: Rogue: (to Troglodyte) "Anything on your mind? No?" Trog: *hissing in Troglodyte* Rogue: (to Troglodyte) "There's no need to be rude, friend. You're lucky the paladin isn't here -- he'd lecture you so you thought you'd go deaf from it." (to Sorcerer) "Right. Quick, while Sir Goody-Two-Shoes is in the hall. I'll hold his arms. Do you feel up to that trick where you conjure an infernal scorpion and put it up his . . ." Trog: *thoughtful silence* Sorcerer: *evil laughter* "And then it . . ." Trog: "Wait! Wait, I'll talk!" * * * Some Time Later . . . Rogue: "Wow. Too bad we didn't get to try the scorpion trick." Sor: "Yeah, really. I'm surprised he cracked. Good thing, though. I'm not sure how you do that trick. I mean, I can conjure one, no problem. But I'm really not sure where you put it after that." Troglodyte: *enraged hissing* *curtain* |
| danielinthewolvesden02-09-04, 07:13 PM | 1. "Charm person" then execute him- fast & clean. 2. Execute him, then "speak with dead". Bluffing isn't very honourable, as the party would be lying to him- after all, you are going to execute him, right? Same with Intimidate. You could try- "I am going to execute you- do you have any last words? Anything you want to gloat over before you die?". This is fair, and BBEG do like to gloat. If you are going the Exalted route, then you should try & convert him- IF you have the time. If that fails, then execute him. Note- I am not kidding. You should execute him. He should know that, and I can't think of any way to honourably get his hopes up that you won't so as he'll cooperate. |
| Leap02-10-04, 07:50 AM | Embrace neutrality and beat the **** out of him ;) What? What?!! Well, you would choose the daftest alignment to play!!!! :) Thinking about it though, which part of his alignment would it conflict with? Good is about making personal sacrifices for others (giving up what the BOED calls “worldly things” like love, family, luxuries etc for the benefit of others (usually this means giving up what you have in order to raise the condition of those in the direst situation)) so there is nothing to conflict there. Law is about putting aside personal opinion / bias in favour of bowing to a code of behaviour, so IF he has sworn to offer leniency to what you call a “vanquished foe” he would be breaking his Lawful alignment by applying boot leather :) You need to check whether he HAS sworn to offer such leniency and if not, apply necessary pressure to troggy boy……and if/how he could atone…… If he has sworn such a vow then maybe the only answer is to ask nicely or trick troggy into it – maybe use illusion magic to make him think he has been rescued? |
| Stormweaver02-10-04, 09:05 AM | Ask your question. He might answer right away who knows ? If he don't, then launch in a VERY long tirade on how being evil is bad for the soul and how its much better to be good and pure and bla bla bla... he'll probably tell you what you want to know if you will just shut up. ;) |
| Cyricist02-10-04, 10:16 AM | Umm guys.. we're talking to a TROGLODYTE here.. I mean.. they aren't known for their wordly expressions. If I were you I'd quietly leave the room and let the party extract the information after you've given it at least one try.. go shine your armor or something.. it would be a minor offense of alignment to walk away during an interrogation.. it's like the difference between lying and concealing the truth by not answering... Sometimes you have no other options left.. And about executing him: do you have a good reason for doing so except "he's evil"? Go ahead. If not: put shackles and chains on him and make him a prisonner! |
| Beamup02-10-04, 11:10 AM | Walking off and allowing other characters to perform evil acts upon your prisoner (certainly includes torture, almost certainly execution) would be a major violation of a paladin's code as I interpret it. In fact, my interpretation would be that, if the other characters intended to torture/execute the prisoner, you would be obligated to prevent that by any means necessary... up to and including fighting the other PCs. A paladin not only cannot perform evil acts, he cannot knowingly allow evil acts to be performed when there is any way he could prevent it. Torture is out, as clearly evil. Execution is also out - executing a helpless prisoner without a trial is very non-lawful, and not very Good either. Bluffing is probably fine, I'd say (the paladin can't lie himself, but lying isn't an evil act per se so he can allow others to do so. That part of the code is more 'personal honor' than Lawful Goodness). If I were the DM, I'd even allow a Paladin to attempt to Bluff somebody - at a higher DC to reflect the fact that the best they can do is make literally-true but misleading statements. Charm spells would be OK. But after you've got your information, you've got two choices: - Release him in exchange for his information. - Take him back to town and turn him over to the authorities for trial. Always remember, just because a being is evil doesn't make them free game for whatever you want to do. |
| Winternova02-10-04, 01:32 PM | Spanish Inquisition style - torture him all you want, but don't spill a single drop of blood. I realise it's kinda the 'atkins diet' of torture, but you'll find a way. |
| Rotipher02-10-04, 02:03 PM | Troglodytes aren't geniuses, IIRC. Trick him out of the information. Get him bragging about how powerful and well-defended his cult is, how well he's done his job of setting up defenses, etc. Use Sense Motive frequently to ensure he's not feeding you a line, and test the information he spills before betting your lives on its accuracy. |
| danielinthewolvesden02-10-04, 05:09 PM | Originally posted by Beamup Walking off and allowing other characters to perform evil acts upon your prisoner (certainly includes torture, almost certainly execution) would be a major violation of a paladin's code as I interpret it. In fact, my interpretation would be that, if the other characters intended to torture/execute the prisoner, you would be obligated to prevent that by any means necessary... up to and including fighting the other PCs. A paladin not only cannot perform evil acts, he cannot knowingly allow evil acts to be performed when there is any way he could prevent it. Torture is out, as clearly evil. Execution is also out - executing a helpless prisoner without a trial is very non-lawful, and not very Good either. But after you've got your information, you've got two choices: - Release him in exchange for his information. - Take him back to town and turn him over to the authorities for trial. Always remember, just because a being is evil doesn't make them free game for whatever you want to do. I agree with the bit about "pretending the torture isn't happening" bit. Pally's can't do that. Read the BoED. "Lawful Good" isn't "lawful Stupid". You have a evil priest of an evil god, sure you can kill him at any time, especially if you are LG. In fact, it is your DUTY to do so, unpleasant tho it may be. Now, true, if you are in a position to turn a malefactor over to the Civil authorities you do so, but that's not the case here. You can't release him as that will inflict evil & suffering upon the innocents of the world, those whom a Pally is charged to protect. Doing so would violate a Paladins oath, thus he MUST execute him. Read under Tyr in "Faiths & Panthoens" for example- very very highly LAWful and Good- but they are specifically empowered to act as "judge, jury & executioner" where there is no law- such as in most dungeon crawls. |
| Hurin02-10-04, 06:13 PM | Originally posted by Rotipher Troglodytes aren't geniuses, IIRC. Trick him out of the information. Get him bragging about how powerful and well-defended his cult is, how well he's done his job of setting up defenses, etc. Use Sense Motive frequently to ensure he's not feeding you a line, and test the information he spills before betting your lives on its accuracy. Hey thanks to everyone for pitching in on this one I really appreciate it! From what the group has begun to discuss thus far I think we are going to make heavy use of the spell Detect Thoughts, our dwarven fighters Intimidate skill and my paladin's Sense Motive skill. He's a cleric of a freakishly evil god I expect converting him will be next to impossible and the threat of death, decapitation or torture will likely only serve his god and not mine. I think the "good cop" and "bad cop" routine may work with the dwarf and I playing off of one another and the wizard lurking in the corner with Detect Thoughts focused on the Trog. |
| Cog02-11-04, 04:05 AM | Don't suppose you have a helm of alignment change lying around to use on the Troglodyte? :angel: |
| Polaris02-11-04, 04:37 AM | Guys, Assuming the Paladin is away from civilization and "proper" authority (which certainly seems to be the case here), and assuming that the Paladin belongs to a militant order (and most do), then the Paladin is definately entitled to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. In fact he is granted specific divine power to do just that! Torturing is against the Paladin's code (IMHO anyway), but using a Zone of Truth or other magic (including Charm Monster or Dominate Monster) to get the information needed to fight evil certainly is not! Remember that what we regard as "inalienable rights" simply do not exist in this context. In fact (failing the above), the Paladin is perfectly within his rights to execute him without hesitation. Indeed, this is the just and honorable thing to do under the circumstances after he has given the Troglodyte an honest chance to repent (remember that Paladins get Sense Motive as a class skill now). That just how I see it anyhow. I have a rather brutal interpretation of Paladins. -Polaris |
| primemover00302-11-04, 11:21 AM | A paladin isn't restricted from the intimidate skill, use it liberally, but instead of physically threatening the trog tell it you're gonna lead it out in chains and act as if it had given them every single answer to the questions you want to ask. If it still doesn't relent, the spells mentioned above work wonders, as does your parties other skills. If those still don't work, make good on your threat and let the cultists think he turned on them. Evil folk tend not to trust one another:) |
| detectevil02-11-04, 11:34 AM | Have you ever seem how Superman or Captain America interrogate a thug? Same way everybody else. You should feel free to threat him as much as you want. It would not be very fit for a paladin to actually hurt or torture his prisioners, but nothing keeps you from trying to convince him that you will. And to step around that not lying thing, you can use those vague threats like :"You better tell me what I want to know, scum bag, or I will make sure you regreat you lived till this day!" And them you roll intimidate. Remember intimidate doesn't acctually mean you could do something. It's just convincing him that you could. |
| Krelios02-11-04, 11:42 AM | ...actually, the Return thereto if I recall correctly... Well short of going and buying that MegaAdventure from your FLGS and getting the information from that (please don't, it'll :censored::censored::censored::censored: off your DM), you have a few options. 1) You could offer to (and mean it) let him go if he tells you what you need to know. That does not mean you won't hunt him down later, and that is not misleading. It does give him a chance to redeem himself. 2) You can have someone charm him and get the information. 3) You can threaten to take him with you and let him deal with his superiors as a captive (not a very appealing suggestion to a troglodyte, since his superiors would likely do horrible things to him). 4) Any other creative thing that doesn't involve lying, cheating, or unneccessary force. |
| Tzor02-11-04, 12:04 PM | You have a problem, and it's not specifically with the paladin. You currently have a evil trogolyde cleric who apparently was in some position of authority. You are in this superior condition because he lost a fight with you. You want him to give you information so that you can defeat the rest of the complex (the defenses he was in charge of) without getting your buts kicked. Without a serious attitude adjustment, there is no way you can trust his informaiton. Even with methods of detecting the truth, one can sometimes omit important information and still register as speaking truth. Torture can reveal information ... but like the problem with truth, it may not be what you need to avoid getting your buts kicked. Even with serious attitude adjustment, (charm person) there is a saving throw (+5 because you are threatening him and his allies) and an opposing charisma check for almost everything you want him to reveal because relealing things to humans isn't something he normally does. Retries are not allowed. Getting information is easy, getting correct information is harder, and getting the right information is almost always near impossible. The problem isn't the Paladin, but the false assumption that torture is the cure all for all you don't know. |
| Rotipher02-11-04, 01:18 PM | Note that if *I* was DMing this scenario, I'd try to arrange things so this troglodyte either: 1) escapes from its bonds and flees the area; 2) gets killed by "friendly fire" by an ambitious lesser cultist, next time the PCs get in a fight; or 3) betrays the party in some way that lets it fight them again ... and lose. In the first case, it gives the PCs a follow-up mission to track down the escapee; in the second, it reminds the PCs of why the folks they're fighting are the *bad* guys; and in the third, it re-establishes the trog as a foe they can justifiably slay, *without* punishing them so severely that the players conclude they shouldn't ever capture opponents alive. The "We can't spare enemies because we'd get cluttered up with prisoners!" argument isn't valid if the DM is willing to keep the situation from becoming a burden and a distraction from the adventure's scenario. Of course, if the intended scenario *is* a "How To Cope With Prisoners" logistical and role-playing dilemma, that's another story.... ;-) |
| Bacon and Eggs02-11-04, 02:41 PM | Originally posted by Hurin So now you see his dilemma, what do you think? How do you propose my paladin contributes to the upcoming "interviewing" of this creature? If I were the DM I would allow the Paladin to view the Troglodyte as a lesser life form and run him through if the information is not gained. Unless there is any reason that the character paladin thinks otherwise. It's a paladin not a hippie. But that is if, I were the DM. This will vary differently in campaign to campaign as rule 0 is applied. |
| Hurin02-11-04, 06:51 PM | Originally posted by Krelios ...actually, the Return thereto if I recall correctly... Well short of going and buying that MegaAdventure from your FLGS and getting the information from that (please don't, it'll :censored::censored::censored::censored: off your DM), you have a few options. Uh ... dude, nowhere in my post did I ask for anyone to identify the adventure I was in. Our DM has obviously gone to great lengths to keep this is a surprise because I had no clue we were in the Temple of Elemental Evil. In fact I had no idea we were in a store bought adventure at all! :( The other 20 posts on this thread refrained from letting anything slip and for that am thankful. In the future try and use a little more tact ... :mad: [sigh] |
| King of Atyar02-12-04, 02:30 PM | This is why it is so difficult to play a Paladin, and why it is so important to write up a code of behavior and how his particular deity views the laws of mortals and what that deities required laws are. The other difficulty is playing a paladin in a group that doesn't feel restrained in the way they play and at the same time don't force you to have to turn them over to the law. My playing a Paladin in my current group was a group decision, and a good thing it is. How i would handle your situation? it is a known fact among the interogation community of the real world that you never get reliable info by torturing your prisoner, you only get what they think you to hear, so you will stop. So use whatever spells and skills you can, but do not torture. Torture is never acceptable, and keeping a paladin ignorant of such things will be very hard considering most Paladins have a good heal skill and would recognize "torture" wounds with ease. Since Paladins typically serve a god of law, such as Tyr, Maal, and St. Cuthbert etc... they should be a Judge Dredd (judge, jury, and executioner) when they are outside the sphere of influence of any recognized lawful authority. Otherwise you must take them prisoner and turn them over to the lawful authorities. In this case I would think you would be allowed to do so. BTW, so far this is NOT the Temple of Elemental Evil, or the return to it. Not by the descriptions you have given so far. So he hasn't ruined anything for you. At the very least he has changed the surrounding locations, and it was never in a volcano. Plus the first encounters was not with Trogs. |
| Detlef Van Der Val02-17-04, 06:32 PM | Hey guys, my 5th level Cleric was just slaughtered by a rampaging Hell-knight, so my new character is a Paladin, level 6. I have already run into a problem. We're in this huge conspiracy plot at the moment, involving gnomes, and a member of our party being the rightful Emperor of the whole land, but no-one knows it. Anyway, we had discovered that someone was feeding the false Emperor information, and decided to set a trap. It eventually turned out to be one of our entourage, a simple scribe, accompanying us on our adventure. The rest of our party want to execute him, by I have stalwartly refused to allow this, and I pointed out that, as we were away from any type of governamnt or militant organisation, I was to act as judge, jury, and executioner. My point is, what the hell are all us Paladins supposed to do with these people who have no clear alignment, and so cannot truly fufill the prerequisites to be executed? (Those being, to the best of my understanding, clearly of an evil alignment and activily pursuing an evil intent) Do we take them prisoner, let them go, or have a huge argument between ourselves, ending up with the P.C.'s of the party actually fighting over it!? Any help appreciated. |
| pres_man02-17-04, 06:51 PM | ... a member of our party being the rightful Emperor of the whole land, but no-one knows it. The rest of our party want to execute him, by I have stalwartly refused to allow this, and I pointed out that, as we were away from any type of governamnt or militant organisation, I was to act as judge, jury, and executioner. My point is, what the hell are all us Paladins supposed to do with these people who have no clear alignment, and so cannot truly fufill the prerequisites to be executed? (Those being, to the best of my understanding, clearly of an evil alignment and activily pursuing an evil intent) Does the rightful emperor know he is the rightful emperor? If he does then have an imprompt to trial. If you have anyway to make him speak the truth, except torture of course, then use it during the trial. The emperor should start to learn how to make the hard choices. Do we take them prisoner, let them go, or have a huge argument between ourselves, ending up with the P.C.'s of the party actually fighting over it!? Any help appreciated. Why has he been aiding the false emperor? Is he being blackmailed or forced in some other fashion? Does he believe that he is actually helping the true ruler? Depending on the answers to some of these, the act of killing him, might be evil. Also has he been of aid to the group? If so, then you might let him go, with a warning that he will be killed on sight next time. When faced with a group that is becoming blood thirsty just give them the SPEECH: Many that live deserve death; and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too quick to deal out death in judgment. Even the wise cannot see all ends... ~Gandalf~ |
| Jaimas02-17-04, 11:03 PM | If I were the DM I would allow the Paladin to view the Troglodyte as a lesser life form and run him through if the information is not gained. Unless there is any reason that the character paladin thinks otherwise. It's a paladin not a hippie. My good man, with all due respect, you are a buffoon. A "lesser form of life?" are you one of those infamous DMs that allow the "Paladin Detect Evil Radar" and allow them to run around killing anyone that glows? If so, I feel sorry for your PCs. The fact of the matter is that a Paladin's job description is against EVIL, not LESSER FORMS OF LIFE. A Paladin has a code of conduct. With few exceptions, striking down a helpless foe is almost certainly a violation of this. A Paladin must abide by this code of conduct, as they must lead by example and from that example, inspire others to follow him. A Paladin must show mercy when needed, and lethal force must be used as a last resort - to do otherwise show that the Paladin had either no choice or failed at doing things a better way, which is a personal failing. These are simple tenets. Here, then, is the correct way: -----------------AN EXCERPT FROM THE JAIMAS BESTIARY--------------- When dealing with Troglodytes or goblins in Military service, ALWAYS try to capture one or two alive for questioning. Like Goblins, Troglodytes are relatively easy to intimidate into giving you all the information they know. The problem of how to deal with a prisoner after interrogation need not be troublesome with a little preparation. When you capture the creature, bind him and make it clear that he is a prisoner, then treat him fairly, and with common courtesy when you're not interrogating him. This gentle treatment will, if he is like most of their species, seem like a paradise to him, and put them in debt to you. When you are done, make it clear that you are about to release them and he is free to do as he wishes, i.e. reclaim his freedom or return to his army. Explain clearly that if he returns to his band, they will likely kill him for failure, and if he chooses to ever attack you again, you will kill him. So his best bet is to forget the military entirely and find himself little Troglodyte woman somewhere. An exception to this is Trogs and Goblins who are extremely devout clerics or highly trained assassins. Their loyalty and devotion to whatever dark deity or cause they serve is unshakable. They will likely not break under civilized interrogation, and would arguably die under torture before talking. If you encounter one of these, show them no quarter and slay him on the field. If he ends up a prisoner, he will probably take his own life - just as well, really... But if he doesn't kill himself, do not take your eyes off that captive even for a moment - and if he begins to break free of his bonds, strike him down immediately. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And that, my friends, is the correct way. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-18-04, 10:50 AM | * gives Jaimas a hug * Don't be so hard on yourself. ... and to address your questions. "Paladin Detect Evil Radar", never heard of it. So I can safely say that I don't play with it. It's war, not a sit-in. |
| Jaimas02-18-04, 01:05 PM | You lack the knowledge of the Pala-radar? Sure, I'll tell ye. It's a common trick used (and accepted) by largely dumbass DMs and PCs. Simply put, it involves using the Paladin's Detect Evil nigh-constantly, and walking through town, smiting anyone who even so much as registers a blip, regardless of he/she/it's current actions, or even whether or not they've done anything wrong. Gods help you you're a neutral cleric of an evil god and you register anyway (see Detect Evil's Description). *Shudder* And, since people seem feel the need to quote Monte Cook, master of the Self-Contradiction lately, I will now quote him, as well: "...Characters extremely strict in their moral outlook should examine the reasons very closely. In general, quarter should be given and accepted. Such a character should cause no more harm than is necessary, and if possible, he or she should find a different way to resolve the conflict." - Monte Cook, BoVD. |
| Rotipher02-18-04, 01:22 PM | Originally posted by Detlef Van Der Val My point is, what the hell are all us Paladins supposed to do with these people who have no clear alignment, and so cannot truly fufill the prerequisites to be executed? (Those being, to the best of my understanding, clearly of an evil alignment and activily pursuing an evil intent) It shouldn't be Evil alignment that determines if an NPC (or PC for that matter) deserves the death penalty. It should be the actual offense they've committed. If the spy's own actions merit capital punishment, then it is Lawful (albeit more Neutral than Good) to execute him for them; if not, then it wouldn't be Lawful to do so, even if he *was* Evil! People of non-Evil alignments aren't exempt from the consequences of their own actions, and even a *Good* character might potentially be executed by a paladin, if they've done something nasty enough and there isn't a legitimate cause to exonerate them (e.g. they'd been charmed by the bad guy). Judge the crime itself, not just the suspect. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-18-04, 01:25 PM | Sounds like fun. I can't verify that this quote actually took place, but I'm hedging my bets that it was at least once spoken out loud. Because it seems to be so popular to quote that guy, and this is all I got. "Hi, I'm Monte Cook" - Monte Cook When a Paladin from my game meets up with the Big bad of the "Elder eye cult" who've been stirring trouble up in the region. I have that foe get run through with a sword. No need for detection as the whole intention was to be there and run them through to begin with. No detection needed, no mystery about it. Job accomplished. It was an expectation of the quest before the quest even started. Otherwise somebody more capable to take the job to completion should have been sent in. |
| starfire31102-18-04, 01:26 PM | what about if the Rogue and other party member convince the palidan that they are just going to scare the Trog, and the palidan should just take a step outside for awhile, and then while out they actually torture him... then they kill him and tell the palidan that he tried to escape, and the had to kill him. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-18-04, 01:31 PM | That should easily work on the Paladin with low wisdom. You know, easily bluffed. |
| Jaimas02-18-04, 01:35 PM | You're talking cultists, and furthermore, not ones that have been captured. If in combat, by all means, go nuts! That's what a Paladin rocks at. On the battlefield, anyone against you, for the most part, is fair game. But Hostages are a different story entirely. Don't forget that. As for the part which Starfire mentioned, that MIGHT work, but it will work better if the Rogue has an Alibi. "He was trying to break free! See?!" |
| pres_man02-18-04, 08:31 PM | Just a little question from the ones saying to have the paladin leave and then the rest torture the prisoner. How would you feel if the prisoner was female, and when you (the paladin) came back, the rogue was pulling up his pants and her clothes were torn. The rogue then says, "Got that information!" I hope the paladin would run the rogue through, and then return to their church and beg for atonement for the fact that they allowed the rogue to attack the prisoner (not for killing the rogue). |
| Beamup02-18-04, 09:04 PM | Originally posted by pres_man Just a little question from the ones saying to have the paladin leave and then the rest torture the prisoner. How would you feel if the prisoner was female, and when you (the paladin) came back, the rogue was pulling up his pants and her clothes were torn. The rogue then says, "Got that information!" I hope the paladin would run the rogue through, and then return to their church and beg for atonement for the fact that they allowed the rogue to attack the prisoner (not for killing the rogue). Bingo. That's exactly how I think a Paladin would be REQUIRED to act. If they didn't, they'd likely become an Ex-paladin. |
| Jaimas02-18-04, 09:11 PM | Which is all the more reason to abide the guidelines set before. Yes, I DID say it COULD work, but that didn't mean I endorsed it directly. You hit the nail on the head - An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure in this case, and really - is it worth needing to seek atonement over? The example you gave was a far sharper edge then my take on it, and though it left a bitter taste in many's mouths, it needed to be said. Kudos to j00, pres_man. |
| Cabren02-18-04, 10:00 PM | Originally posted by pres_man I hope the paladin would run the rogue through, and then return to their church and beg for atonement for the fact that they allowed the rogue to attack the prisoner (not for killing the rogue). Too bad he got kicked out of the party or killed the second he even thought of it. Non lawful stupid people stick together. |
| pres_man02-19-04, 01:11 AM | Originally posted by Cabren Too bad he got kicked out of the party or killed the second he even thought of it. Non lawful stupid people stick together. Probably right about the kicked out part, though the paladin would probably leave on his own anyway. As for non-lawful stupid people sticking together, I think you got it totally wrong. If fact they probably wouldn't stick there necks out for each other at all. If they are good or neutral, they'll probably be embarrassed about the whole thing once the paladin explodes ("Maybe the rogue did go a little too far. :blush: "). If they are evil (why they'd be with the paladin, who knows), they'd probably think "Hey, that's what that idiot gets for getting caught :devil: ". Nobody is going to die to protect a rapist. Sorry but that is the hard facts of life. |
| Sproik02-19-04, 04:45 AM | Assuming the paladin had no problem with killing the troglodyte before it was captured, it should really make no difference to him to kill it after it has been captured. Giving "quarter" to prisoners is actually not a particularly normal thing to do. But you don't actually need it to talk. You want it to talk. Not the same thing. And part of being a paladin is having to get by with all the restrictions of a strong ethical code. So you don't get to torture it, and you don't get to let your friends do the same. |
| Arakano02-19-04, 07:19 AM | killing in combat or killing someone helpless DOES make a difference! Although many a philosoph has asked why killing in war is legal when killing in peace is highly illegal, the fact remains: Just because you would have killed that Trog on the field of battle doesn´t mean you should just go ahead and kill him after taking him prisoner. Yes, and btw: After your definition, your Paladin could kill ANYONE IN THE WORLD! Why? Because, in self-defense he would have no problem to kill everyone who attacks him (if to kill the attacker is necessary to save his life). So, he might also kill everyone right now. Exaggerated, but that´s what it might result in. |
| starfire31102-19-04, 08:18 AM | Originally posted by pres_man Just a little question from the ones saying to have the paladin leave and then the rest torture the prisoner. How would you feel if the prisoner was female, and when you (the paladin) came back, the rogue was pulling up his pants and her clothes were torn. The rogue then says, "Got that information!" I hope the paladin would run the rogue through, and then return to their church and beg for atonement for the fact that they allowed the rogue to attack the prisoner (not for killing the rogue). In this instance shouldn't the palidan capture the rogue and bring him in for justice... Just like he should with the Trog. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-19-04, 09:52 AM | Originally posted by Arakano killing in combat or killing someone helpless DOES make a difference! Although many a philosoph has asked why killing in war is legal when killing in peace is highly illegal, the fact remains: Just because you would have killed that Trog on the field of battle doesn´t mean you should just go ahead and kill him after taking him prisoner. No, killing in war is just more accepted by people. It's still really wrong to consciously take somebodies life withouth their consent, no matter what the situation. (can't wait for this debate to erupt) now - back into the fantasy ... but the flip side to that, (and there are several threads hanging around with the topic), is that there is a function to Raise the Dead in the world that all this is playing in. One that is known to exist, and work consistently. There is no mystery about the afterlife, no unknowns. So death is but merely a flesh wound. If it did happen to be a mistake in killing somebody. Just bring them back, say your apologies and get on with your in-character life. |
| Detlef Van Der Val02-19-04, 12:25 PM | Originally posted by Bacon and Eggs No, killing in war is just more accepted by people. It's still really wrong to consciously take somebodies life withouth their consent, no matter what the situation. (can't wait for this debate to erupt) now - back into the fantasy ... but the flip side to that, (and there are several threads hanging around with the topic), is that there is a function to Raise the Dead in the world that all this is playing in. One that is known to exist, and work consistently. There is no mystery about the afterlife, no unknowns. So death is but merely a flesh wound. If it did happen to be a mistake in killing somebody. Just bring them back, say your apologies and get on with your in-character life. Sorry to quote your quotes and all, but even in the D&D realm, death is much more than a flesh wound. I doubt the Trog would be very happy if you killed him, and then brought him back to life. Also, if the Paladin of the party has condemned the Trog to death, the Paladin wouldn't be able to allow somebody to raise him back up, because of the ethical/moral code they have to abide by. |
| Cabren02-19-04, 01:21 PM | Originally posted by pres_man Probably right about the kicked out part, though the paladin would probably leave on his own anyway. As for non-lawful stupid people sticking together, I think you got it totally wrong. If fact they probably wouldn't stick there necks out for each other at all. If they are good or neutral, they'll probably be embarrassed about the whole thing once the paladin explodes ("Maybe the rogue did go a little too far. :blush: "). If they are evil (why they'd be with the paladin, who knows), they'd probably think "Hey, that's what that idiot gets for getting caught :devil: ". Nobody is going to die to protect a rapist. Sorry but that is the hard facts of life. You havent played in many games with realistic characters have you? |
| Bacon and Eggs02-19-04, 02:28 PM | I have. And when the Paladin is invading the space of bad Cult that has been troubling the land with intent to kill, what makes the killing a bad move? I mean, Break and Enter has already taken place, if it's gone that far already without a formal challenge on the front lawn of the diamond mines of an extinct volcano to the head of said cult from the first post. Nobody is happy when you kill them, no matter what the situation. That's the point. Unless they ask for it, it is against their will. In battle, while Held, or Sleeping. No difference to me as a DM. Send the bad guy to the next plane of existance and move on with your in character life. Wheres the stress in that? |
| Detlef Van Der Val02-19-04, 03:36 PM | Yes, but as Paladins, we all have a sworn duty to protect, serve, and above all, uphold the law. (Robocop fan!) While the other members in your party, even the lawful good ones, can swarm through hordes of enemies, cutting them down without a second glance, a Paladin has to consider each opponent, and weigh up the facts. We need to be able to establish whether we can justify the execution of this individual, and if not where to go from here. Even is it's a marauding ogre mage (Baldurs Gate!), coming at you with everythings he's got, we should still take the time to perform our three primary functions; Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Away from civillization, while roaming the world, Paladins ARE the law, and so have a right to decide. Each individual should have a fair trial. That's my opinion anyway. |
| Arakano02-19-04, 04:04 PM | Don´t get me wrong: I didn´t want to defend War. In fact, I refused to do military service for moral reasons (yes, really, Im not simply a coward... ;) ). Still, killing in self-defense is not the same as coldblooded murder. And a cop who kills a fleeing mass murderer is different from a cop who kills said criminal after capturing him. That´s it. Take my word as a law student. ;) |
| Detlef Van Der Val02-19-04, 04:10 PM | I study law too! Anyway, guys, you seem to be forgetting something here, even though a Paladin has to make these big moral choices,the whole thing surrounding the Paladin himself is militant. For anybody not taking Eng. Lit. A-level, this means he's a SOLDIER first, then a JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER. Finally, his secondary, or maybe even tetiary role, is as a PRIEST/HEALER OF DIVINE FAITH. We seem to be moving away from this fact, just thought I'd point it out. A Paladin can't choose not to kill anything; he's a soldier. What we're trying to establish, is how to make sure he kills the right things! |
| Bacon and Eggs02-19-04, 04:11 PM | Weighing up the facts that I know of so far(picked from the original posters depiction): - they are in a complex, perhaps that of the Elder eye cult, most likely I can tell. - the cult has been "stirring up trouble" which led this party to explore the place... and do something about it is my guess. What kind of trouble? Still don't know for sure. Could be baby napping for all I know. - the troglodyte in question is a cleric of a freakishly evil god for whom this cult serves. Freakishly Evil ... which I assume is worse then Chaotic Evil for these discussions. The option comes up to ask some questions, sure take it. Then run the BBeG though. What was the problem again? |
| Detlef Van Der Val02-19-04, 04:15 PM | Sorry for double posting, but Arakno, under standard English law, whether a cop kills a fleeing suspect or a captured one makes no difference; he has killed. He is not above the law, he doesn't make the law, and he is definitly not the law. He is just an enforcer, hired help. Therefore, the status of the mass murder; i,e, whether he was fleeing, stationary, handcuffed, or whatever, is considered afterwards, as the Obiter Dictai. This may have some bearing on the punishment, but usually not a lot. ;) Detlef VDV. |
| danielinthewolvesden02-19-04, 06:26 PM | There is an easy answer- Pally's should always get a Phylactery of Faithfulness. Consider the act of execution of a known evil cultist. If there is no reaction from the Phylactery, then go ahead. |
| Blackswordsman02-19-04, 10:34 PM | i don't know if its been said, and if it has just ignore this but: The evil trog cleric who was in charge of the defences of this complex, failed his job............FAILED HIS JOB. Do you think his masteres or god is going to be happy with this. ... Ok stop thinking the answer is NO. Tell the trog this, and that you'll keep him safe from his masters and return him to your order, where you'll tell them what he did, and how much he helped you guys out, and that perhaps sentencing should be light. This is assuming the dungeon crawl goes good. And you don't all die due to the trogs false info. |
| bitnine02-19-04, 10:45 PM | Originally posted by pres_man How would you feel if the prisoner was female, and when you (the paladin) came back, the rogue was pulling up his pants and her clothes were torn. The rogue then says, "Got that information!" Bah, it's totally an evil creature. That means that any act done to its detriment automatically becomes good. That's the fun of having evil creatures around! |
| Jaimas02-19-04, 11:28 PM | Just.... No. I'm usually running CE Characters, and I balk at that. Even my standards are higher, and I'm a Cleric of Cthulu who assosciates with Mariliths. You sick F, bitnine. |
| Arakano02-20-04, 09:15 AM | Originally posted by Detlef Van Der Val Sorry for double posting, but Arakno, under standard English law, whether a cop kills a fleeing suspect or a captured one makes no difference; he has killed. He is not above the law, he doesn't make the law, and he is definitly not the law. He is just an enforcer, hired help. Therefore, the status of the mass murder; i,e, whether he was fleeing, stationary, handcuffed, or whatever, is considered afterwards, as the Obiter Dictai. This may have some bearing on the punishment, but usually not a lot. ;) Detlef VDV. Well, in german law, as far as I know (having studied for half a year ;) ), it makes a difference. If someone has a reason that excuses his actions (self-defense etc.), he is not guilty. It´s that simple. An police officer has the duty to stop a fleeing murderer. Alright, he shouldn´t kill him, and he would probably get punished for it, but if he shots the criminal in the leg, only intending to stop him, and unfortunately this wound results in the criminal´s death, than the cop would surely not be sentenced to prison... |
| Jaimas02-20-04, 10:25 PM | .....Shameless Simpsons reference. I should be shot. |
| Turrens02-25-04, 08:09 AM | well your comment about the police officer killing a fleeing mass murderer being illegal is to subjective to debate. For example here in america If the fleeing subject poses adanger to the community then the officer has a duty to stop him. even if that means killing him. besides back on topic. This is all just a semantics debate. Torture=evil. Ignoring torture or traveling with torturers=evil. Paladins who commit evil=fallen paladins. |
| Krelios02-25-04, 08:16 AM | Paladin can't choose not to kill anything; he's a soldier. What? Are you saying that the Paladin MUST kill everything he sees as though he's under some sort of compulsion? The Paladin hate on this thread is strong. So far, all of Cabren's comments have been one line insults with no real bearing on the topic. I assume that this statement will make me the next victim, so feel free. I am not trying to insult you back, I'd just like to see some justification for your "opinions." |
| starfire31102-25-04, 08:25 AM | Originally posted by Krelios What? Are you saying that the Paladin MUST kill everything he sees as though he's under some sort of compulsion? The Paladin hate on this thread is strong. So far, all of Cabren's comments have been one line insults with no real bearing on the topic. I assume that this statement will make me the next victim, so feel free. I am not trying to insult you back, I'd just like to see some justification for your "opinions." he is saying a paladin cant be a pacifist |
| Sir Ferdinand02-25-04, 08:31 AM | My suggestion. First use Diplomacy to make his attitude a bit nicer (hopefully quite a lot nicer) towards you. Then just ask the questions. If he doesn't say a thing, the Paladin can leave him to other party members. If the party's Fighter for example would toughen up the Cleric, it'd be just fine, as the Paladin isn't doing that , and the information is for higher good anyway. |
| Salla02-25-04, 08:55 AM | Well, if Mr. Trog Cleric has surrendered, then he must be treated compassionately and kindly, no two ways about it. No torture, no 'let me step out for a minute', no killing helpless beings. Get it? Got it. Good. Blackswordsman has the right idea. Tell the cleric that his masters aren't going to be pleased by his failure, then tell him that the forces and gods of good will welcome him should he choose another path (which is the truth). Tell him he will be protected, then protect him with your life if you must. Work that Diplomacy. (Access BoED, see rules for redeeming evil. Bring Trog to the side of the light. Award Blackswordsman some :bow: and a little :ayyyy!: .) |
| Bacon and Eggs02-25-04, 09:52 AM | Of course, there was no mention of surrender by the original poster and the original dilemma? So when did that action come into play? According to the story thus far, noone has surrendered. They may in fact not have a common language at all to get a message like that across. Again, in the game I run, have the party classify it as a fish(a sub sepecies not privy to acknowledged rights of accepted races) and cut of it's head. Moving along and continue the break and enter of the complex with the assumption that the cult needs to be exterminated. Aside from out-of-character people critiqueing all that, who exactly in the game world will think that it would be a bad thing? |
| ehrin02-25-04, 02:21 PM | A paladin can heal, right? So torture the trog. break a few fingers, slowly. Extract the information any way you want. and when you are done, Heal him. He is all better, no scars, no broken bones, nothing. Good as ever, good as new. If you didn't get the info the first time, break him again, heal, break, heal, etc.. In a world where Magic can heal every wound, why would it be "evil" to do something to someone you can undo in a moments work? Torture is EVIL because it is permanent. Because it scars, because it hurts forever. We limit torture, but even in "good" society, we allow threats, belligerence, posturing, shouting, mind influencing, etc. as long as no one is physically harmed. Check out a police interrogation sometime. With Cure spells, the end result is no one is ever harmed. And with it, so too is the Evil behind torturing... IF you return the person to their original position. It's all a mind game then, and pretty much everyone believes that Paladins can play mind games with their enemies. |
| Beamup02-25-04, 02:23 PM | Reminds me of the "you can Raise Dead, so murder is fine" argument. Even if you make amends for what you did, the action was still evil. Torture is evil regardless of whether you heal them afterwards or not. |
| Haradim02-25-04, 02:34 PM | Originally posted by ehrin With Cure spells, the end result is no one is ever harmed. And with it, so too is the Evil behind torturing... IF you return the person to their original position. It's all a mind game then, and pretty much everyone believes that Paladins can play mind games with their enemies. For one, you will probably not be able to return a torture victim to their original state, regardless of the healing magic available (barring invasive mental spells...which is hardly better). For two, it isn't the end result that matters. If the ends justified the means, it would frankly be pointless to worry about Paladins falling, because it would never happen; everything, no matter how heinous, could be chalked up as done 'for the greater good'. Killing random people sends them to their reward (good or bad; 'if good, may their eternity be joyous. If bad, they are being punished as they deserve'), and keeps the living safe...regardless if they have ever done anything to deserve death. Obviously, this can't work. Not for Good aligned people, anyway. Heck, they'd be no different that they Evil they claim to be fighting... |
| ehrin02-25-04, 02:52 PM | in a world where the dead can be raised, rather routinely, and people "die" every day, sometimes twice, how would you define murder? In the real world, if I shoot you, and your heart stops, but the doctors revive you, I am NOT guilty of murder. because you aren't dead. You are alive, and if you are alive, I can't have commited murder or killed you. Assault, yes. Attempted murder, at best. But not murder. You were for a few moments, maybe even an hour. But at the end, you are alive, so Murder is not a chargable offense. So, if I kill someone in DnD, and raise them again, then it isn't murder, because they aren't dead. |
| Beamup02-25-04, 02:55 PM | Legal distinctions are very different from moral distinctions. (And distinguishing between murder and attempted murder is one of the stupider laws around.) |
| ehrin02-25-04, 03:28 PM | But even in the moral world, can I really have killed someone if they are alive and walking around, unharmed? Isn't that the moral equivalent of a "do-over"? |
| ehrin02-25-04, 03:30 PM | And as for stupid laws, how about making Attempted Suicide a crime, but Suicide is not. It's only a crime if you FAIL to do it. Imagine if "attempted robbery" were the crime, but "successful robbery" was not... |
| Rotipher02-25-04, 04:23 PM | Prosecuting someone for 'Successful Suicide' would be unconstitutional. Unless John Edward from "Crossing Over" has gotten a law degree, the defendent wouldn't be able to confront and question his/her accusors! ;-D |
| Detlef Van Der Val02-25-04, 04:24 PM | No, the point was I play a damn Paladin, and the reason they can't choose is because they're soldiers. Also, you're right, they would be no good if they were all pascifists. |
| pres_man02-25-04, 04:29 PM | Originally posted by ehrin It's only a crime if you FAIL to do it. Imagine if "attempted robbery" were the crime, but "successful robbery" was not... Haven't you every heard that "it's only a crime if you get caught"? So a successful robbery wouldn't be a crime, since by definition of successful, you wouldn't have gotten caught. :D |
| LordHell02-25-04, 07:00 PM | Originally posted by Beamup Walking off and allowing other characters to perform evil acts upon your prisoner (certainly includes torture, almost certainly execution) would be a major violation of a paladin's code as I interpret it. In fact, my interpretation would be that, if the other characters intended to torture/execute the prisoner, you would be obligated to prevent that by any means necessary... up to and including fighting the other PCs. A paladin not only cannot perform evil acts, he cannot knowingly allow evil acts to be performed when there is any way he could prevent it. Torture is out, as clearly evil. Execution is also out - executing a helpless prisoner without a trial is very non-lawful, and not very Good either. Bluffing is probably fine, I'd say (the paladin can't lie himself, but lying isn't an evil act per se so he can allow others to do so. That part of the code is more 'personal honor' than Lawful Goodness). If I were the DM, I'd even allow a Paladin to attempt to Bluff somebody - at a higher DC to reflect the fact that the best they can do is make literally-true but misleading statements. Charm spells would be OK. But after you've got your information, you've got two choices: - Release him in exchange for his information. - Take him back to town and turn him over to the authorities for trial. Always remember, just because a being is evil doesn't make them free game for whatever you want to do. I agree and disagree with you at the same time. - Take him back to town and turn him over to the authorities for trial. That is the only option the Paladin has. Letting him go isn't exactly an act of Good either, the paladin will KNOW if this creature is good or evil, and letting an evil creature go to do more harm on the world is not something a Paladin would do. If taking him back to town and turn him over to the authorities is not feasable, the Paladin would most like haul him along with you, giving him appropriate food and water, until such an event was likely. The Paladin would probably not stand for torture, or any form of deception., but if the Troglodyte made an escape attempt, and died during that attempt, then that's just too bad. --- another thing. The Paladin might even give the creature a fair trial himself. The end result may be execution as the evidence is clearly mounted against the creature. If the Paladin found no wrong doing with the Troglodyte however, he may let him go and later inform the local authorities of known Trog's in that area. |
| ehrin02-25-04, 08:24 PM | commiting a robbery is still a crime, whether you get caught or not. Whether you are captured, tried and/or convicted has no bearing on whether the action originally ocurred or not. John Kennedy is dead, whether or not you believe Oswald did it, or didn't do it. JFK was murdered regardless of whether anyone (or everyone) was ever caught. |
| Haradim02-25-04, 10:32 PM | Originally posted by ehrin in a world where the dead can be raised, rather routinely, and people "die" every day, sometimes twice, how would you define murder? What you describe might work in a game setting designed for it, but in most games, 98 out of 100 people* will never even be given the chance to return from the dead. It's expensive, and the gods may well object to people toying so callously with the souls of other beings (that's their job :P). And frankly, whether or not an act is considered murder isn't as important as whether or not it's considered Evil (in this case, anyway). 'Murdering' someone may not be considered murder, socially/legally, if you bring them back, but in the eyes of the beings handing out alignment report cards, it would still be Evil. Evil doesn't get washed away because of you do an act of nebulous morality, and raising someone that you killed would probably be more Neutral than anything else (raising doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral action), so one would likely not be able to claim that they made up for what they did. * - The remaining 2 accounts for PCs and the occasional BBEG to be raised (typically by GM whim). Note that this often requires a great deal of effort for both groups, who are generally noted for their wealth and power. |
| bitnine02-25-04, 10:45 PM | Originally posted by ehrin A paladin can heal, right? So torture the trog. break a few fingers, slowly. Extract the information any way you want. and when you are done, Heal him. He is all better, no scars, no broken bones, nothing. Good as ever, good as new. Does that mean that it would be okay for the Paladin to rape someone so long as he used Modify Memory to make sure that they suffered no trace of the act afterwards? |
| Salla02-26-04, 03:01 AM | Geez. You can't torture someone, even if you leave no evidence, even if you wipe their memory of it. That's evil. How ANYBODY could argue that torture isn't evil baffles me. Paladins aren't pacifists, but neither are they warmongers; they fight when it is RIGHT to do so, and killing someone who's captive and helpless is not right, no way, no how, doesn't matter WHO it is or WHAT it is. They aren't soldiers, because they aren't subject to orders from anybody besides their LG conscience and their higher purpose. ehrin, whether or not one can be charged with murder if the victim is raised is irrelevant to this situation. The Paladin has still engaged in the slaughter of a helpless captive, torture, and wanton cruelty. Say bye-bye to LG alignment and Paladin status for pulling a bull:censored: stunt like that. Paladins not only have to do the right thing, but they must do it in the right way. Captain America or Superman style, not this bull:censored: :censored: -up Wolverine and Batman :censored: . A HERO, not an anti-hero (or thinly-disguised villain). This makes Paladins VERY difficult to play correctly; it's a challenge to stay on the straight and narrow when it would be easier to take the simple, dirty way out ... but that's what makes it so rewarding when you pull it off. |
| Rotipher02-26-04, 10:35 AM | Originally posted by ehrin But even in the moral world, can I really have killed someone if they are alive and walking around, unharmed? Yes. Just like if a character in a sci-fi game killed someone, who was later cloned from stored tissue. Even if the clone is equipped with the memories of the deceased, effectively *becoming* the deceased, the fact remains that the sci-fi character _made a live person become a dead one_. They violated the victim's right to live, because that right includes the right to live *continuously*, without interruption, not just intermittantly at the whim of others. Even if fiction (be it sci-fi or fantasy) makes the condition of death reversible, bringing someone back to life doesn't *erase* history, it just adds to it. The person was D-E-A-D. It's like if someone damages a precious piece of artwork which is later restored: the *vandalism* is still a crime, even if the damage was repaired. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-26-04, 10:40 AM | But that right to live is inturrupted just the same in a one on one duel. So every death caused is a violation of rights, and a Paladin can kill no-one as they would be violating somethings right to live in every case. |
| ehrin02-26-04, 10:55 AM | I see a lot of people claiming that Paladins cannot kill, they can not kill anyone, etc.. If that is true, why are they even a player character? Why are they "fighters" and combat specialists? Why all the skills and training in MARTIAL matters? If a Paladin was truly proscribed from ever killing anyone, then they would be more like a bard.. clever with tongue, influencing others, etc.. Instead, in DnD, Paladins carry swords and spears. Why weapons, and not scrolls and treaties? How many people have ever managed to play DnD and not kill an orc, gnoll, evil wizard, etc.? Even in our world (literature), Lancelot and Galahad killed people in battles, etc.. Blood stained their hands frequently. And if a Paladin can kill someone for a good enough reason, then perhaps they can simply hurt someone else for a good enough reason. After all, isn't hurting someone less evil than killing them? As for my contention that it is not murder if the person is alive and walking around, I fall back on that tried and true defense: Stop putting your REAL WORLD beliefs into a world of magic and fantasy. In the real world, you kill someone and they are dead forever. In DnD, you kill someone, they come back. Often times, over and over again. They get raised, they get healed, they get timewarped, whatever. My point is that in DnD, we cannot define things like murder, death and torture using concepts that WE have evolved over thousands of years of society, we would have to define them in terms of a world where pain can be erased with a thought, broken bones healed with a pass of the hands, time moved backwards, speeded forwards, and where people can be burned beyond recognition, maimed and beheaded and then return to life the next day, good as new. |
| Sir Ferdinand02-26-04, 11:28 AM | By ehrin: A paladin can heal, right? So torture the trog. break a few fingers, slowly. Extract the information any way you want. and when you are done, Heal him. He is all better, no scars, no broken bones, nothing. Good as ever, good as new. If you didn't get the info the first time, break him again, heal, break, heal, etc.. In a world where Magic can heal every wound, why would it be "evil" to do something to someone you can undo in a moments work? Yes, you can heal all physical wounds, but not mental wounds. Therefore torturing for Paladins is 100% prohibited. And it would be prohibited anyway, even if Paladins can heal physical wounds. It's just against the Paladins' code. I see a lot of people claiming that Paladins cannot kill, they can not kill anyone, etc.. OK, I haven't read first two pages of this thread so I don't know if someone has said that, but if they have, they're wrong. Paladins can kill, but only in battle. If someone attacks the Paladin, he can kill the attacker. And Paladins can even make the first strike (from hiding) if it's required, but they try to avoid such thing. But nothing prevents Paladins from killing. |
| Haradim02-26-04, 11:55 AM | Originally posted by ehrin After all, isn't hurting someone less evil than killing them? Hurting (in the sense of torture, at least) is Evil. Killing is usually Neutral, so long as it is deemed necessary by the powers that be. And 'necessary' is usually defined as 'in battle, and you have no choice but to fight to the death'. In DnD, you kill someone, they come back. Often times, over and over again. They get raised, they get healed, they get timewarped, whatever. Most people slain *do not* come back, though. Many don't even get healed (via magic) if injured, whether due to no access to such magic, or because of the cost involved. Even Clerics of a healing god will probably resort to the Heal skill before they resort to the Heal spell, if they use the magic at all. The only people who really have access to this magic are the PCs, who are noted exceptions to the norm. And even they are generally prohibited from being too frivolous with these spells. Peasants, and most other NPCs, certainly don't get such privledges. Peasants are often lucky to get the occasional minor healing, and that's usually from the party Cleric, not the norm. My point is that in DnD, we cannot define things like murder, death and torture using concepts that WE have evolved over thousands of years of society, we would have to define them in terms of a world where pain can be erased with a thought, broken bones healed with a pass of the hands, time moved backwards, speeded forwards, and where people can be burned beyond recognition, maimed and beheaded and then return to life the next day, good as new. They can be defined in whatever manner someone wants to define them. And the definition you are aiming for does not comply with how most games are run, so far as I've read and experienced. |
| Beamup02-26-04, 12:32 PM | Originally posted by ehrin I see a lot of people claiming that Paladins cannot kill, they can not kill anyone, etc..<snip> As for my contention that it is not murder if the person is alive and walking around, I fall back on that tried and true defense: Stop putting your REAL WORLD beliefs into a world of magic and fantasy. In the real world, you kill someone and they are dead forever. In DnD, you kill someone, they come back. Often times, over and over again. They get raised, they get healed, they get timewarped, whatever. My point is that in DnD, we cannot define things like murder, death and torture using concepts that WE have evolved over thousands of years of society, we would have to define them in terms of a world where pain can be erased with a thought, broken bones healed with a pass of the hands, time moved backwards, speeded forwards, and where people can be burned beyond recognition, maimed and beheaded and then return to life the next day, good as new. Nobody's saying Paladins can't kill. We're saying Paladins can't MURDER, which is an entirely seperate issue. Absolutely, Paladins can kill in battle. Killing captives and such is TOTALLY different. Also, you're the one trying to apply real-world thinking to DnD. In DnD, murder is Evil. Not for any real-world reason, but simply because the DnD system is set up that way. Applying real-world (and very questionable) morality in the sense of "if you fix it, it wasn't wrong" is exactly what you're trying to do. |
| ehrin02-26-04, 12:34 PM | ??Hurting is evil, but killing is neutral?? So my paladin can kill someone, and that's neutral, but if he only hurts him, that's evil? Does that mean every sword stroke better be critical, or else my Paladin is at risk for merely hurting the villian, and being condemned? ?Killing can only be done in battle?? What about as punishment? After justice has been rendered, and the Baron orders a villian slain, do you hand him a sword and put him on a battlefield? Or do you put his head on a block and kill him? I realize that you can't heal mental wounds (actually, in DnD you can). So, threats, intimidation, psychological combat are also now Evil? Isn't the entire intent of a Paladin's Shiny Armor, Holy Sword and Symbol, etc. to threaten, awe, frighten, scare and intimidate the opponent? Isn't that a mental wounding, of a sort? After all, an orc will never get the image out of his mind of the Holy Paladin shining with a radiant light, charging down the hill towards him screaming at the top of his lungs. THat's mental wounding, that's mental torture, it scars that orc for the rest of its' life (which may be mere moments). What's the difference between MENTALLY torturing someone and physically torturing them, in terms of good and evil? A Paladin can scare them, frighten them, terrify them, and that's good. But if he hurts them physically, that's evil? BTW, I am not argueing that Torture isn't evil. By DnD "law", it is. I am just asking to define what torture is, and why that is torture and something else isn't, in a world with different ideologies than we are used to. For instance, what is torture in a world where hurting someone is evil but killing them is not? |
| Beamup02-26-04, 12:48 PM | Originally posted by ehrin ??Hurting is evil, but killing is neutral?? So my paladin can kill someone, and that's neutral, but if he only hurts him, that's evil? Does that mean every sword stroke better be critical, or else my Paladin is at risk for merely hurting the villian, and being condemned? Where in the world did you get THAT idea? Combat's an entirely different story, of course - just about anything goes. ?Killing can only be done in battle?? What about as punishment? After justice has been rendered, and the Baron orders a villian slain, do you hand him a sword and put him on a battlefield? Or do you put his head on a block and kill him? Again, you're reading meanings into things that just aren't there. MURDER is disallowed. Battle is an example of killing that is not murder. Legal execution as in your example is also not murder. Again, that's fine. I realize that you can't heal mental wounds (actually, in DnD you can). So, threats, intimidation, psychological combat are also now Evil? Isn't the entire intent of a Paladin's Shiny Armor, Holy Sword and Symbol, etc. to threaten, awe, frighten, scare and intimidate the opponent? Isn't that a mental wounding, of a sort? After all, an orc will never get the image out of his mind of the Holy Paladin shining with a radiant light, charging down the hill towards him screaming at the top of his lungs. THat's mental wounding, that's mental torture, it scars that orc for the rest of its' life (which may be mere moments). What's the difference between MENTALLY torturing someone and physically torturing them, in terms of good and evil? A Paladin can scare them, frighten them, terrify them, and that's good. But if he hurts them physically, that's evil? Intimidation != torture. And how do you propose healing mental wounds, anyway? There's no mechanic for it at all, unless you count mind controlling spells. BTW, I am not argueing that Torture isn't evil. By DnD "law", it is. I am just asking to define what torture is, and why that is torture and something else isn't, in a world with different ideologies than we are used to. For instance, what is torture in a world where hurting someone is evil but killing them is not? Harming a person IN ORDER TO inflict pain (for interrogation, personal gratification, whatever) is torture. Harming a person because you're trying to kill them in an open fight is not. WHAT in the world is so hard to understand here? Incidentally, your hypothetical world is so far from conventional understanding that it's impossible to say. The designed DnD morality is pretty close to conventional morality (in order to make it easy to understand), so it's easy to extrapolate. |
| ehrin02-26-04, 01:24 PM | In DnD, murder is evil? Good lord, I have been playing it wrong all this time! I should instantly apologize to all the dragons, orcs, gnolls, bugbears, kobolds, rust monsters, gelatinous cubes, thieves, bushwhackers, etc. that my PC's have murdered over the years. As for where i got the idea that hurting was evil and killing neutral, it was from this post by Haradim: [Hurting (in the sense of torture, at least) is Evil. Killing is usually Neutral, so long as it is deemed necessary by the powers that be.] Why does 'just about anything go' in combat? Why is something "good" if we do it in combat, and "evil" if we do the exact same thing outside of combat? Why is battle not murder? Why is execution not murder? isn't the person just as dead? How to heal mental wounds: first thing that comes to mind, "wish". other ideas would be mind blank spells, reverse time spells, etc. From Beamup: [Harming a person IN ORDER TO inflict pain (for interrogation, personal gratification, whatever) is torture. Harming a person because you're trying to kill them in an open fight is not. ] How exactly do you harm someone without trying to inflict pain? By accident, i guess. But if I am fighting you to the death in combat, and I swing my sword towards your head, aren't I FULLY INTENDING to inflict pain? Isn't that the whole purpose of a sword? Or mace? Also, if I am in combat, and I get personal gratification from it, then is that torture? If I do my job, and do it well, and take pride in being the biggest baddest paladin in the battle, isn't that personal gratification? I know Pride is a sin, but does it make me evil? Does it mean I am now a torturer? |
| Beamup02-26-04, 01:37 PM | Originally posted by ehrin Why does 'just about anything go' in combat? Why is something "good" if we do it in combat, and "evil" if we do the exact same thing outside of combat? Why is battle not murder? Why is execution not murder? isn't the person just as dead? Not necessarily logical, but that is how it works. JOOC, are you a pacifist IRL? How to heal mental wounds: first thing that comes to mind, "wish". other ideas would be mind blank spells, reverse time spells, etc. Ah, so you brainwash them into forgetting. Doesn't sound Good to me. From Beamup: [Harming a person IN ORDER TO inflict pain (for interrogation, personal gratification, whatever) is torture. Harming a person because you're trying to kill them in an open fight is not. ] How exactly do you harm someone without trying to inflict pain? By accident, i guess. But if I am fighting you to the death in combat, and I swing my sword towards your head, aren't I FULLY INTENDING to inflict pain? Isn't that the whole purpose of a sword? Or mace? Also, if I am in combat, and I get personal gratification from it, then is that torture? If I do my job, and do it well, and take pride in being the biggest baddest paladin in the battle, isn't that personal gratification? I know Pride is a sin, but does it make me evil? Does it mean I am now a torturer? Do you not understand the phrase "in order to?" Apparently not, so I will go ahead and definite it explicitly. Doing x "in order to" y means that y is your goal. If y is simply a side effect that's not the reason you're doing it, you're not doing x "in order to" y. If you inflict pain upon someone in a fight, your objective is survival and victory. The pain is a side effect. If you enjoy fighting for survival, but the objective is still survival, you're not doing it for personal gratification. Inflicting pain is torture if your proximate objective is to inflict pain (say because that's your selected method to get information). If the pain is a by-product that's not the reason you're doing it, it's not torture. |
| ehrin02-26-04, 01:46 PM | lol.. a pacifist in real life? hardly. I just really enjoy broadening my mind by playing devil's advocate against intelligent people like you. The more i do this, the smarter I become by reading everyone's replies. very interesting way to justify torture, via the proximate goal thing. But doesn't that logic allow one to justify torture in order to save the soul? In other words, I only do this to save you. The pain i inflict is not because I want to, but because you must be cleansed. I harm you in order to save you, not to inflict pain, get information, etc. I harm you in order to get that bridge secured. I do it in combat, and it's good. I do it after combat, and it's evil. |
| Beamup02-26-04, 03:31 PM | Originally posted by ehrin lol.. a pacifist in real life? hardly. I just really enjoy broadening my mind by playing devil's advocate against intelligent people like you. The more i do this, the smarter I become by reading everyone's replies. Just wondering, since "all killing is the same regardless of circumstances" is something I generally hear from pacificists. I was just curious about where you were coming from - and now I know. very interesting way to justify torture, via the proximate goal thing. Actually, it's an application of my personal definition of good/evil, moral/immoral. I won't go into detail, but I've concluded that the proximate goal is one of the things that distinguish good from evil. My answer followed from that thinking. But doesn't that logic allow one to justify torture in order to save the soul? In other words, I only do this to save you. The pain i inflict is not because I want to, but because you must be cleansed. I harm you in order to save you, not to inflict pain, get information, etc. Nope. If you're choosing to inflict pain because the pain will get you something that you want, then the pain is the proximate goal and what you eventually want to get out of it is the ultimate goal. OTOH, if you believe that flaying somebody will benefit them (or you, or somebody else), and that benefit has nothing to do with the pain inflicted (maybe that it'll make them more attractive or something), that's not torture. Mechanically the process is the same, but since the reason is different it doesn't qualify. Doesn't necessarily make it non-Evil, but does make it not torture. I harm you in order to get that bridge secured. I do it in combat, and it's good. I do it after combat, and it's evil. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation. If the person being harmed is somebody who is capable of fighting and would try to kill you if they saw you, and you kill them without warning, for example, that's not in battle - it's preempting battle - but it's not evil. Chaotic, probably. But not evil. Now, WHY you were wanting to cross that bridge could have be evil. |
| Salla02-26-04, 06:19 PM | *sigh* Fighting and killing to protect innocents is not evil, provided you do not go beyond what is necessary to do so. Lobbing a fireball into an invading orc horde that are bound on pillaging and looting a village is fine, provided you do not catch any noncombatants in the blast radius. Paladins fight DEFENSIVELY, to protect, to defend, and only if they must. Suppose the bridge must be secured, and someone tries to cross it. First, why must the bridge be secured? Second, who's trying to cross it and why? They may be fleeing from the people who you're trying to secure it from. Three, ever heard of subdual damage? If you have reason to suspect that they're crossing the bridge for nefarious purpose (See: Sense Motive check), then strike to subdue. Execution IS murder; the premeditated, cold-blooded killing of a being incapable of defending itself properly. If you don't start the battle, then you're acting in self-defense and/or defense of innocents, which is acceptable grounds for killing unless the target surrenders, at which point you must accept it. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? |
| LordHell02-26-04, 06:30 PM | Originally posted by ehrin In DnD, murder is evil? Good lord, I have been playing it wrong all this time! I should instantly apologize to all the dragons, orcs, gnolls, bugbears, kobolds, rust monsters, gelatinous cubes, thieves, bushwhackers, etc. that my PC's have murdered over the years. Thank god somebody else realises that D&D is just a game, where evil monsters are evil monsters, not fluffy on the inside with real life morals, and capable of modern western thought. |
| Cabren02-26-04, 07:59 PM | Well, I finally figured out why I keep getting logged off... - Haradim, who needs to have a chat with someone.. |
| Haradim02-26-04, 08:11 PM | Reposted so it doesn't go to waste while I deal with other matters :rolleyes: : Originally posted by ehrin Why does 'just about anything go' in combat? Why is something "good" if we do it in combat, and "evil" if we do the exact same thing outside of combat? Well, for me at least, very little Good comes out of combat itself. And simply killing out of necessity (for food, or immediate survival) is not Good nor Evil. Animals do it all the time, and they are firmly Neutral. It's when it isn't completely necessary that it slips towards Evil. Things like murder, torture, vicious exploitation of others, and all the other things generally considered Evil, don't get the privledge of being lumped in with the 'it's just plain natural' excuse. Why is battle not murder? Why is execution not murder? isn't the person just as dead? Battle could easily be considered a hair's width away from being mass murder if one so desired. Generally, though, such occasions fall to Neutral, both out of convenience for the game, and because having huge numbers of people not defend themselves against Evil just doesn't work out well. Execution, however, is basically just sactioned murder. Had I ever deemed it necessary to go over an executioner's alignment, they would be Neutral at best. It's the same deal for assassins, really; while they may fill a useful or even necessary role in society, and even be reasonably decent people, it doesn't mean that they are considered Good by the beings responsible for determining the true measure of someone's soul. How to heal mental wounds: first thing that comes to mind, "wish". other ideas would be mind blank spells, reverse time spells, etc. Assuming they work properly, enforced mental reprogramming is usually not considered Good. Also, if I am in combat, and I get personal gratification from it, then is that torture? If I do my job, and do it well, and take pride in being the biggest baddest paladin in the battle, isn't that personal gratification? I know Pride is a sin, but does it make me evil? Does it mean I am now a torturer? A Paladin wouldn't get personal gratification about killing. He might feel it because what was done was necessary, though, and that Good scored a victory against Evil. I'd also like to restate something: Just because you can turn around and kinda-sorta 'undo' something like killing, doesn't change how you are considered by the powers that be. They would not just forget the transgression, the past events. There is a reason why 'redeemed' baddies generally don't have easy lives, and it's because people, the 'good guys', the 'bad guys', the gods, the world, everything, doesn't just forget what happened in the past because one turns to a different path. The events all still happened, and all still had the same impact. To *really* make amends for what was done, it takes more than a handful of spells, and a greater respect for the value of a life, than what is proposed here. The only way one could conceivably take true corrective measures like this would be through true time travel, and altering of history. And even that may not change anything. |
| Salla02-26-04, 08:52 PM | Originally posted by LordHell Thank god somebody else realises that D&D is just a game, where evil monsters are evil monsters, not fluffy on the inside with real life morals, and capable of modern western thought. And here we have proof positive why the Book of Exalted Deeds has a 'mature gamers only' label. |
| CeresOfTerra02-26-04, 09:09 PM | Why is it that whenever someone asks what they should do as a paladin, half the people suggest chaotic evil methods?! |
| Jaimas02-26-04, 09:46 PM | I'm not sure why that is, really. Some yahoo always posts that. It's proof positive that not everyone can play a Paladin correctly. |
| LordHell02-26-04, 10:06 PM | Yes because killing evil is automatically murder. We should just let them go and wait for them to kill someone innocent FIRST before we do anything about it. What a wonderful idea! Maybe if we're _really_ "good", we'll let them kill a whole bunch of innocent people before we decide if they're truely "evil" or not. Sound familiar doesn't it? I find this idealistic notion that Evil has a greater chance of being redemmed than it has of remaining evil extremely amusing. I also find the idealistic notion that Good and Evil in D&D are just "trying to get along" with each other equally amusing. DM: You see an Orc, you know it's evil. Paladin: Ok, I don't want to kill it, it hasn't done anything wrong yet? I don't want to murder it without a reaaaaally good reason! Opps, how terrible, I stood on a butterfly, oh my LORD I'm going to hell! DM: The Orc shoots you while you are being an idiot - You die. The Orc and his buddies eat you for dinner. |
| Salla02-26-04, 10:19 PM | Well, let's see ... Just because it's an orc doesn't mean it's evil. If the Orc isn't doing anything, and there's no reason to suspect that it's going to do anything, and you have no proof that it's done anything, then you leave it alone. Even if your Detect Evil shows up positive, all that means is that you should be suspicious. There's different levels of evil, y'know. There's 'I kill things', 'I steal things', and 'I'm just an obnoxious jerk'. Not all of them warrant killing; the punishment must fit the crime. DM: You see an orc. Player: Have there been any reports of orc raiders in the area? Is he doing anything suspicious? DM: Nope. He's just skinning a deer he hunted. Player: Does he show up on my Detect Evil. DM: Nope. Player: Ah. Then I go about my business. Hmm. Maybe I should cut-n-paste LordHell's remarks to the 'You know your DM is bad when ...' thread. |
| Jaimas02-26-04, 10:26 PM | That would be suitably ironic, considering how no one with the name "lordhell" should be posting on a thread regarding paladins to begin with. ¬_¬ |
| LordHell02-26-04, 10:29 PM | Originally posted by Salla Well, let's see ... Just because it's an orc doesn't mean it's evil. If the Orc isn't doing anything, and there's no reason to suspect that it's going to do anything, and you have no proof that it's done anything, then you leave it alone. Even if your Detect Evil shows up positive, all that means is that you should be suspicious. There's different levels of evil, y'know. There's 'I kill things', 'I steal things', and 'I'm just an obnoxious jerk'. Not all of them warrant killing; the punishment must fit the crime. DM: You see an orc. Player: Have there been any reports of orc raiders in the area? Is he doing anything suspicious? DM: Nope. He's just skinning a deer he hunted. Player: Does he show up on my Detect Evil. DM: Nope. Player: Ah. Then I go about my business. Hmm. Maybe I should cut-n-paste LordHell's remarks to the 'You know your DM is bad when ...' thread. There are different levels of Evil yes. Orc's generally come under the Brutal Evil part. A bit more than "I'm just an obnoxious jerk". Orcs are MOSTLY CHAOTIC EVIL, if you're going to fill your campaign with good aligned Orcs who are just going about their daily lives, EXCELLENT! I feel wonderful for you. But let's put minority situations aside. Replace that deer with a human and then what are you going to do? |
| LordHell02-26-04, 10:33 PM | Originally posted by Jaimas That would be suitably ironic, considering how no one with the name "lordhell" should be posting on a thread regarding paladins to begin with. ¬_¬ :rolleyes: |
| Jaimas02-26-04, 10:48 PM | And don't give me that look. :whatsthis: |
| LordHell02-26-04, 10:53 PM | When you really really think about it, if you want to a Paladin with modern ethics, then at the end of the day the paladin should _never_ kill under _any_ circumstances. This is going to result in a lot of dead Paladins. By our definition today killing _anything_ is evil. Even killing for self-defense is selfish. You are choosing to take their life instead of giving up your own. Therefor, if you want to play flawless Paladins that are morally right 100% of the time, your paladins should not kill ANYTHING - ever. They should be willing to give up their own lives before taking the life of even a Demon. This is the reason why we don't use modern real world ethics in D&D, otherwise nothing makes sense. This is why you have clear cut Good vs Evil, otherwise the game just gets ridiculously out of control - like this topic. Really you guys want Paladins to play the role of Jesus, and we all know how that ends. |
| Salla02-27-04, 12:05 AM | Now, you see, I don't see where my definition of evil isn't clear cut. If they aren't doing anything dangerous, where's the evil? You're assuming evil is genetic, which it isn't. Evil is a choice, just as good is, and any sentient being can make that choice. If angels can fall, demons can rise. I'm basing evil off of ACTIONS, not race. Oddly, nobody's ever complained. However, you don't KNOW that an orc is evil or dangerous without proof. The MM says they are 'often Chaotic Evil', which by the glossary means that 40-50 percent of them are CE, but exceptions are common. Therefore, as often as not, the Orc will not be evil, speaketh the book.:teach: |
| Haradim02-27-04, 03:44 AM | Originally posted by LordHell This is why you have clear cut Good vs Evil, otherwise the game just gets ridiculously out of control - like this topic. This only happens if people start going to extremes (like stating self-defense, or defense of others/innocents, is selfish and thus morally corrupting :rolleyes: ). People run games like this all the time, and if anything, they are generally considered richer because of the wider options available. I've never seen a problem arise with people using 'modern' ethics (whatever that might mean) in the game. The fact that you can't smite first and forget to ask questions doesn't really change all that much; if it's attacking you, you are probably allowed to kill it without much trouble. If it isn't, odds are you know (because your GM was wise enough to tell you beforehand) that you can't jump the gun and mug the Orc/Medusa/Drow/Beholder/whatever just because; you will need a reason, beyond race or whatever, to start bashing heads (if you are interested in Good, of course...N or E people might have somewhat different outlooks). Really you guys want Paladins to play the role of Jesus, and we all know how that ends. A two millenia old religion that has hundreds of millions of worshippers all over the world, many of whom take a lot of the 'peace, love, etc' stuff to heart? I don't think many Paladins would argue against such a role... Of course, none of us are talking about that. Well, unless we're talking about Exalted Paladins, but that's for masochists only :D |
| LordHell02-27-04, 04:56 AM | Originally posted by Salla Now, you see, I don't see where my definition of evil isn't clear cut. If they aren't doing anything dangerous, where's the evil? You're assuming evil is genetic, which it isn't. Evil is a choice, just as good is, and any sentient being can make that choice. If angels can fall, demons can rise. I'm basing evil off of ACTIONS, not race. Oddly, nobody's ever complained. However, you don't KNOW that an orc is evil or dangerous without proof. The MM says they are 'often Chaotic Evil', which by the glossary means that 40-50 percent of them are CE, but exceptions are common. Therefore, as often as not, the Orc will not be evil, speaketh the book.:teach: Detect Evil And often means "most of the time", which is probably 80%. Try telling a Dwarf that that Orc drinking at the bar is good, and that he is evil for wanting to kill the dwarf, especially after his kinfolk have all be slain by Orcish hands. |
| LordHell02-27-04, 05:01 AM | Originally posted by Haradim This only happens if people start going to extremes (like stating self-defense, or defense of others/innocents, is selfish and thus morally corrupting :rolleyes: ). People run games like this all the time, and if anything, they are generally considered richer because of the wider options available. I've never seen a problem arise with people using 'modern' ethics (whatever that might mean) in the game. The fact that you can't smite first and forget to ask questions doesn't really change all that much; if it's attacking you, you are probably allowed to kill it without much trouble. If it isn't, odds are you know (because your GM was wise enough to tell you beforehand) that you can't jump the gun and mug the Orc/Medusa/Drow/Beholder/whatever just because; you will need a reason, beyond race or whatever, to start bashing heads (if you are interested in Good, of course...N or E people might have somewhat different outlooks). A two millenia old religion that has hundreds of millions of worshippers all over the world, many of whom take a lot of the 'peace, love, etc' stuff to heart? I don't think many Paladins would argue against such a role... Of course, none of us are talking about that. Well, unless we're talking about Exalted Paladins, but that's for masochists only :D If I have learnt anything since 2001, it's the fact that just because someone isn't doing something wrong now, doesn't mean they wont do something wrong in the future. Evil is evil, and let's be honest, most people, or evil, never change. I'd much rather pre-empt Evil and get it right 99% of the time, than wait for someone innocent to die before doing something about it. Look your theories are very idealistic and happy happy joy joy, but the sole reason the Paladin class exists is to be the leader in the war against evil. There is a war in the default D&D world, Good Vs Evil, Balance vs Non-Balance, it comes directly from the gods themselves. A Paladin has mercy - a Paladin has honour - a Paladin has humility, but a Paladin does not appease evil, and while evil can have many forms, evil is still evil. |
| LordHell02-27-04, 05:11 AM | And more options does not equal a richer game, infact, I would argue some of the better games are the ones where the Pc's choices are very limited, forcing them to make do in the current situation. Go read the DMG thread about the posts on the tedium of high level combat for an example of why "more options" does not automatically equal a richer game. |
| The Wasp02-27-04, 07:21 AM | A paladin should not be afraid to kill evil, and should not hesitate. But he should be reasonably sure that someone he kills is guilty of a crime deserving death - i.e. murder, torture, desecration, etc. A petty swindler might be evil, or a politician that takes sexual bribes might be as well, but these crimes are not neccesarily deserving of death. Arguably. someone could be evil without having actually committed any evil actions at all. Evil itself is not a sufficient condition for death. Against an evil person who has committed a horrible crime, the paladin should brook no quarter, except in case of surrender. Even then, a paladin might still be justified in killing the evil one. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-27-04, 09:22 AM | Page 4 for me, wow. When did Orc's get introduced into the story? |
| pres_man02-27-04, 10:19 AM | Originally posted by LordHell Detect Evil And often means "most of the time", which is probably 80%. Try telling a Dwarf that that Orc drinking at the bar is good, and that he is evil for wanting to kill the dwarf, especially after his kinfolk have all be slain by Orcish hands. Racism is always evil. |
| Kain Darkwind02-27-04, 10:46 AM | Racism is always ignorant......but it doesn't qualify for evil. In some cases, its even justified ignorance. (Ie: Barbarian tribes attack and kill on sight, therefore you must attack and kill barbarians on sight) Like all other things, it depends on how you act on it. Not liking someone because of their race is one thing. No one says you have to like everyone, or why. Enslaving or killing someone because of their race, or treating them like lesser people.....that's when you move into evil. |
| Bacon and Eggs02-27-04, 10:55 AM | So who told, informed and educated the characters that racism is bad? If it's nobody, then how would the character know it's bad? |
| Tzor02-27-04, 11:10 AM | :teach: LordHell, you seem to delight in tearing down your own self made straw men. “By our definition today killing _anything_ is evil.” This is a paradox, because you have to at the very least kill a carrot to eat it, and if you don’t eat anything you’re in effect killing yourself. Clearly there are, by our definitions, many occasions where killing is not evil … it’s never good, but sometimes is often the necessary action. Self-defense and the just war theory are two examples. You also claim that “Evil is evil.” But what is evil? It sounds like a silly question in the light of the absolute standards of good and evil in D&D but from the point of view of the character it is a valid question. AD&D 1E had a know alignment spell, but 3E and 3.5E does not. One could suggest, “detect evil” as a way to determine evil, but an evil orc will only mildly radiate evil, while a neutral cleric of an evil deity will strongly detect as evil. So detect evil is a tool, a guidepost, not the blanket excuse. The orc, who is armed, who might detect as evil, (and if you can wait the three rounds to verify that he is evil he’s not an immediate threat) should not be ignored because there is a good probability that it might attack. It might attack the paladin, or it might attack someone else at a later date. This is different from the notion of “it’s evil so I get a excuse to kill it” argument. The purpose of the paladin is not to be a leader in the war. The purpose of the paladin is not to be a knight of a deity. The purpose of the paladin is not to destroy evil. The purpose of the paladin is to be the paragon of goodness and law. This drives all other factors of the paladin. The war between good and evil is not a case of black spy versus white spy, but a genuine difference between two forces with completely different outlooks towards the universe. |
| LordHell02-27-04, 05:47 PM | Originally posted by Tzor :teach: LordHell, you seem to delight in tearing down your own self made straw men. “By our definition today killing _anything_ is evil.” This is a paradox, because you have to at the very least kill a carrot to eat it, and if you don’t eat anything you’re in effect killing yourself. Clearly there are, by our definitions, many occasions where killing is not evil … it’s never good, but sometimes is often the necessary action. Self-defense and the just war theory are two examples. You also claim that “Evil is evil.” But what is evil? It sounds like a silly question in the light of the absolute standards of good and evil in D&D but from the point of view of the character it is a valid question. AD&D 1E had a know alignment spell, but 3E and 3.5E does not. One could suggest, “detect evil” as a way to determine evil, but an evil orc will only mildly radiate evil, while a neutral cleric of an evil deity will strongly detect as evil. So detect evil is a tool, a guidepost, not the blanket excuse. The orc, who is armed, who might detect as evil, (and if you can wait the three rounds to verify that he is evil he’s not an immediate threat) should not be ignored because there is a good probability that it might attack. It might attack the paladin, or it might attack someone else at a later date. This is different from the notion of “it’s evil so I get a excuse to kill it” argument. The purpose of the paladin is not to be a leader in the war. The purpose of the paladin is not to be a knight of a deity. The purpose of the paladin is not to destroy evil. The purpose of the paladin is to be the paragon of goodness and law. This drives all other factors of the paladin. The war between good and evil is not a case of black spy versus white spy, but a genuine difference between two forces with completely different outlooks towards the universe. You're being extreme pedantic and ignoring the context. Now, by _anything_ I meant other Humans. Why do you bring carrots into the equation? Context! Anyway, you missed my point entirely, my point was that modern real world ethics don't and shouldn't apply to D&D. What is evil? Evil is defined in D&D by the Alignments, they've made it quite clear actually! "should not be ignored because there is a good probability that it might attack. It might attack the paladin, or it might attack someone else at a later date. " This is pretty much what I've been saying the whole time.. "This is different from the notion of “it’s evil so I get a excuse to kill it” argument" This is an assumption by you that you've thrown in here. Infact, these two statements arn't really that different apart from you've made the second one sound like the person in question enjoys killing. The Paladin still kills evil, he may not particulary enjoy killing, but does it out of nessessity. The purpose of the paladin is not to be a leader in the war. Yes they are, they often lead holy wars. Read the DMG The purpose of the paladin is not to be a knight of a deity. Yes they are, they almost ALWAYS are infact. Where else do they get their abilities? Their magical steed? From thin air? The purpose of the paladin is not to destroy evil. Yes it is, otherwise there's really no point in taking this class. Some Paladins destroy Undead, some destroy Demons and Devils, etc, this is what they do! The purpose of the paladin is to be the paragon of goodness and law. This drives all other factors of the paladin. Goodness is usually defined by his diety, and law is subjective to his order. If his Diety commanded him to smite evil wherever he went, he would do so. In a D&D world this would be considered quite Heroic. Racial Prejudice is not evil. That's western thinking there. In D&D, Racial Prejudice is often justified. Elves are hardly evil for hating the Drow, now are they? |
| Bacon and Eggs02-27-04, 05:51 PM | Originally posted by Bacon and Eggs Page 4 for me, wow. When did Orc's get introduced into the story? When did carrots get introduced into this story? Okay, I'm officially confused. Wheres my V8? :mymy: |
| Jaimas02-27-04, 07:47 PM | Tzor, you rock! Allow me to back ye up. LordHell, I reiterate my previous statement on how someone with a nick like yours shouldn't have any place in posting a Paladin thread, you corrupter, you. Now this being said, having just re-read it, cover-to-cover, in no location in my DMG does it mention holy wars other than as a plot hook or how good could face good or neutral. That being said: Now, on the Deity issue, which you brought up. Yes, many Paladins follow Cuthbert, Heironious, Pelor, or whatever LG/NG/LN Deities there are. However, let us look at what these deities would expect of their followers, shall we? * The LG faith wants its members to lead by example, promoting the highest ideals of of chivalry, valor, and honor. Yes, they do smite evil creatures and such, but the key thing is for them to be beacons of hope and examples to others - just as Tzor said. * The NG faith states that the truly strong have no need to prove their power, save as a last resort. Thus, NG Clerics and Paladins of NG churches are urged to perform so many good deeds that evil has no room to exist, resigning itself to conflict only when all other means fail. * The LN faith focuses on proper punishment for those who break the law of a civilized, ordered society. Through careful regulation, swift, firm, but just punishment for lawbreakers, and ordered living, the LN faith believes society can be bettered for the benefit of all. Now let us analyze what we learned here, because it points out exactly how the paladin should act according to faith and his/her alignment. * Going by all three faiths, we know that in all circumstances, a Paladin must use his or her good judgement in his or her affairs. Often, stopping and thinking - if only a moment - is more than sufficient to analyze the situation and what must be done. If going by the LN Faith, then the key is to go after those who transgress the law. If by the NG Faith, then general benevolence, and if by the LG Faith, to serve as a paragon of goodness and law - such that even the most vile of foes is given pause by the presence of such a paladin on the battlefield. * We've learned, that from the BoED, it is not only acceptible, but NECESSARY for a paladin to think before he or she acts. While a paladin tends to see evil and good as living, elemental forces that should easily be divided into black and white, any reasonable man knows otherwise! A true Paladin must determine and understand the difference between the pure, unremitting evil of a Demon or Devil, and the misguided wrongs of a drunken bully. Paladins who become blinded by hubris are destined to need atonement, or become servants of the dark themselves. * Paladins virtually never adventure for lucre or personal gain - they seek out and battle evil creatures - such as fiends and undead - because they know it is the right thing to do. It is a rare thing indeed to see a Paladin that dies of old age; many become fatalistic as they proceed through life, knowing (correctly) that the examples they leave after their deaths will be easily as important - if not more so - as any actions they took in life. That being said, Tzor is right, and LordHell, you should listen, dangit! But there's another example he forgot: Let us consider the fact that there are evil creatures in this world - they may have accomplished terrifying acts of slaughter and brutality... But lo - by some divine epiphany - perhaps because they were under the sway of a cursed, intelligent item - they are trying desperately to make amends. At this point, they're still evil, and working their way back up to "neutral" via good deeds. Are these individuals still deserving of ye olde smite? Perhaps. But the fact of the matter is that they have already shown remorse, and are working very hard to get better. Let us consider the examples - such as, from the Manual of the Planes, the Wizard Mahlhevik - who dwells in celestia even now as he tries to make amends for his past misdeeds. |
| Jaimas02-27-04, 07:49 PM | *Gives Bacon and Eggs a can of V8, and a straw* Pull up a chair and have a seat. This is starting to get interesting. |
| Incenjucar02-27-04, 08:03 PM | A sane paladin, upon meeting an orc, and being aware of their tendancy towards the viler alignments, will use her or his ability to make sure there's no ambush. Then they will determine the orc's alignment. Then, if they feel the need to, they will speak with the orc. If the orc is evil, they will try to figure out -why-. They may well try to use a little nudge to remove that taint (Since a Paladin tends to have a much higher Charisma than the average orc, or even orc leader...). If the orc attacks, then the paladin must defend themselves. Not neccissarily lethally, unless they feel the orc isn't the sort who'd take kindly to redemption, or appology. The paladin is not judge jury and executioner, they are warriors with a right to survive. They are no more just in self-defense than a rogue. It is only when there is a proven threat to OTHERS that a paladin acts in the name of good. If an orc is a hundred miles away from the nearest civilization, and a paladin tries to kill it 'pre-emptively', that's doing against that living being for one's own sense of security, and naught else. |
| Jaimas02-27-04, 08:37 PM | Well said, Incenjucar. |
| pres_man02-27-04, 10:03 PM | "Good" characters running around killing "evil" races at random will only drive those "evil" races to become more evil. Evil Orc Cleric: You see what they did to Grouss, they killed him because he told them to get lost. They will kill you to if they see you. We must then attack them first and kill them. :teach: Neutral Orc Fighter: Yeah they killed Grouss, and though he was a bastard, he wasn't doing anything to deserve that. We have to stop them!!! :fight!: |
| Rotipher02-28-04, 12:30 PM | Originally posted by Bacon and Eggs So every death caused is a violation of rights, and a Paladin can kill no-one as they would be violating somethings right to live in every case. If a person has willfully violated *somebody else's* right to live, for any cause other than genuine self-defense or the legitimate administration of justice, then they have effectively forfeited their OWN right to do the same. *Then* they can justly be executed as a (Lawful) Neutral act, though Good retains the option to offer a higher level of mercy than this, if there's a chance of reforming the perpetrator. So an orc who's never hurt a fly cannot *justly* be killed. An orc who *has* killed someone -- not in self-defense or when carrying out a sentence decreed by a (fair!) trial, but for selfish reasons (sport, robbery, personal vendetta, etc) -- has forfeited its own right to live, because its actions *prove* it denies that a "right to life" even exists! Paladins kill orcs all the time, but they kill them for having killed others, not because "they're evil". A being that intentionally violates the rights of others *gives up its own rights* in equal measure. A thief gives up the right to property, and can justly be stripped of wealth and/or forced to pay the debt in labor. A mugger who hurts someone else's body forfeits the right to safety in their own person, so they can be punished physically (e.g. by beating, flogging) or by confinement (= loss of bodily freedom). A murderer can be executed, as can those whose crimes might temporarily make their victims *wish* they were dead (rapists, torturers). These are the standards of Neutral justice -- the most basic, t i t-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye kind of justice -- and are harsh *but fair*, for they apply the offender's own standard (e.g. "I think it's okay for me to kill people" => "It's okay for people to kill me") in determining what punishment is merited. Administering punishment of this magnitude is Neutral, as is self-defense against those who attempt to commit such offenses. Paladins can commit Neutral acts, and do so whenever justice or necessity -- particularly the safety of innocents -- demand. (They don't *enjoy* doing it, but they may.) OTOH, administering *pre-emptive* punishment for offenses not yet committed is Evil. How do you think that Evil beings tend to excuse their OWN misbehavior to themselves, anyway...? "If we orcs *don't* slaughter those helpless peasants, sooner or later they might possibly hire adventurers to hunt us down. Let's get 'em before they have the chance! (Dibs on the loot...)" |
| True Archon02-28-04, 04:45 PM | Ok. A few things should be cleared up. 1. Murder= The UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Homicide= The killing of one person by another. 3. Execution= A putting to death as a legal penalty; death LAWFULLY inflicted; as, the execution of a murderer. 4. Justifiable Homicide= The LAWFUL taking of another person's life by justifiable means (i.e. in self-defense). Mind you, I only looked up Murder, Homicide, and Execution from a dictionary source (Dictionary.com in particular). Justifiable Homicide was more from memory, though. Given these, it should also be noted that by DnD Rules (a summary of), Good can kill when certain circumstances are met without violating your status as a character of GOOD alignment. Now, back to the original topic post on hand, and keeping in mind the definitions above... If I were to play this paladin, it would probably go something like this: Paladin: "Sir, you are now my prisoner. Is that understood?" Trog: "Hiss, hiss, spit, spit, *GLARE*" Paladin: "As such, you will be held accountable for your actions." Trog: *Spits at the paladin* Paladin: *Pulling out a cloth, the paladin calmly wipes the spittle away* "I am going to give you two options. First, you will give us the factual information we need. We will secure you. You will give us your word of honor that you will not try to escape. Once we have completed our mission, we will transport you to the nearest law abiding community so that you will be judged for your crimes. I will testify on your behalf that you were willing to cooperate with us, and leniency MAY be given." Trog: "BLASPHEMOUS PALADIN SCUM!" Paladin: *Ignoring the outburst* "Or second. I will immediately act as judge, jury, AND EXECUTIONER in these untamed wilds. Being a man of honor, I'll tell you right now that your chances of avoiding a penalty of immediate execution from myself are almost nil based on the evidence I have witnessed thus far." Trog: "YOU..." *The troglodyte snaps his mouth shut as the two options sink in. At this point, a few rolls are most probably going to be needed. Diplomacy on the paladin's behalf, and Sense Motive on the trog's behalf (to see that the paladin is DEADLY SERIOUS). If the trog goes for option one, the paladin, and his companions, will have to either use Sense Motive or magic to be sure that they believe the trog is giving them accurate information and that he will not attempt to escape. If they do believe him, they will ALL stick to the terms ON THE PALADIN'S HONOR and INTEGRITY. If the group does NOT believe the Trog, the paladin will move onto the OPTION #2 RESPONSE by saying... Paladin: "You are not sticking to the terms of your first option. Therefore, I am moving onto the second option. Do you have any justifiable reasons for your evil actions? If not, I find you guilty of your crimes, and will carry out your execution immediately." If the trog picks option two, the paladin will then say... Paladin: "Do you have any justifiable reasons for your evil actions? If not, I find you guilty of your crimes, and will carry out your execution immediately." Simple. Cut and dry. Torture is evil, and cannot be used. A SENSIBLE paladin will know something is up if his companions "ask him to leave and watch the door for a few minutes", and will thus be held accountable for their actions (or his inaction). If the trog is later found to be breaking his word (by giving intention false information or trying to escape), the paladin will move onto option two. My apologies for the lengthy post, but I wanted to be thorough and clear. True Archon |
| Haradim02-28-04, 09:05 PM | Originally posted by LordHell If I have learnt anything since 2001, it's the fact that just because someone isn't doing something wrong now, doesn't mean they wont do something wrong in the future. Just because a Paladin is LG, doesn't mean they won't be LE later. Punishing something for future actions that may never come to pass is not a Good road to travel. Evil is evil, and let's be honest, most people, or evil, never change. Most people have no reason to. And many of the rest simply have no chance, or the taking the chance is just too dangerous. Think about what would happen if a tribe of Orcs offered peace and tried to forge at least neutral relations with Human or Elf or whatever neighbors while they settled down and set up the infrastructure needed to no longer need to raid and pillage. Even disregarding whatever alignments they may have at the time (probably Neutral, though these things don't change overnight...usually :P), they would probably be wiped out within a very short amount of time, by people 'pre-empting' the possibility of later problems. So it isn't even worth it to an Orc (or whatever) to try to be different, much of the time. They may be perfectly willing to be Good, upstanding members of world society, but the choice of being Neutral or Evil and surviving, and being Neutral or Good and still getting persecuted or killed by everyone else, is not a strong motivator for being Good. I'd much rather pre-empt Evil and get it right 99% of the time, than wait for someone innocent to die before doing something about it. Too bad that 1% will cost most Paladins their status, assuming a GM willing to let them get that far. Look your theories are very idealistic and happy happy joy joy, but the sole reason the Paladin class exists is to be the leader in the war against evil. Not really. Paladins exist to champion Good. Fending off Evil when necessary is but a part of that. Wise Paladins don't seek to destroy Evil, given that they are probably aware that it's not possible. Not through force, anyway. There is a war in the default D&D world, Good Vs Evil, Balance vs Non-Balance, it comes directly from the gods themselves. I doubt any Good god is going to object to a Paladin seeking to combat Evil by turning it against itself, by making it Good. Assuming gods have any bearing over alignment in the first place, and that a Paladin needs to care about their opinion. Neither of which is particularly default by the books. A Paladin has mercy - a Paladin has honour - a Paladin has humility, but a Paladin does not appease evil, and while evil can have many forms, evil is still evil. Only as long as it is Evil, of course. |
| Salla02-29-04, 09:21 AM | Re: My definition of 'often'. I was quoting the glossary in the Monster Manual, which defines 'often' for alignment as 40-50 percent. Attacking evil is not inherently good. Let's take an example: A tribe of goblins occupies the hills near a town. They are raiders, and attack caravans from time to time, and thus are evil. If you attack them to defend the caravans and the townsfolk and protect innocent lives, then you have accomplished good. If you attack them to take the caravan goods for yourself, and conquer the territory so that the town can expand, then you have accomplished evil. In both cases, you attacked the Goblins. However, whether or not your goals were good or evil varied. pres_man has an excellent point. 'Evil' races are only such because that's how they're raised. They don't know any other way to live. But just as they were taught evil, they can be taught good. |
| LordHell02-29-04, 04:20 PM | I really have to disagree. Many of you are looking at the this from a Earth Western Perspective. This is a fantasy games where such morals and ethics do not apply. We live in relative harmony. We don't have monsters, devils, demons, etc You can travel from one city to the other in relative saftey. There is no Good or Evil as there is in D&D. So we say "Killing is murder". Most of us don't even believe in any form of diety so making up morals and ethics is something our society does. Also, there is only one dominant race on our planet: Humans. The D&D world is very very different to this. This is a fantasy game set in medieval times with a completely different context. Many intelligent races (but not all) get their beliefs directly from their respective god, in the case of Orcs, it even says so in the Monsters Manual. "Orc's belief that the way to survive is through war and conquering....blahblahblah... their God (Grumich or whoever) encourages this." If all the Good aligned gods say "Smiting evil is good", then in D&D it is Good. You can't say it's Evil because that's what the Western World defines it as. We're not in Kansas anymore. Now, most of the powers that be are at war. That's right. War. This extends down to their followers. The Paladin class is a warrior. This indicates he is trained in the arts of war, violence, and killing. A Paladin is also a Holy Warrior. Common sense tells me that a Paladin isn't just some chum who teaches goodness, he enforces it with steel! He is representation of his diety as is a cleric, but his power is in the power of Steel. He is a soldier. What do you think Soldiers do? Honestly? They kill. Now onto the Orc issue. A Paladin would know if an Orc is good or if an Orc is evil, he has the detect evil ability. If it's evil, he would kill it. You can't tell me "What if the orc is doing nothing wrong", because Evil Orcs don't do "nothing wrong". A good or neutral Orc might not be doing anything wrong, but then the Paladin would know that and probably spare it's life. You cannot argue that an Evil Orc is harmless, just as much as I cannot argue that a Good Orc deserves death, which is why I am not talking about Good Orcs(or even trying to argue that, despite what some of you think), and you should stop trying to bring them into the equation. Common Sense and Context people. Now, a non-Paladin character who cannot detect evil might WAIT for an Orc to display their actions first before killing them, unless they had a racial (and justified) hatred towards the Orc, such as a Dwarf. But by the same token a Dwarf cannot be considered evil for wanting to kill every Orc he sees if his whole clan was mercilessly killed by one, or his people are at War with them. He is still racially prejudiced against Orcs, akin to Elves and Drow, and he is still Good. You don't have to play the role of Jesus to be Good in D&D, and I would think it is foolish to roleplay a character, even a Paladin, in a flawless type role. Paladins, like almost everyone in D&D, have preconceived notions about the world they live in. Put yourselves in the shoes of people in your D&D world. They don't have access to the Monsters Manual where it says "Orcs are often evil". They only get their knowledge about the world through heralds, town cries, etc. Town Cries, like our own real world media, are hardly going to report good news. No one wants to hear that. All most people are going to learn about Orcs is that they are brutal killers. All these people in the D&D world are going to have preconceived notions that MOST Orcs are EVIL and will KILL YOU if you DO NOT KILL THEM. This all depends on your own D&D world, but I of course, am talking "In General". |
| bitnine02-29-04, 04:23 PM | Originally posted by LordHell All these people in the D&D world are going to have preconceived notions that MOST Orcs are EVIL and will KILL YOU if you DO NOT KILL THEM. Yeah, honestly. That's what makes killing the neutral and good ones a good act as well - the majority are evil, so I can't really be bothered to up and check on every one that I put to the sword. It's the same reason that killing hobgoblin infants by lighting them aflame is okay, because most of them would probably be evil. |
| LordHell02-29-04, 04:56 PM | Originally posted by bitnine Yeah, honestly. That's what makes killing the neutral and good ones a good act as well - the majority are evil, so I can't really be bothered to up and check on every one that I put to the sword. It's the same reason that killing hobgoblin infants by lighting them aflame is okay, because most of them would probably be evil. People in a D&D world don't all carry a copy of the MM. This is called metagame thinking. If every Orc you've ever heard about is evil, why would you assume they could be Good? Your post is equally absurd if you factor into the Paladins detect evil ability, so he KNOWS wether or not it is evil. |
| Haradim02-29-04, 04:58 PM | Originally posted by LordHell This is a fantasy games where such morals and ethics do not apply. Says who? There is no inherent requirement to use any particular morality at all, or to even really care about Good or Evil. I'm sure there are plenty of games where your character is Good simply because that's what's on the character sheet, regardless of what they are actually doing. The D&D world is very very different to this. This is a fantasy game set in medieval times with a completely different context. The fact that the game has a medieval setting is more flavor than any requirement to adhere to a particular ethical and moral system that most players probably don't even know about (as I doubt many DnD players were around in those days). Many intelligent races (but not all) get their beliefs directly from their respective god, in the case of Orcs, it even says so in the Monsters Manual. "Orc's belief that the way to survive is through war and conquering....blahblahblah... their God (Grumich or whoever) encourages this." Few races are bound to actually obey their god regardless of all other circumstances. There is nothing stopping an Elf or an Orc from saying that they will not worship Corellon or Gruumsh. Heck, the biggest threat they may have is from other members of their species, who may look down on such a thing; the god itself generally remains out of the picture, uncaring by all accounts. If all the Good aligned gods say "Smiting evil is good", then in D&D it is Good. You can't say it's Evil because that's what the Western World defines it as. We're not in Kansas anymore. True enough, assuming you use gods to define your alignment. Many do not go with this, however. The Paladin class is a warrior. This indicates he is trained in the arts of war, violence, and killing. A Paladin is also a Holy Warrior. Paladins have no inherent connection to any deity. Indeed, I propose that such a relationship would get in the way of a Paladin's duty to do Good above all else, since gods always have agendas. What do you think Soldiers do? Honestly? They kill. And you'll find very few people who are Good because if it, in many games. Now onto the Orc issue. A Paladin would know if an Orc is good or if an Orc is evil, he has the detect evil ability. If it's evil, he would kill it. You can't tell me "What if the orc is doing nothing wrong", because Evil Orcs don't do "nothing wrong". In many games, you can be Evil and not have ever lifted a finger. You can be Evil because that's the only option available to ensure your survival (starve to death slowly and painfully, or go slaughter the local human peasants who are certainly not going to help you if you do it diplomatically?). You can be Evil via curse or magic item. Detect Evil gives enough information to be wary, but it doesn't tell all the circumstances; it just provides a faint aura that may well be gone if you did the same test the next day, and may well be a false aura placed upon a creature by some outside source. To go thumping based on that alone, does nothing to further Good in the world. You cannot argue that an Evil Orc is harmless A creature is only harmful if it's causing harm. You don't need to hurt anyone to be Evil. Now, a non-Paladin character who cannot detect evil might WAIT for an Orc to display their actions first before killing them, unless they had a racial (and justified) hatred towards the Orc, such as a Dwarf. Hatred will also cause an eventual loss of alignment in the games I speak of *shrug* But by the same token a Dwarf cannot be considered evil for wanting to kill every Orc he sees if his whole clan was mercilessly killed by one, or his people are at War with them. Depends if they want to be Good or not. Nobody is going to object if they are aiming for Neutral. You don't have to play the role of Jesus to be Good in D&D, and I would think it is foolish to roleplay a character, even a Paladin, in a flawless type role. The role of Jesus is generally reserved for Exalted characters. But that doesn't change the fact that you Good to be Good. Killing based on race, hatred, or fickle alignment is non-Good, in many games. All most people are going to learn about Orcs is that they are brutal killers. All these people in the D&D world are going to have preconceived notions that MOST Orcs are EVIL and will KILL YOU if you DO NOT KILL THEM. But they are not the people who get to define Good and Evil. What people believe to be good or evil is entirely separate from alignment. Most people are firmly Neutral, and they will believe that an Evil tyrant is 'good' (or at least, 'not too bad') so long as his rule benefits them...even if the Elves or Orcs or Humans are being slaughtered by his order. Anyway, I think this thread (well, our mini-thread, at least) has about reached its conclusion. There is nothing more to be gained by arguing this. EDIT: My quoteage skills suck today... |
| LordHell02-29-04, 05:21 PM | Originally posted by Haradim Says who? There is no inherent requirement to use any particular morality at all, or to even really care about Good or Evil. I'm sure there are plenty of games where your character is Good simply because that's what's on the character sheet, regardless of what they are actually doing. The fact that the game has a medieval setting is more flavor than any requirement to adhere to a particular ethical and moral system that most players probably don't even know about (as I doubt many DnD players were around in those days). Few races are bound to actually obey their god regardless of all other circumstances. There is nothing stopping an Elf or an Orc from saying that they will not worship Corellon or Gruumsh. Heck, the biggest threat they may have is from other members of their species, who may look down on such a thing; the god itself generally remains out of the picture, uncaring by all accounts. True enough, assuming you use gods to define your alignment. Many do not go with this, however. Paladins have no inherent connection to any deity. Indeed, I propose that such a relationship would get in the way of a Paladin's duty to do Good above all else, since gods always have agendas. And you'll find very few people who are Good because if it, in many games. [/b] In many games, you can be Evil and not have ever lifted a finger. You can be Evil because that's the only option available to ensure your survival (starve to death slowly and painfully, or go slaughter the local human peasants who are certainly not going to help you if you do it diplomatically?). You can be Evil via curse or magic item. Detect Evil gives enough information to be wary, but it doesn't tell all the circumstances; it just provides a faint aura that may well be gone if you did the same test the next day, and may well be a false aura placed upon a creature by some outside source. To go thumping based on that alone, does nothing to further Good in the world. A creature is only harmful if it's causing harm. You don't need to hurt anyone to be Evil. Hatred will also cause an eventual loss of alignment in the games I speak of *shrug* Depends if they want to be Good or not. Nobody is going to object if they are aiming for Neutral. The role of Jesus is generally reserved for Exalted characters. But that doesn't change the fact that you Good to be Good. Killing based on race, hatred, or fickle alignment is non-Good, in many games. But they are not the people who get to define Good and Evil. What people believe to be good or evil is entirely separate from alignment. Most people are firmly Neutral, and they will believe that an Evil tyrant is 'good' (or at least, 'not too bad') so long as his rule benefits them...even if the Elves or Orcs or Humans are being slaughtered by his order. Anyway, I think this thread (well, our mini-thread, at least) has about reached its conclusion. There is nothing more to be gained by arguing this. EDIT: My quoteage skills suck today... [/B] Fine. I seriously disagree with most people in this thread, so I'm not going to change my argument any time soon. :) |
| bitnine02-29-04, 05:46 PM | Originally posted by LordHell If every Orc you've ever heard about is evil, why would you assume they could be Good? What bearing does that have on whether them executing children is a good act or not? |
| Jaimas02-29-04, 05:55 PM | What we have here is a failure to communicate. See, some men, just don't get it. Get like we had here last week. That's the way they want it? That's the way they get it. I don't like it any more than you do. That Cool Hand Luke reference aside, Even in D&D, where good and evil are so easily subdivided, there are a WIDE array of gray areas, and LordHell, to deny this is fallacy. By your example, any Creature that merely flickers on the Pala-dar (roving about with detect evil, looking for random passersby to smite) accomplishes good? Can I ask how so, especially, when, even if they're evil, they've never done anything wrong to warrant such a smiting? Your logic dictates that it works via play mechanics, but it fails to hold water in the long run when discussing Paladin conduct. Consider this, verbatim from a fellow poster, as an example: Farmer Joe, a Lvl 1 LN Commoner, returns home to find Margaret, his wife, in bed with Raoul the mail carrier. Emotions run hot, but Farmer Joe, keeping his cool somewhat, leaves the area immediately before he does something rash, so he can be rid of this anger before talking this over with his wife. Mind you, Farmer Joe is angry, and in all seriousness, he has every right to be. He's thinking irrational thoughts, such as stabbing Raoul in the eyes with a rusty hook. He most certainly doesn't act on these, but he's certainly thinking about it, it only a little. Depressed, and a little inebriated, Farmer Joe elects to come home and tell Margaret that he forgives her. Enter Bob the Paladin. Farmer Joe is still angry from before, and logically so. Bob the Paladin, wandering with Detect Evil active, notices that Farmer Joe has the lowest possible detectable evil score, and thus, kills him on the spot. Yes, folks. Bob did good today. :rolleyes: Props to whosever can tell me who originally gave that example. It's been said before, and it'll be said again. A Paladin's role is to serve as an example and a shining beacon of good. I've already punched holes in the deity arguement, and others have already done the same, as well as shooting down the "Reality Difference" arguement, I won't stab deeper. Simple Fact: A Paladin who walks around randomly smiting anyone who so much as flickers on the Paladin radar is far closer to LN then LG, and is nothing more than a zealot who shall be judged by his actions appropriately - if not by his brethren or church, then by a higher authority... |
| Jaimas02-29-04, 05:57 PM | And Bitnine, thank you. I apologize for the earlier comment. I was just screwing around. Forgive me if you took any offense before. |
| LordHell02-29-04, 06:11 PM | You are taking things wildly out of context, really. Common Sense, please. Basically this is my argument: In times of War, indiscriminate killing on the battlefield or sometimes off it, is not nessesarily evil. Since Orcs by their very definition, regardless of alignment, use war and conquest to survive (monsters manual) they are in an undeclared state of war with anyone outside their tribe. Infact, many other "often evil+" races are like this. The Drow being a similar example. All specific worlds, Good Aligned Orcs, and case-by-case examples non-withstanding. |
| bitnine02-29-04, 06:30 PM | Originally posted by LordHell In times of War, indiscriminate killing on the battlefield or sometimes off it, is not nessesarily evil. Now that you put it that way... I suppose executing their women and children would get at the evil half (well, not quite half) that the usually tag denotes. That's got to be a good act then! |
| LordHell02-29-04, 06:47 PM | Originally posted by bitnine Now that you put it that way... I suppose executing their women and children would get at the evil half (well, not quite half) that the usually tag denotes. That's got to be a good act then! Collaterial Damage Seriously though, most of us don't put Orc Women and Children in D&D adventures (Orc women look the same :) ). I posted this on a similar discussion taking place, so I'll post this here again. This discussion is really getting wildy out of context now anyway. I think many of us are arguing for the sake of it. I really don't think that if we sat down at a bar we would have much of a disagreement, since in real life conversations you cant be easily quoted out of context all the time. So I propose something we can both agree upon. Unjustified Killing is Evil. Justified Killing is Not Evil. Now, we can argue forever over wether something is justified or not, so I propose we don't. |
| Jaimas02-29-04, 08:11 PM | Since you're clearly losing at your chosen sobriequet. |
| LordHell02-29-04, 08:16 PM | Originally posted by Jaimas Since you're clearly losing at your chosen sobriequet. I knew this was coming. Clearly you had to get in the last jab didn't you? I would happily take this discussion to private message or something of the like. |
| Jaimas02-29-04, 08:32 PM | No, it's just that you seem to not like any examples we give, regardless of how relevant, that do not coincide with your viewpoint on this subject. This being said, Let's look at one of my favorite quotes from this arguement so far: I'd much rather pre-empt Evil and get it right 99% of the time, than wait for someone innocent to die before doing something about it. Let's do an analysis here. Let us assume, for the most part, that given a "usually" alignment, in a community of 100 evil beings, conservatively, 2 of them are of a different alignment. That only lowers the percentage from your original 1% - to 98% of the time. Now let's say this Paladin were to start "Operation Ethnic McCleansing" and systematically wiping out the "Evil" races globally - starting with, say, the orcs, moving onto goblinoids, drow, duergar, gnolls, illithids, etc... Let us assume that, by some fluke, the first race of the campaign falls with comparitive ease, and let us also assume, that conservatively, the Paladin in this circumstance had, in eliminating the Orcs, killed 50000 of them. By the previous figure, that would mean that 1000 innocents were caught in the crossfire. What would this Paladin's church say? Well, being as paladin deities are either LG, LN, or NG, nothing positive. What would this Paladin's fellows say? They would say he was guilty of genocide - something considered an act of evil such as the world has never seen before, in the BoVD. He would be in no way better than the Orcs he just slew. In pre-empting, he not only committed an act of unforgivable slaughter, but is almost certainly to be hunted not only by those who fear whom the next race on said hit-list would be, but by his own fellows who would find his behavior abhorrent. Taking this a step further, I want you to think, if only for a moment, what the fate of a Paladin who does such actions in Ravenloft would be. Talk about divine retribution. Nerull is kind and merciful compared to the Dark Powers. No need to take this to PM - it's a public discussion, yo! |
| bitnine02-29-04, 08:39 PM | Originally posted by Jaimas Let us assume, for the most part, that given a "usually" alignment, in a community of 100 evil beings, conservatively, 2 of them are of a different alignment. That only lowers the percentage from your original 1% - to 98% of the time. Now let's say this Paladin were to start "Operation Ethnic McCleansing" and systematically wiping out the "Evil" races globally - starting with, say, the orcs, moving onto goblinoids, drow, duergar, gnolls, illithids, etc... Eh, it's about as fun as a celestial that decides to start slaughtering humans because of their "any/neutral" alignment. Obviously to said celestial, coming from an "always good" race, there's a hell of a lot of evil humans - and the only way to be SURE to be rid of evil is to make sure that the only beings who remain are also "always good". |
| Jaimas02-29-04, 08:46 PM | Leave it to friggin' outsiders to set an absolutely hideous example. Almost none of them qualify to be considered "Exalted." |
| Salla03-02-04, 12:27 PM | There's a very thick line between what's 'acceptable' and what's 'good'. To your average schmo, it may be acceptable to wander around whacking goblins, kobolds, orcs and hobgoblins on sight. That does not make it good. In a war, a certain number of civilian casualties and collateral damage is considered 'acceptable'. It is not 'good'. A Paladin doesn't care about what's acceptable. He cares about what's good. |
| bitnine03-02-04, 01:59 PM | Originally posted by Salla A Paladin doesn't care about what's acceptable. He cares about what's good. That is a excellent way of putting that distinction. There are at the very least four levels of evaluating actions. Acceptance, contextual: A society might fully support the brutal slaying of their enemies or preach certain practices as being common sense. If elves have been fighting a bitter war with the lizardfolk of their region, the two might attack each other on sight, and that's accepted as the norm. Acceptance, character: Given characters in the game world might have full reason to act a certain way. Of course someone who's grown up in a war against the lizardfolk, only hearing about their depraved slaughter and how they dine on the flesh of captured enemies will likely not take any chances with such and treat them as devils incarnate. Even if these are all lies, they form a perfectly valid motivation for certain actions - actions that are valid in character. Acceptance, personal: You as a player, outside of the game, likely approve and disapprove of certain actions. You might fully support killing things that are likely enemies before they get a chance to react because of your extreme fondness of living. This behavior is something that you can lend a seal of approval to and understand fully. Objective evaluation: These two above don't change the classifications of an act. Brutally slaying a tribe of lizardfolk over a land dispute while they sleep isn't a good act. It might be accepted by society, it might be a valid action for a character to take, it might even be one that you personally can empathize with - but none of these make it good. Does that mean that a character in this situation is automatically evil? Certainly not. In the heat of a savage war, where either side is fiercely fighting the other, with no holds expected and no quarter given, it's akin to a mutual pact, and likely neutral. The slaying of noncombatants and good creatures is still going to be an evil act, but given the context and motivations, the impact of this evil act on a character's mindset is not going to be absolute. Even a good character, in many cases, can lean towards certain evil actions and still remain good as a whole. To use an example that I've mentioned before, a stalwart defender of the land who seeks to protect all before him and sacrifices his time and effort putting his life on the line to defend his kingdom, donating the majority of his pay to the needy is probably going to be a good character. Even if he does get drunk on occaison and beat his wife. However, beating his wife is not a good act. Perhaps society condones it and its all the rage, and perhaps the character has proper background and motivation that this would indeed be the action that he would take. (Maybe you even personally believe in such.) None of this makes the given act good within D&D - though that does not mean that he is necessarily evil for comitting it. Paladins, on the other hand, throw something of a wrench into this with their pledge to never do evil, and the idea that they forfeit their powers if they knowingly do so. They've made a pledge to certain powers, and receive benefits in return - which are contigent on staying very narrowly focused on the ideals that those powers represent. If you want to change that, and instead have the Paladin pledge to futher the "ultimate goals" of those powers, without so much of a concern of a strict adherance to acting with accordance to ideals, that's fine. In fact, it allows a Paladin to worry more about efficiency and the results of his actions than being bound to an abstract ideal. All in all, that's probably a lot easier to grasp for a lot of people, and likely a lot more playable for them as well. Elsewise, a Paladin in particular will probably indeed be concerned with such actions and at times may even find himself opposed to actions that are otherwise acceptable within society or provide an efficient result. And these are the reoccuring issues of contention from which most of these threads arise. Depending on how seriously it is taken, and how much the DM works with the party in dealing with these issues, it can indeed disrupt the flow of play and cause quandries. Heck, in a lot of these situations, one of the base underlying problems is that of compatability. There are a great many adventuring groups that a Paladin probably wouldn't associate with, instead focusing on groups of a more like-minded nature who can appreciate his ideals and qualms and act accordingly. It's not surprising when a group of the former disposition is put together by virtue of the varied characters being PCs that there's going to be certain levels of contention and conflict. Depending on the style of gameplay, glossing over certain ideas, actions, and the like might be appropriate to keep the game moving - including removing noncombatants from the game world and not worrying about any moral implications arising from conflicts with hostile antagonists. Heh, perhaps it would be less of a problem if the draw of the Paladin's archtype wasn't so strong as to grab the attention of many players. I suppose that I wouldn't mind seeing a few alternate concepts of champions of good stressed within the PHB so as to fit some characters who want to be such whose style of play might not exactly fit the confines that they've set in the Paladin. I could definately see a NG champion of good who believes that a strict adherance to a code of honor can sometimes hurt the very cause that it attempts to support, who holds himself to such where he feels it is reasonable, but doesn't lose sight of what he hopes to accomplish. Someone who hasn't pledged to never commit an evil act, but instead will do such when it proves necessary (if other ends are exhuasted), but with reluctance and regret afterwards. Or perhaps a neutral character who pursues the causes of good and supports many of the champions thereof because he personally feels safer under such and believes it's in his own benefit to do so. Someone who's concerned primarily with the expediency in which goals can be accomplished, who shows a healthy (and realistic, for many) amount of self-interest, but unlike an evil character, not at the expense of others, if possible. Likelike a character who believes in making the world a safer and better place for his race, country, or clan - and if that conflicts with the same for other peoples and creatures, believes it to be a necessary conflict. |