| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Zankue04-11-07, 12:20 AM | I was just thinking about restrictions, like how paladins shouldn't attack, or kill a helpless being, but does this mean that Coup De Gracing is also bad?? being a Chaotic Good bard I'm pretty sure that I can, but can a fellow paladin or lawful good character? I mean what's so evil about killing an evil enemy even though it's down, may be against some code of honors but I don't think that it's that bad. |
| tharivol26604-11-07, 12:27 AM | the paladin code of honor says they cant. there is nothing inherently evil or wrong with CdG a foe. Paladins just dont do it. |
| Dragonteuthis04-11-07, 12:33 AM | the paladin code of honor says they cant. It does? Where? |
| Khoran04-11-07, 12:56 AM | It does? Where? It dosn't, actually. It just says that a Paladin must act honorably. It's really a matter of perspective. Some would see CdGing as dishonorable, some people wouldn't, and this is where the paladin code gets messy, since a lot of it is open for interpritation. RAW dosn't specifically mention CdG, so it falls into that grey area in the rules. I won't state my opinion on the matter, I don't want to open that can of worms. |
| Comus04-11-07, 01:01 AM | It dosn't, actually. It just says that a Paladin must act honorably. It's really a matter of perspective. Some would see CdGing as dishonorable, some people wouldn't, and this is where the paladin code gets messy, since a lot of it is open for interpritation. RAW dosn't specifically mention CdG, so it falls into that grey area in the rules. I won't state my opinion on the matter, I don't want to open that can of worms. And that's why, as DM, you have to either provide the character with a written paladin's code he has to follow, or help him write his own. It stops a lot of problems if player and DM both know what's expected of a paladin's actions. |
| Archangel_James04-11-07, 01:52 AM | Just make sure you pronounce the second C, but not the P. |
| Dazzer04-11-07, 02:41 AM | It depends on the situation. As usual. Coup-de-Grace in my opinion can be performed by a Paladin on any Evil Outsider, that is also evil, without question. They by description, are beyond redemption, and only live to serve evil, so the only way to stop this evil, is the remove them, hence killing, hence it would be ok to coup-de-grace. The same would go for a priest of an evil deity, blackguard, or any other evil creature of similar evil, who after speaking to them, or facing them, refuse any attempts by the Paladin to receive redemption and begin atoning. (If the paladin hasn't actually tried to redeem them, he doesn't know if they are beyond redeeming, hence, I would say cannot Coup-De-Grace in good consciousness). For a regular evil person, it depends. If he is a Paladin who believes in merciless fight against evil, and he downs an evil wizard, and coup-de-grace instead of healing him and imprisoning him, and that murdering the wizard doesn't break any laws in the country he is in, then it should be ok, depending again on the situation. If the wizard is attacking people and generally showing his evilness, then yes, after fighting him, and downing him, Coup-de-grace, acceptable. If the wizard was drinking his morning tea, had a paladin burst through the door sword wailing and was simply defending himself...then no...that's bad...no CDG for you!! So it like most Paladin things, depends. They can do it, but it has to be a clearly last resort thing. Devils, Demons, Soulless ones. Speaking of which, I would allow a Paladin to CdeG anyone who has sold their soul to a devil; who is also evil aligned and does evil things. But not someone who is attempting to do good although will inevitably go to hell for selling their soul! :) |
| danielinthewolvesden04-11-07, 02:51 AM | If you can kill them in normal combat,you can CdG them. Now, when a foe begs for mercy- then a Pally has to be merciful. But if you have downed a super dangerous monster, you do not have to be nice and give the BBEG cleric a chance to heal said monster and have him kill you in return. CdG it is. The Pally is already handicaped by being a Warrior class as it is- let us not make him fight handcuffed too. |
| Corpsekin04-11-07, 02:55 AM | I wouldn't say a coup de grace is dishonourable, it's pretty much exactly the same as executing someone. so provided the person u r killing has broken a law punishable by death then there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. on the other hand coup de gracing someone that has surrended is dishonourable |
| danielinthewolvesden04-11-07, 02:59 AM | If you can kill them in normal combat,you can CdG them. Now, when a foe begs for mercy- then a Pally has to be merciful. But if you have downed a super dangerous monster, you do not have to be nice and give the BBEG cleric a chance to heal said monster and have him kill you in return. CdG it is. The Pally is already handicaped by being a Warrior class as it is- let us not make him fight handcuffed too. |
| mcnoo04-11-07, 08:53 AM | You're all assuming the coup-de-grace is against a person. Anything monstrous or generally unintelligent, dragons, animals, demons, undead, is typically considered to be exempt from being protected by your paladinic code of honour except in fairly arbitrary circumstances. You're not exactly going to challenge a golem to a fair fight and you don't care if someone stabs the Balor in the back, but you might (or might not) have a problem with someone butchering a lion that's trying to escape after it fails to ambush you. Whether intelligent but nasty creatures and humanoid types such as yuan ti or orcs are included in this depends largely on the outlook of the paladin, if they follow a merciful or a warlike god. There's a bit of room for creativity here. For the races making up the general population, the ones the pladinic oath is all about protecting, then I'd say a general no to a coup-de-grace if you've knocked them out in combat and they're no longer a threat, but it's fine if they're incapacitated for a round or two mid fight and you're just getting a good blow in while you have the chance. A paladin should have a good sit down before he plays his character and work out exactly what his own interpretation of the code of honour is. It's much more flexible than people give it credit for. |
| Evil DM Mk304-11-07, 10:21 AM | It is, as allways, a matter of context. Coup De Grace on a slowly deing oponent? Could be called mercy. On a helpless but powerful oponent, far safer for all concerned, to not do it would put others in danger. But yes there are circumstances where is would be against the code. |
| Leilond04-11-07, 10:44 AM | There's no "final answer" There are situation where it's perfectly within the code. Immagine a Paladin 10th level paladin in front a sleeping evil huge red dragon that destroied 10 small villages eating all the inhabitants. What shall the paladin do? Wake him up and die in his fire (because he knows the dragon is over his possibilty)? Or leave it and look for help? So that the dragon can go to the nearest village to kill another 200 people. If I was the Paladin God I will refuse him to come to my view because his STUPID and BLIND view of the "code" was the cause of 200 innocent (and probably more) deaths! This is an EXTREME example, but there are lot of "Gray zones" that can be resolved ONLY by talking between players and DM because everyone has his view of "the code" |
| Man in the Funny Hat04-11-07, 01:52 PM | I was just thinking about restrictions, like how paladins shouldn't attack, or kill a helpless being, but does this mean that Coup De Gracing is also bad?? being a Chaotic Good bard I'm pretty sure that I can, but can a fellow paladin or lawful good character? I mean what's so evil about killing an evil enemy even though it's down, may be against some code of honors but I don't think that it's that bad.There is nothing in the rules that says a Paladin may not or should not attack or kill helpless beings. The PH says that the paladins code includes "respect for sentient life", but also says a lot more along the lines of upholding justice and punishing evil. So, just because a paladins foe may be helpless doesn't mean that a Paladin is forbidden, or should be hesitant about carrying through HIS ORIGINAL INTENT which was to KILL it. The paladin CAN be hesitant. He CAN be MORE honorable, and cautious, and forgiving than he needs to be. But nothing in the rules says he must. |
| IceFractal04-11-07, 02:03 PM | If killing something is ok by the code, then so is CdGing it. Heck, it even means "blow of mercy" (or "blow of fat", if you spell it "coup de gras"). |
| Tichondrus04-11-07, 02:22 PM | Guys, for a start, let's not fall into this: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=808103 That said, it depends, as stated above by Dazzer. If you know the enemy is evil and beyond redemption, kill it, the ways are the less importan thing, just be sure he deserves it. If you are fighting him and you party's wizard casts hold person, enjoy! CdG it, after all, it's only fair for battle purposes. Again...don't fall into the http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=808103 |
| Daergal_the_Black04-11-07, 02:24 PM | If killing something is ok by the code, then so is CdGing it. Heck, it even means "blow of mercy" (or "blow of fat", if you spell it "coup de gras"). I think, in English, it actually means a blows that kills an already mortally wounded or suffering foe. Since no one is "mortally wounded" under the D&D rules until they actually expire (you can always save their lives, even if you don't want to), and wounds never inflict "suffering" anyway, appeals to the "original meaning" of the term don't mean much. In this case, though, it's absolutely G*%$#%^&$ stupid to not let paladins (or other good characters) coup de grace. If you attack me, I get to do my best to kill you. Those are the rules in D&D, and "my best" means killing you as quickly as I can. It doesn't matter if they are unconscious, tied up, unarmed, surrendered, 8-years old, human, humanoid, other or anything else. If they attack me, they are on the list of things to kill using any method I so choose. Any DM who rules otherwise gets smacked. |
| Tichondrus04-11-07, 02:28 PM | It doesn't matter if they are unconscious, tied up, unarmed, surrendered, 8-years old, human, humanoid, other or anything else. If they attack me, they are on the list of things to kill using any method I so choose. And get exp and treasure from it |
| Cartigan04-11-07, 02:30 PM | the paladin code of honor says they cant. there is nothing inherently evil or wrong with CdG a foe. Paladins just dont do it. I think that is the Knight code of honor. |
| Dragonteuthis04-11-07, 03:44 PM | My first post was mostly sarcasm. Because, as others pointed out, the Paladin code of honor doesn't mention coup de grace's at all. I'd also like to point out in the description of Lawful Good, they give an example of Alhandra fighting evil without mercy. Obviously that's as open to interpretation as the code is, but it implies to me that coup de grace'ing a known, violent enemy would not be dishonorable (would it be evil or chaotic? Depends on the circumstances). |
| SmilinBandit04-11-07, 04:01 PM | Wow, the Paladin code seems to be a real problem for some people. There have been quite a few threads about it for some time now. I mean come on, the Paladin is the warrior of a church in which even the Clerics are trained in heavy armed and armoured combat. He lives in a world with ravaging orc hordes, the evil Lichs undead armies and bad tempered dragons. Sure he does have a code, but you got to differentiate between a duell of honor amongst honorable men (and women) and war. There is not much honor in the war against the ultimate evil. Sure you can start a philosophic debate and talk the Paladin into uselessnes, but I prefer to play my Paladin like a Warhammer40k Spacemarine, thats a real mindset for Paladins who want to fight the evil in the world... and win! |
| BW022204-11-07, 04:12 PM | Folks, Comus takes the cookie with his... And that's why, as DM, you have to either provide the character with a written paladin's code he has to follow, or help him write his own. It stops a lot of problems if player and DM both know what's expected of a paladin's actions. Anything else is just too subjective. If really depends upon the setting and intent of the character. Who are you coup de gracing? Why are you killing them this way? What is going to happen if you don't coup de grace them? What are the setting/laws on this? If you are a paladin hunting down a group of friendish trolls who must ate the mayor of the village and his three children... humm... 1) The fact they might regenerate, be healed by an evil priest, etc. is likely good enough reason. 2) Are you actually going to save them, transport them back to town, and put them on trial? Is it possible? Is it worth risking more lives if they got free? 3) And even if you could do all this safely, it is likely that being a fiendish troll is an automatic death sentance. Even if it isn't, eating children is a death sentance. Nothing says that folks in a D&D setting need to follow modern day rules of innocent until proven guilty, evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, or even trials. The paladin might have the 'legal' authority to dispatch foes on the spot. Honestly, you weren't sent to negotiate with them? At some point, being practical should be a good enough reason. However, I think that is best left to each paladin/DM to sort out prior to play. Which types of creatures deserve a trial? By who? How much risk is one willing to take to go through this? What if you know the outcome of the trial? What position does the paladin hold in terms of law enforcement? |
| Derren S.04-11-07, 04:31 PM | dragons, demons, undead, is typically considered to be exempt from being protected by your paladinic code of honour Why? There is no difference between a evil human and an evil dragon. Evil is evil no matter in what form. The paladin code makes no destinction based on the race of the evildoer. |
| Prator_the_Legendary04-11-07, 05:01 PM | Maybe dragons are a bad example, but demons, undead, and other creatures with the "Always Evil" descriptor are not. There IS a difference between creatures that are evil because they were made that way and creatures that are evil as part of a concious choice they have made. |
| Khadmus04-11-07, 05:09 PM | If killing something is ok by the code, then so is CdGing it. Heck, it even means "blow of mercy" (or "blow of fat", if you spell it "coup de gras"). Coup de Gras pour la victoire! (Blow of Fat ftw!) |
| theotherdraxen04-11-07, 05:20 PM | Is a coup de grace attack an evil act? (i.e., can a paladin make such an attack without falling from grace?) The coup de grace is simply a kind of attack and is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. In some cases, it’s the best option against a foe (such as an unconscious but regenerating troll). If attacking a particular character would be considered an evil act—such as stabbing an innocent merchant in the middle of his shop—delivering a coup de grace on that character would be just as evil. Of course, if the paladin has already promised to face her foe in nonlethal combat, delivering a coup de grace would almost certainly violate her code of conduct. Bam. :) |
| Cariyaga04-11-07, 05:22 PM | and that murdering the wizard doesn't break any laws in the country he is in *buzzer* Paladins do not have to follow the laws of a country if those are not in the defense of a common good. |
| mlund04-11-07, 05:34 PM | Yeah, the Paladin's Code of Conduct is very vague in the Player's Handbook. It leaves a lot of room for customization for individual characters, campaigns, or organizations (Churches, Knightly Orders, etc.). Coup de Grace is not an innately Evil Act. It is not an innately Chaotic act. Any onus it receives on the scales of Good and Evil or Law and Chaos is dictated entirely on the context of the act. Paladins don't have a problem here unless they have a very ill-advised Code of Conduct. Healers, on the other hand, may have a severe hang-up that keeps them from performing such an act. - Marty Lund |
| Cariyaga04-11-07, 05:45 PM | Actually, it is a common misconception that paladins cannot perform chaotic acts. According to the RAW, they cannot perform evil acts, but it says nothing about chaotic acts. |
| Cartigan04-11-07, 05:54 PM | Actually, it is a common misconception that paladins cannot perform chaotic acts. According to the RAW, they cannot perform evil acts, but it says nothing about chaotic acts. But Paladins have a specific alignment requirement and straying from it at all requires atonement. |
| Cariyaga04-11-07, 06:02 PM | A single act of chaos does not constitute an alignment change. Though, from what I know of paladins, having never played one, s/he'd probably still feel bad about it. |
| Cartigan04-11-07, 06:05 PM | A single act of chaos does not constitute an alignment change. I realize that but I was making a counterpoint to your statement about Chaotic acts. |
| mlund04-11-07, 06:13 PM | Actually, it is a common misconception that paladins cannot perform chaotic acts. According to the RAW, they cannot perform evil acts, but it says nothing about chaotic acts. They can perform either kind of act. The issue is what kind of consequences each act causes that character to face. They are distinct in that regard. - Marty Lund |
| Stormbrand04-11-07, 06:19 PM | You're all assuming the coup-de-grace is against a person. Anything monstrous or generally unintelligent, dragons, animals, demons, undead, is typically considered to be exempt from being protected by your paladinic code of honour except in fairly arbitrary circumstances. You're not exactly going to challenge a golem to a fair fight and you don't care if someone stabs the Balor in the back, but you might (or might not) have a problem with someone butchering a lion that's trying to escape after it fails to ambush you. Whether intelligent but nasty creatures and humanoid types such as yuan ti or orcs are included in this depends largely on the outlook of the paladin, if they follow a merciful or a warlike god. There's a bit of room for creativity here. Just being human does not get a monster off the hook. |
| Nephlite04-11-07, 06:20 PM | There's no "final answer" There are situation where it's perfectly within the code. Immagine a Paladin 10th level paladin in front a sleeping evil huge red dragon that destroied 10 small villages eating all the inhabitants. What shall the paladin do? Wake him up and die in his fire (because he knows the dragon is over his possibilty)? Or leave it and look for help? So that the dragon can go to the nearest village to kill another 200 people. If I was the Paladin God I will refuse him to come to my view because his STUPID and BLIND view of the "code" was the cause of 200 innocent (and probably more) deaths! The rules don't punish you for inaction or active action. So letting hm live isn't evil (neutral). But neither was killing him (can be a good act). Sure, Gods are petty and jealous (look at Lolth, she is a Teenager). This is an EXTREME example, but there are lot of "Gray zones" that can be resolved ONLY by talking between players and DM because everyone has his view of "the code" Another facet that is wrong with the CoC. |
| Leilond04-12-07, 04:24 AM | The rules don't punish you for inaction or active action. So letting hm live isn't evil (neutral). But neither was killing him (can be a good act). That's your interpretation. I think that an act like that (leaving the dragon alive) will cause serious problem to the Paladin that need to have a serious "talk" with his God to understand the meaning of "protect the innocent", wich surely do not means "leave an huge red evil man-eater dragon alive". It is probably not an "evil act" but (in my games) it isn't surely an act that a paladin can do without any bad consequence It is ALWASY a matter of opinions. All the party members (players) must talk about the issue and choose TOGHETER how the "code of conduct" must be interpreted in this situation. Too many times I've seen people going mad only because there are different interpretation on the code... but the code is "really vague" on the book and probably it is vague for a reason... let us choose how to manage it |
| BW022204-12-07, 09:05 AM | Derren S. Why? There is no difference between a evil human and an evil dragon. Evil is evil no matter in what form. Perhaps. However, we then get into a question of lawful. The laws of the land might vary based on race. A nation might have a law stating that all criminals must be put on trial. However, such laws would obviously only apply to certain races. In some nations it might mean only humans, or only PC races of humaniods, or all humaniods, or all intelligent creatures, etc. Laws might easily include that all evil dragons must be killed. Few places are going to require that every creature be treated equally. Animals, vermin, etc. rarely have any rights. "Yes, magistrate, I killed my pig because my family wanted dinner? Were you going to put him on trial?" The paladin code makes no destinction based on the race of the evildoer. Of course it does. First, such a code is up to the player and/or DM to create. Second, don't tell me that a chicken, tree, or disease has the same rights as a person. Third, nothing says that the code can't be practical. If you can't honestly capture a dragon and bring it back to town, the creature is going to be executed in town anyway, or it is just too dangerous to risk... there is little point in taking it prisoner. Forth, provided it is adheres to some form of law, nothing says that paladin might not have the authority to be judge anyway. For example, if a noble can order the death of a commoner... unless someone knighted the dragon, nothing says that the paladin can't find him guilty himself. Fifth, the god/race/order of the paladin could easily dictate his code. If he is a dwarven paladin working for some lord his code is likely going to be different than an elven paladin of a nature god. DMs should have each PC paladin either write up their own code, or write up one for them. They are certainly going to be tailored based on their backgrounds and are almost always going to take their opponent's race into consideration. |
| Leilond04-12-07, 09:23 AM | Derren S. Perhaps. However, we then get into a question of lawful. The laws of the land might vary based on race. A nation might have a law stating that all criminals must be put on trial. However, such laws would obviously only apply to certain races. In some nations it might mean only humans, or only PC races of humaniods, or all humaniods, or all intelligent creatures, etc. Laws might easily include that all evil dragons must be killed. Few places are going to require that every creature be treated equally. Animals, vermin, etc. rarely have any rights. "Yes, magistrate, I killed my pig because my family wanted dinner? Were you going to put him on trial?" Of course it does. First, such a code is up to the player and/or DM to create. Second, don't tell me that a chicken, tree, or disease has the same rights as a person. Third, nothing says that the code can't be practical. If you can't honestly capture a dragon and bring it back to town, the creature is going to be executed in town anyway, or it is just too dangerous to risk... there is little point in taking it prisoner. Forth, provided it is adheres to some form of law, nothing says that paladin might not have the authority to be judge anyway. For example, if a noble can order the death of a commoner... unless someone knighted the dragon, nothing says that the paladin can't find him guilty himself. Fifth, the god/race/order of the paladin could easily dictate his code. If he is a dwarven paladin working for some lord his code is likely going to be different than an elven paladin of a nature god. DMs should have each PC paladin either write up their own code, or write up one for them. They are certainly going to be tailored based on their backgrounds and are almost always going to take their opponent's race into consideration. Really well said. You pointed out the very issue. Not all paladins have the same "code". The "code" differs between Gods and Places I think that Moradin will not be so sad if his paladin mercyless execute the evil goblin cleric that diseased the water and killed 100 dwarves. The paladin simply look at the surrending goblin and smash his head with the hammer of Moradin in the name of his God There's not a final answer. I re-quote previous poster DMs should have each PC paladin either write up their own code, or write up one for them. They are certainly going to be tailored based on their backgrounds and are almost always going to take their opponent's race into consideration. |
| Nephlite04-12-07, 11:05 AM | Really well said. You pointed out the very issue. Not all paladins have the same "code". The "code" differs between Gods and Places I think that Moradin will not be so sad if his paladin mercyless execute the evil goblin cleric that diseased the water and killed 100 dwarves. The paladin simply look at the surrending goblin and smash his head with the hammer of Moradin in the name of his God There's not a final answer. I re-quote previous poster DMs should have each PC paladin either write up their own code, or write up one for them. They are certainly going to be tailored based on their backgrounds and are almost always going to take their opponent's race into consideration. Why does the Paladin have a explicit Code and not: "here is a example code, DMs should taiolor this to best fit your group's veiews." |
| Shatteredtower04-12-07, 07:29 PM | The code states that a paladin must act with honour. So let's ask a few questions: 1. What honour in there in murdering enemies in their sleep? 2. How does one honourably kill a helpless foe, especially one that is clearly weaker than yourself? 3. Is there a benefit to being seen to act with honour? I've seen people all but argue that everything must be done to kill evil (or even non-evil, in one laughable example given here) creatures, a classic case of ignoring the disease in favour of the symptoms. It's like treating dysentary by cutting off one's intake of water. Fighting evil without mercy means showing exactly how good differs from evil. It's not about being prettier or only slaughtering the guys who set off your banedar. It's about conducting oneself in a manner that leaves an impression on your everyone that sees you in action. Some see your honour as a liability, a weakness that can be exploited. Others recognize it as cause to trust you with their lives, even if you are still viewed as a fool. Still others recognize it as strength, knowing that only the truly weak need to take advantage of others, to "win" by killing rather than by conduct. I'm not saying that the paladin cannot perform a coup de grace. I am saying that honour dictates that the paladin's actions ought to be distinguished from those of bullies, butchers, sadists, and other monsters. One must also act in a manner that shows the paladin is subordinate to the needs of the community. This needs be nothing more than flavouring your actions at times. It may mean as little as offering a prayer before executing the momentarily helpless foe, or making mention of the crime for which you are now striking it down. It may mean that you secure a foe until it is again aware enough to hear the litany of charges against it before you execute it. However it's done, do it with class. Ignore the cowards that argue for expediency: Do they have the means to guarantee that your enemy won't be resurrected in the morning, return as an undead in the knight, or become a demon lord within a thousand years? No? Neither do you, but the only thing that is going to make a positive difference is doing things properly. Sometimes, it does come with risk. Why would you ever try to haul a dragon back alive to the village it burned? Two reasons: it gives the community the chance to address the wrongs done to it, and it shows your respect for lawful authority. (Despite the claim, Judge Dredd was not the law.) If you cannot accomplish this safely, is it a flagrant violation of the code of conduct to instead kill it in its lair? No, it is not. It's not a decision you should be taking lightly, but there's no reason it should leave the paladin impotent to act against evil either. I'm in favour of the code as written because it does allow for some flexibility in interpretation. It means that paladins can disagree on how to handle any given situation without one (or both) having to be wrong, or at least wrong enough to get knocked from the paladin list. It also means that most of the disagreements can be answered simply by reviewing the points as a series of questions. Sometimes, the paladin can even get away with a weak answer -- up to a point. After that, the self-justifications are self-evident from the moment they're spoken. In the dragon example presented earlier in the thread, the argument against waking the dragon up is sound, but attempting the coup de grace is probably not the best option either for one reason: how likely do you think it is that your paladin managed to sneak up to a dragon like this? Is the dragon playing possum? Attempting to deal with this problem on your own is not intelligent. Fortunately, stupidity is not against the paladin's code. In the case of the fiendish trolls, the code does not say you must bring them back alive. It does suggest that this is the preferable course of action in many cases, however, as it displays respect for the right of legitimate authority to mete out punishment. It helps those in need by giving power to those otherwise powerless to deal with the threat. If you can do that, it is in your interests to try. If the risk seems too great, it may be open for discussion among your peers afterward, but you are not in gross violation of the code. Cutting down anyone that attacks you, though? That's just asking for loss of paladin privileges, especially if you develop a reputation for it. Don't blame the DM if you're daft enough to play a paladin like this. |
| WhiteRaven81004-12-07, 10:31 PM | Let's remember the moral of a very important thread. Good does not mean nice. |
| Shatteredtower04-13-07, 01:24 AM | Let's remember the moral of a very important thread. Good does not mean nice.Nor does honour. It does, however, mean showing observers how you are different than the actual monsters at every opportunity. |
| Leilond04-13-07, 06:34 AM | The code states that a paladin must act with honour. So let's ask a few questions: 1. What honour in there in murdering enemies in their sleep? 2. How does one honourably kill a helpless foe, especially one that is clearly weaker than yourself? 3. Is there a benefit to being seen to act with honour? I've seen people all but argue that everything must be done to kill evil (or even non-evil, in one laughable example given here) creatures, a classic case of ignoring the disease in favour of the symptoms. It's like treating dysentary by cutting off one's intake of water. Fighting evil without mercy means showing exactly how good differs from evil. It's not about being prettier or only slaughtering the guys who set off your banedar. It's about conducting oneself in a manner that leaves an impression on your everyone that sees you in action. Some see your honour as a liability, a weakness that can be exploited. Others recognize it as cause to trust you with their lives, even if you are still viewed as a fool. Still others recognize it as strength, knowing that only the truly weak need to take advantage of others, to "win" by killing rather than by conduct. I'm not saying that the paladin cannot perform a coup de grace. I am saying that honour dictates that the paladin's actions ought to be distinguished from those of bullies, butchers, sadists, and other monsters. One must also act in a manner that shows the paladin is subordinate to the needs of the community. This needs be nothing more than flavouring your actions at times. It may mean as little as offering a prayer before executing the momentarily helpless foe, or making mention of the crime for which you are now striking it down. It may mean that you secure a foe until it is again aware enough to hear the litany of charges against it before you execute it. However it's done, do it with class. Ignore the cowards that argue for expediency: Do they have the means to guarantee that your enemy won't be resurrected in the morning, return as an undead in the knight, or become a demon lord within a thousand years? No? Neither do you, but the only thing that is going to make a positive difference is doing things properly. Sometimes, it does come with risk. Why would you ever try to haul a dragon back alive to the village it burned? Two reasons: it gives the community the chance to address the wrongs done to it, and it shows your respect for lawful authority. (Despite the claim, Judge Dredd was not the law.) If you cannot accomplish this safely, is it a flagrant violation of the code of conduct to instead kill it in its lair? No, it is not. It's not a decision you should be taking lightly, but there's no reason it should leave the paladin impotent to act against evil either. I'm in favour of the code as written because it does allow for some flexibility in interpretation. It means that paladins can disagree on how to handle any given situation without one (or both) having to be wrong, or at least wrong enough to get knocked from the paladin list. It also means that most of the disagreements can be answered simply by reviewing the points as a series of questions. Sometimes, the paladin can even get away with a weak answer -- up to a point. After that, the self-justifications are self-evident from the moment they're spoken. In the dragon example presented earlier in the thread, the argument against waking the dragon up is sound, but attempting the coup de grace is probably not the best option either for one reason: how likely do you think it is that your paladin managed to sneak up to a dragon like this? Is the dragon playing possum? Attempting to deal with this problem on your own is not intelligent. Fortunately, stupidity is not against the paladin's code. In the case of the fiendish trolls, the code does not say you must bring them back alive. It does suggest that this is the preferable course of action in many cases, however, as it displays respect for the right of legitimate authority to mete out punishment. It helps those in need by giving power to those otherwise powerless to deal with the threat. If you can do that, it is in your interests to try. If the risk seems too great, it may be open for discussion among your peers afterward, but you are not in gross violation of the code. Cutting down anyone that attacks you, though? That's just asking for loss of paladin privileges, especially if you develop a reputation for it. Don't blame the DM if you're daft enough to play a paladin like this. There are PRIORITIES! Is for a Paladin more important the "honor" or the life of 200 hundred people (little baby included)? Paladins cannot be simply "I don't mind if my honor act will cause the death of 200 hundred people, I must act like this"! It isn't "black or white", but there are tons of grays in those situation How can be solved? The PHB give a general and not detailed code of conduct, that do not cover all possible situations nor all possible grays. The DM and the players have to work to define those things and no one can tell them how to handle their game |
| Daergal_the_Black04-13-07, 07:03 AM | There are PRIORITIES! Is for a Paladin more important the "honor" or the life of 200 hundred people (little baby included)? Paladins cannot be simply "I don't mind if my honor act will cause the death of 200 hundred people, I must act like this"! It isn't "black or white", but there are tons of grays in those situation How can be solved? The PHB give a general and not detailed code of conduct, that do not cover all possible situations nor all possible grays. The DM and the players have to work to define those things and no one can tell them how to handle their game Okay Paladin, there's a bomb in the village and the mage who planted it won't tell you where it is. The only way to get the information to to torture (and possibly kill, if you're not careful) the mage's infant daughter. What do you do? What do you do? :D (Best answer, kill the mage take his stuff and hope you can find the bomb without his help. If not, find the bodies of those killed in the blast and loot their stuff too.) |
| Leilond04-13-07, 07:13 AM | Okay Paladin, there's a bomb in the village and the mage who planted it won't tell you where it is. The only way to get the information to to torture (and possibly kill, if you're not careful) the mage's infant daughter. What do you do? What do you do? :D (Best answer, kill the mage take his stuff and hope you can find the bomb without his help. If not, find the bodies of those killed in the blast and loot their stuff too.) This is a "specific example". We're talking about a general rule There are situation that make me accept a paladin "torture someone", with some negativ consequence, while there are other situtations "torture" will means losing of ALL paladin powers with NO possibility to regain In this SPECIFIC situation I could give an answer. But if you ask to a second DM you can recive a different answer. And from a third DM you'll recive a third and different answer What I'm saying is that sometimes, for some questions, there are answers that nearly all players and DM accept without discussion. For other specific situations, different DMs have different ideas... different from players ideas The only way to handle the issue is "open a friendly and kind debate at the table an give an answer valid only at that table with that DM and with those players" |
| daggeroflath04-13-07, 07:27 AM | Well if we're going RAW, the closest we've got to a guideline on D&D morality is the BoED which says that an evil act is always evil, regardless of circumstances. In a world where heaven and hell not only exist, but can be visited, I think that this is fair. In D&D good and evil aren't philosophical points of view to be argued, they're sides of a great war that has spanned eternity. Leilond said "For other specific situations, different DMs have different ideas..." I complicated that even further. I'll often change how things work between games (different campaign worlds have different rules). But I always discuss these things with the players, so it's not a big problem. |
| Leilond04-13-07, 07:51 AM | Well if we're going RAW, the closest we've got to a guideline on D&D morality is the BoED which says that an evil act is always evil, regardless of circumstances. That's sure. But if a paladin commit an Evil act he can lose his power until he makes something to regain them or lose the powers FOR EVER because the evil act is so unjustified that his god will ban him forever from his view Evil is evil, that's true, but there are evil things and EVIL things and TERRIBLY EVIL THINGS Some will make your paladin simply lose some powers for a while, some act will make your paladin lose ALL his powers until he regains his "honor", other will make your paladin los ALL his powers for ever... others will make his own church will search to kill him for punishement In a world where heaven and hell not only exist, but can be visited, I think that this is fair. In D&D good and evil aren't philosophical points of view to be argued, they're sides of a great war that has spanned eternity. Leilond said "For other specific situations, different DMs have different ideas..." I complicated that even further. I'll often change how things work between games (different campaign worlds have different rules). But I always discuss these things with the players, so it's not a big problem. Exactly what I'm talking about. I totally agree. Talkin with players IN ADVANCE is the only way to avoid problems... and sometimes talking between session is necessary too |
| daggeroflath04-13-07, 09:30 AM | That's sure. But if a paladin commit an Evil act he can lose his power until he makes something to regain them or lose the powers FOR EVER because the evil act is so unjustified that his god will ban him forever from his view Evil is evil, that's true, but there are evil things and EVIL things and TERRIBLY EVIL THINGS Some will make your paladin simply lose some powers for a while, some act will make your paladin lose ALL his powers until he regains his "honor", other will make your paladin los ALL his powers for ever... others will make his own church will search to kill him for punishement Well yes, everyone has their own opinion on this. I don't use the RAW personally for this, just letting people know that this issue has been discussed in the rule books. Personally I think that paladins and clerics are given magical powers because their gods trust them with those powers. If the character ever shows the god he's not trustworthy, then the god will have to deal with the problem. However cutting them off for all time isn't a good plan. After all, how many people in the world even come close to being worthy as a paladin... do you want to lose any of them forever if you don't absolutely have to? Exactly what I'm talking about. I totally agree. Talkin with players IN ADVANCE is the only way to avoid problems... and sometimes talking between session is necessary too Oh absolutely. I've known and roleplayed with all my players for the last five years at least (longer in some cases). We spend a lot of our time discussing gaming, plots of movies/books and philosophy with each other... we still have to make sure that we have an open dialogue about our current games, or we get misunderstandings. I think you'll always need to talk to your players, or you'll get misunderstandings which can hurt your game. When someone plays a paladin this is really important. |
| Nephlite04-13-07, 09:32 AM | That's sure. But if a paladin commit an Evil act he can lose his power until he makes something to regain them or lose the powers FOR EVER because the evil act is so unjustified that his god will ban him forever from his view Evil is evil, that's true, but there are evil things and EVIL things and TERRIBLY EVIL THINGS Some will make your paladin simply lose some powers for a while, some act will make your paladin lose ALL his powers until he regains his "honor", other will make your paladin los ALL his powers for ever... others will make his own church will search to kill him for punishement Um, no Atonement is not a choice: unless the Cleric do not want to help you: you regain your powers. Maybe serving no Diety (Paladins don't have to srrve one in the Core game), but he can regain them. |
| Leilond04-13-07, 10:47 AM | Um, no Atonement is not a choice: unless the Cleric do not want to help you: you regain your powers. Maybe serving no Diety (Paladins don't have to srrve one in the Core game), but he can regain them. This is your interpretation of the Paladin To make an "unbelivable" example, if my paladin ambush some merchants to gain the 200 golds he need to buy the magic sword he's wishing since two month, killing in the while the two little sons of the merchant, I consider him not a paladin to lose his status... and probably I will never give him the opportunity to bring it back Is it right? No. Is it wrong? No... it's my way, the way me and the group I DM will find perfectly right and by the idea behind the RAW |
| _Jayne_Cobb_04-13-07, 11:30 AM | Knights in the middle ages carried a dagger called a misericord ("merciful heart"). It was a long, thin dagger designed specifically to punch though chainmail and pierce the vital organs beneath but was far too thin and light to be used in combat. When a knight had greviously injured a fellow he would dismount, apply the misericord to a gap in the armour (usually under the arm) and plunge it into his heart in order to deal a killing blow to the wounded fellow knight rather then let him suffer. Indeed the term coup de grace literally means "blow of mercy" and comes from this act. NOTE: Yes I know D&D is not the middle ages and yes I know that real-world knights are not D&D paladins, but the idealised "knight in shining armor" is the paradigmatic model for the paladin so it is at least worth considering. |
| Daergal_the_Black04-13-07, 12:13 PM | Knights in the middle ages carried a dagger called a misericord ("merciful heart"). It was a long, thin dagger designed specifically to punch though chainmail and pierce the vital organs beneath but was far too thin and light to be used in combat. When a knight had greviously injured a fellow he would dismount, apply the misericord to a gap in the armour (usually under the arm) and plunge it into his heart in order to deal a killing blow to the wounded fellow knight rather then let him suffer. Indeed the term coup de grace literally means "blow of mercy" and comes from this act. NOTE: Yes I know D&D is not the middle ages and yes I know that real-world knights are not D&D paladins, but the idealised "knight in shining armor" is the paradigmatic model for the paladin so it is at least worth considering. Worse. Why knife the guy to end his suffering when a DC 15 heal check also ends it? In medieval times most big wounds were fatal. Even if they didn't kill you outright, they killed you slowly and painfully. So mercy blows actually were merciful. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_04-13-07, 12:19 PM | Worse. Why knife the guy to end his suffering when a DC 15 heal check also ends it? Cos he is still your enemy and you still want him dead. In medieval times most big wounds were fatal. Even if they didn't kill you outright, they killed you slowly and painfully. So mercy blows actually were merciful. I know. That was the point. |
| Daydreamer04-13-07, 08:20 PM | This would depend on specific situations and how the dm interprets the paladin code. It may even be that the paladin code-the code of a specific diety-prevents this. However, ill give two situations, one i think would be sort of ok, the other would not. The pcs are attacked by evil members of a cult of demon worshippors who they have actively been charged to destroy. They dont have much time to fight them, but the wizard uses a sleep spell on them, i would say yes to coup de grace. the pcs stumble upon an orc encampment and the orcs are asleep, they dont know who the orcs are or why they are here. I would say this is not ok for a coup de grace. |
| Cartigan04-13-07, 08:53 PM | I wasn't aware the Paladin was meant to be the paragon of chivalry. |
| Shatteredtower04-13-07, 11:45 PM | There are PRIORITIES!Indeed. And I noted them. Is for a Paladin more important the "honor" or the life of 200 hundred people (little baby included)?"What shall it profit a man if he gain the world but lose his own soul?" The paladin does not get to lightly play the expediency card. "Two hundred people might die!" does not necessarily matter more than, "There is a right way to act." Now that belief may offend your sensibilities, but there it is. The paladin is not compelled to take the right path, but repeated or extreme failure to take the high road is going to have consequences in the long run. Contrary to what some believe, a loss of paladin powers are only a warning of the consequences, not the consequences themselves. In other words, there is something more at stake than life. Paladins cannot be simply "I don't mind if my honor act will cause the death of 200 hundred people, I must act like this"!Sure they can. There are consequences to that also. Nevertheless, that statement doesn't in the least represent what I said. Who said the paladin does not mind making the honourable choice? I've allowed for paladins to commit genocide in game without loss of powers. The decision was not made lightly to slay every man, woman, and child in the valley, but in the absence of any other means to save their neighbours from the curse that made these people a threat to all they encountered, in the absence of divine intercession, the paladin reluctantly made the decision to wipe them all out. It was not the ideal solution, but it was acceptable to me for several reasons. First, the paladin did not simply go through his captives like a butcher. There was method to the execution, an effort to perform the deed with as much compassion as was possible. There was tremendous remorse; the player opted to have his character haunted by the ghost of a child -- real ghost or just a vision in his mind, does it matter? And there was no end of prayer before or after the action. "I do not know what to do. If there is an alternative, please show me." No expendiency, no Lip-Service Good. The paladin did a dirty job, and very greatly did he mind the need to do it, but his DM let him remain a paladin, and I support that. The character acted with honour and deference to a higher authority. He even through in humility, compassion, and a respect for what he saw as innocent lives lost to evil. That matters more than life itself to many. It is one more reason neutral creatures may hesitate to support good without question. It isn't "black or white", but there are tons of grays in those situation.Not to everyone. No, not even to everyone that isn't "stupid." The DM and the players have to work to define those things and no one can tell them how to handle their game.Sure there is. They just don't have to listen. However, it is cut and dried. The paladin must act with honour. Flagrantly dishonourable actions result in a loss of paladin status. Murdering people in their sleep is dishonourable. It may be smart, even admirable to those who believe that you should do whatever it takes to get ahead, but it is a craven, treacherous act. Now a paladin may have to act in such a fashion, and it's unlikely to result in a fall -- but if the paladin keeps acting like this, finding one excuse after another to justify each such deed, the character is not worthy of the code. No one said it was easy to do the right thing. Okay Paladin, there's a bomb in the village and the mage who planted it won't tell you where it is. The only way to get the information to to torture (and possibly kill, if you're not careful) the mage's infant daughter. What do you do? What do you do? There is no set of circumstances in which this is the only way. The paladin is free to commit the act anyway, of course. It's just that the consequences are clear as well. What justice is there in torturing one who has done no one wrong? The character is an innocent, and the code clearly requires that the paladin punish those who harm innocents. Anyone here think that means the paladin sends himself to bed without supper, but class features intact? There are situation that make me accept a paladin "torture someone", with some negativ consequence, while there are other situtations "torture" will means losing of ALL paladin powers with NO possibility to regain.I never deny the possibility of redemption if there is a sincere effort at atonement. Having said that... don't talk to me about Hal Jordan. The only way to handle the issue is "open a friendly and kind debate at the table an give an answer valid only at that table with that DM and with those players"You seem to think I said otherwise. There comes a point, however, where one or the other has to call the nonsense. Talkin with players IN ADVANCE is the only way to avoid problems...Not so. There will always be that unexpected moment. That's why the questions need to be asked every time a situation comes up, and why the answers need to be satisfactory. Benefit of the doubt goes to the paladin, but not every argument goes from either side of the table: the DM no more gets to bring a paladin down for refusing to say, "Torm bless you," after a sneeze than the paladin retains status for cutting down anyone that doesn't say it. Um, no Atonement is not a choice: unless the Cleric do not want to help you: you regain your powers.But Leilond is covered on that one: if no god will permit the spell to be cast on this character, said character isn't ever getting paladin status back. Harsh, but not always unfair. To make an "unbelivable" example, if my paladin ambush some merchants to gain the 200 golds he need to buy the magic sword he's wishing since two month, killing in the while the two little sons of the merchant, I consider him not a paladin to lose his status... and probably I will never give him the opportunity to bring it back.By RAW, if the character can make an adequate show of remorse, all it takes is a cleric to cast atonement. It's your judgment call as to whether that remorse is sincere and adequate, however: "Gosh, I am sorry; I will never do it again," does not cut it, but if the paladin pays to have the children raised, amulets of health +4 for each of them (to more than overcome the Consitution loss -- though this step may be waived if true resurrection was paid for), gives his sword freely to someone more worthy to wield it and repays the money stolen tenfold, and acknowledges the right of merchant and sons to take his life in a heartfelt and personal apology to each of the parties wronged... is that enough to merit an atonement quest, assuming he is not simply executed for his crime? When a knight had greviously injured a fellow he would dismount, apply the misericord to a gap in the armour (usually under the arm) and plunge it into his heart in order to deal a killing blow to the wounded fellow knight rather then let him suffer. Indeed the term coup de grace literally means "blow of mercy" and comes from this act.Indeed. On the other hand, such mercy was delivered by those who could not simply heal life-threatening injuries with a touch, in a world in which a gut wound was almost assuredly a slow agonizing death over days even if you could find what passed for medical assistance. Or, in other words: Worse. Why knife the guy to end his suffering when a DC 15 heal check also ends it?Cos he is still your enemy and you still want him dead.Given the choice? Nah, most knights would have gone for the ransom of a healthy opponent. The paladin would not take the same view in a good-and-evil world, but the issue is then trying to make sure it's done right. "Dead is dead," isn't good enough for a paladin. The character might have to accept that, but woe to those that view it as the first resort every time. |
| Maekrix_Waere04-14-07, 12:02 AM | Cos he is still your enemy and you still want him dead. Also, most knights in the middle ages didn't know how to heal, and, in the middle ages, there was no such thing as a "skill check." |
| Man in the Funny Hat04-14-07, 01:28 AM | The code states that a paladin must act with honour.And other than what it DOES state, the code does not specify what is or isn't to be considered "honorable". The Paladins code does not specify an Honor Code. Therefore, there is a VAST amount of interpretation that can be inserted into just what is the honorable thing for a paladin to do/not do. 1. What honour in there in murdering enemies in their sleep?Perhaps none. But there is no inherent DISHONOR in it if it is perceived that the enemy deserves no better treatment. 2. How does one honourably kill a helpless foe, especially one that is clearly weaker than yourself?Well, you seem to imply that a helpless foe INHERENTLY deserves to be treated honorably and that isn't necessarily so. Generally, however, the swifter and less painful the death, the better. The "honor" in the deed may be only that, "It was MY sword that killed the witch," not how her death was accomplished. Generally, to be treated with honor requires that one DESERVES honor. Honor is not distributed free and equally. 3. Is there a benefit to being seen to act with honour?Again, generally, the benefit would be to in turn be treated with honor and respect. It is by extending honor to those who do not deserve it that an individual displays GENEROSITY, not honor. Honoring those who don't deserve it is not in and of itself a display of honorable action, and may in fact be a DIShonorable action for having cheapened the value of your honor. |
| Holy_Beholder04-14-07, 02:51 AM | I allow the Coup De Grace, it is usually used on a pinned opponent. Sucks for them, maybe they should think about getting into a fight with the PCs next time... Oh yeah, they don't get one. On a sleeping opponent, they had better pose a pretty imminent or severe threat. Someone paralyzed or something by a special attack is fair game. Of course, you might want to disregard this, considering my real views on combat are "if it works do it, as long as you don't kill" Some of the stuff I see on these boards though says that if a paladin gets mugged on the streets, when a party member pins a guy to the wall, they can't coup de grace him into submission(I allow subdual Coup De Grace, just hit them with the hilt of the sword on the head) |
| danielinthewolvesden04-14-07, 03:54 AM | Just Checked the FAQ, and according to the Sage, it is perfectly OK for a Paladin to perfrom a CdG. It is not Evil. |
| Ack04-14-07, 07:12 AM | IMO, even if I was playing a 'merciful' style paladin, I would let an enemy live, once. If he came back for second helpings, under the mistaken belief that I was 'soft' or 'weak' - then I would give him a fair fight then cut him down. As for the "capture a person/defeat a dragon" problem, I would probably CdG the dragon, because it's really, really hard to take one back to face trial and imprisonment at the town of your choice, and to leave it out there is to invite further atrocities (if it begged for its life and promised to repent, and my character could not detect falsehood, then he'd probably let it live - but see above about letting an enemy live). Human prisoners would be dragged back to face trial and whatever other punishment the city saw fit to indulge. |
| Pandaemoni04-14-07, 11:33 AM | I wasn't aware the Paladin was meant to be the paragon of chivalry. That's the concept. The "Paladins" where the best of the best of the knights of Charlemagne. In late medieval and Renaissance literature, they became the paragons of chivalric virtue, goodness and Christian faith. (In fact, I think the "goodness" and "chivalrousness" could occasionally be disputed in some of the stories...Heck, Ganelon is universally portrayed as a villain and still a paladin, still the overall impression of what they should be comes from Roland and Olivier.) In Three Hearts and Three Lions, these qualities were incorporated into its protagonist, Holger Carlsen (who learned that he was really Ogier the Dane, one of Charlemagne's paladins), and D&D based "paladins" directly off of that character in that book. |
| Cartigan04-14-07, 11:48 AM | I take Paladins as the quintessential holy warrior, beholden to their faith above all else, especially battlefield chivalry. As opposed to the Knight class.. |
| Holy_Beholder04-14-07, 11:53 AM | Chivalry has to be changes with magic. Besides, in big wars, how chivalrous do you think those knights were. For one, the protect women and children bit was mostly ignored by them, unless they happened to be noble. Somehow, I doubt they fight as honorably as the stories tell. Same thing with the paladin. |
| Cartigan04-14-07, 12:12 PM | I'm talking about the D&D class Knight where it's code is spelled out. |
| Holy_Beholder04-14-07, 12:19 PM | So spell out the code for the paladin. You have it your way, I have it my way. Mine allows CDG, yours doesn't. No big deal. Just stop trying to force your way on the rest of the players. It gets old. |
| Cartigan04-14-07, 12:23 PM | So spell out the code for the paladin. You have it your way, I have it my way. Mine allows CDG, yours doesn't. No big deal. Just stop trying to force your way on the rest of the players. It gets old. Get over yourself. You just jump into the conversation midstride and get all indignant based on nothing. |
| daggeroflath04-14-07, 12:54 PM | Chivalry has to be changes with magic. Besides, in big wars, how chivalrous do you think those knights were. For one, the protect women and children bit was mostly ignored by them, unless they happened to be noble. Somehow, I doubt they fight as honorably as the stories tell. Same thing with the paladin. Since D&D includes a variety of mythological beasts, I see no reason why it shouldn't also include a code of honour that historically may have been seen more in the breach than the observance. You aknowledge that chivalry has to change to fit the fantastic setting, why not human nature itself? (At the very least the nature of those gifted with power by the gods for being the best of mankind). |
| Shatteredtower04-14-07, 01:25 PM | And other than what it DOES state, the code does not specify what is or isn't to be considered "honorable". The Paladins code does not specify an Honor Code. Therefore, there is a VAST amount of interpretation that can be inserted into just what is the honorable thing for a paladin to do/not do.Really? I don't buy it. Perhaps none. But there is no inherent DISHONOR in it if it is perceived that the enemy deserves no better treatment.Not good enough. Honour is not merely failing to act dishonourably. Well, you seem to imply that a helpless foe INHERENTLY deserves to be treated honorably and that isn't necessarily so.Since the code requires that the paladin act with honour, yes, it seems it is necessarily so. Generally, however, the swifter and less painful the death, the better.Where death promotes good and law, yes. When it does not, you find another non-painful solution. The "honor" in the deed may be only that, "It was MY sword that killed the witch," not how her death was accomplished.That's a chaotic view. It puts self ahead of everything. The paladin may take such a chaotic position, but it is not honourable to elevate self this way. Generally, to be treated with honor requires that one DESERVES honor.Bunk. Making it about the other guy is nothing more than a pathetic excuse for shameful conduct. There is no honour in it. While a paladin may always chose to judge who is deserving, and may indeed suffer no negative consequences from having done so on any specific occasion, that is a prideful act. Unless you can demonstrate how a paladin know for certain that an individual is undeserving of honourable treatment, with absolutely no chance of being wrong, it is the paladin's duty to behave honourably toward all creatures. The paladin may be excused with failing to meet that high standard in small ways, but not for choosing to ignore it for the sake of convenience or self-interest. |
| Comus04-14-07, 02:10 PM | ShatteredTower - There really is a huge variance in what one Paladin order might consider honorable as compared to another. Just in the treatment of prisoners, for example - one order might feel it dishonorable to take prisoners or be taken prisoner yourself, and require its paladins to exectute any foes they fell (the reasoning might well be that you should never draw your blade unless you mean to kill). Another order might frown upon ever killing an opponent unless absolutely needed, to the point of requiring their paladins to use nonlethal damage whenever possible, and asking them to take their prisoners to the nearest court of law recognized by the order as just - because a single paladin's judgement can be incomplete or flawed, so it must be left to the authorities. A third order might ask the paladin to simply make a judgement call on the spot, and determine if the target deserves death based on their own personal experience. He might have to interrogate the prisoner first, or simply say a prayer before bringing the sword down. As a final example, a paladin order of a god of luck - they decided the issue of life and death was too important to leave to mortal hands, so they simply flip a coin (their holy symbol) and use that to determine if their god wishes a fallen foe to be executed or taken prisoner. Not the best examples, I know, but I'm kinda trying for extremes here, to best show differences. |
| Ack04-14-07, 03:05 PM | And just for a change of pace, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) is what could happen when a paladin used to getting their own way and acting autonomously collides head-on with the world of politics... |
| danielinthewolvesden04-14-07, 03:08 PM | Just Checked the FAQ, and according to the Sage, it is perfectly OK for a Paladin to perfrom a CdG. It is not Evil. Again, the rules say a CdG is NOT EVIL. |
| Comus04-14-07, 03:12 PM | Again, the rules say a CdG is NOT EVIL. Not evil, no, but it depends on the Paladin's order if it's dishonorable to kill a helpless foe or not. |
| Ack04-14-07, 03:17 PM | Not evil, no, but it depends on the Paladin's order if it's dishonorable to kill a helpless foe or not. Or even a foe that's not helpless but not resisting either (see example above). |
| Stormbrand04-14-07, 04:26 PM | Treating foes honourably does not automatically support the claim that helpless foe should be treated better than any other. Just a note worth throwing out there. Okay Paladin, there's a bomb in the village and the mage who planted it won't tell you where it is. The only way to get the information to to torture (and possibly kill, if you're not careful) the mage's infant daughter. What do you do? What do you do? :D Begin pummelling the DM. Make good use of my cleric henchmen with Speak With Dead. |
| Ack04-15-07, 04:38 AM | Pummel the mage. Start amputating his fingers - he's no good as a mage without somatic components. Take off a finger every time he refuses to answer. Tell him that after you take all his fingers off, his tongue is next. No somatic comonents, no verbal. If he still refuses, the GM is just being difficult - no mage worth his salt would let that happen to himself. |
| Comus04-15-07, 11:59 AM | Pummel the mage. Start amputating his fingers - he's no good as a mage without somatic components. Take off a finger every time he refuses to answer. Tell him that after you take all his fingers off, his tongue is next. No somatic comonents, no verbal. If he still refuses, the GM is just being difficult - no mage worth his salt would let that happen to himself. Or, for a Paladin who goes for "Good is Nice", stop wasting time with the mage and organize a search with the villiage men, getting the women and children to safety. |
| daggeroflath04-15-07, 12:11 PM | Evacuate Village Pray Kill mage Pray Find bomb Pray Defuse Bomb |
| Tusalu04-15-07, 12:18 PM | Oh no! Not Paladin Code again. I use it like this: The Ideals of Honor vary from Paladin order to Paladin Order. Independent Paladins have their own ideals, and decide themself what "honor" implies (Of course within reason, if honor implies only not using poison they are not paladins) |
| AaronDireBear04-15-07, 01:27 PM | If you can kill them in normal combat,you can CdG them. Now, when a foe begs for mercy- then a Pally has to be merciful. But if you have downed a super dangerous monster, you do not have to be nice and give the BBEG cleric a chance to heal said monster and have him kill you in return. CdG it is. The Pally is already handicaped by being a Warrior class as it is- let us not make him fight handcuffed too. Lawful Good... It doesn't mean "Lawful NICE". |
| Ack04-15-07, 05:30 PM | Or, for a Paladin who goes for "Good is Nice", stop wasting time with the mage and organize a search with the villiage men, getting the women and children to safety. Oh, that too, but I was going along the idea of "huge village, no time to evac everyone, no idea where the bomb is". |
| _Jayne_Cobb_04-16-07, 10:20 AM | I take Paladins as the quintessential holy warrior, beholden to their faith above all else, especially battlefield chivalry. As opposed to the Knight class.. Yet paladins are not required to belong to or fight for a god or church. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_04-16-07, 10:23 AM | And just for a change of pace, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) is what could happen when a paladin used to getting their own way and acting autonomously collides head-on with the world of politics... And this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) beautifully illustrates the consequences of playing a paladin like a rampaging killbot instead of a real, thinking person.. ;) |
| daggeroflath04-16-07, 10:47 AM | And this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) beautifully illustrates the consequences of playing a paladin like a rampaging killbot instead of a real, thinking person.. ;) And this (http://ibis13.files.wordpress.com/2005/11/IMG_1217smaller.jpg) illustrates a rabbit with a flower on his head. ... sorry, I felt left out. It is a cute picture though. (seriously, I can't believe this thread is still going). |
| Voran04-16-07, 05:22 PM | Totally allow Paladins CdG. In fact its even better to do skip that entirely, and go for bulk, why CdG when you can burn down the building easily getting at least a half dozen sinners. Seriously tho, I don't mind paladins and CdG. But I don't consider sneaking up on an unaware or asleep foe and stabbing them through the head to be a coup de grace, I consider it an assassination. Anyhoo, I see coup de grace as the thing to do after you've defeated a foe during combat without quarter. While he's slowly dying and in negative hp, you quicken him along. |