Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eightbitmage 01-12-06, 10:57 PM	Well after only one session with a neutral good fighter, a good cleric, a neutral rogue, and a paladin I'm finding myself at odds with everyone. We have killed a bunch of bugbears in the woods that were raiding a large town, and we ended up with a survivor. This survivor was bound, and then when we realized we could not get answers from him the paladin killed him. We were only a few hours out of town at the time, and had an idea of where their base was. Now the situation has come up again, and my PC doesn't want the same thing to happen again. The problem is he is rather meek and hates causing conflict with the other PCs. We are headed back to town anyway and he would like to see him put on trial rather than just killing him while he is helpless out in the woods. What should he do?
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-12-06, 11:05 PM	I ran into the same situation about 3 weeks ago in a session. I wanted to spare this disabled orc and try to rehabilitate him or at least let him go to jail rather than his death, but the NPCs and all but one other PC were against it. Your best bet if you're not prepared to lay the smackdown on your 'allies' is to just note for the record that you object to the action, and that killing a helpless target once it no longer has the capability to hurt you is murder, an evil act, and then let it go. If they're so dead set on doing the deed, the creature is going to be killed eventually anyway, and it's less cruel for it to suffer a quick death, than to be jerked around with the tease that it might survive. Oh, and if your DM is letting a paladin participate in murder after the threat of battle has passed, without stripping his paladin abilities, get the hammergun.
Eightbitmage 01-12-06, 11:20 PM	Where does one gain such a thing as a hammergun, I am in need of one.
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-12-06, 11:23 PM	Check the ridiculous house rules thread in this same forum, you should find the names of several suppliers as well as possible do-it-yourself build plans.
Rhomphaia 01-12-06, 11:24 PM	First of all, that paladin should have been stripped of his abilities. No question. However, besides that, your hands are rather tied. If the DM is unable to summon the balls to occassionally smack players for their actions, then there really isn't anything you can do. This sounds like a weak-willed DM who is starting to lose control of his players. If you feel that you must do something thoough, this is good. Take your DM aside and explain to him that you have seen a trend, time and again, of 'good' characters acting in obviously evil ways and they are recieving no repurcussions for it and this bothers you. If he dismisses your point, then I would seriously consider leaving, as this DM likely has no standards (or worse, arbitrary standards) for alignment and thus you can never know what will and will not get you slapped.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-13-06, 02:19 AM	Oh, and if your DM is letting a paladin participate in murder after the threat of battle has passed, without stripping his paladin abilities, get the hammergun. You do realise if a pally player came here in the exact situation, but had gotten his powers stripped, he would have been told to get the hammergun too, right?
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-13-06, 02:34 AM	Murdering pallies don't fly where I come from. But, the hammergun business could stand some growth anyway, I still can't buy one in a 7-11.
Gedrin 01-13-06, 04:07 AM	So, the town is under attack. Bugbears are killing the villagers. The party is apointed/hired to act as the agents of the town for its defense. The party kills several bugbears. One is taken captive. The captive bugbear was in the band that was previously killing villagers. It is reasonable to belive (and there may be proof) that the bugbear participated in mudering villagers. The party are apointed representatives of the town's defense. Then, one of the party members, who is an apointed representative of the village, kills the captured bugbear, who is a murderer. I would disagree that this is murder. It appears that the party was acting as the agents of the town, and that the party dealt with a captured murderer in the way the town likely would have. It may be that there is some letter of formallity or law that wasn't followed, but very few game worlds will hold it to be evil to execute known murderers. At worst, this is unlawful. It may not be in the party's authority to execute this prisoner, and it may have been expected that prisoners would be turned over to town...where the town then executes the murderer. It's very likely that the murderous bugbear will be executed by someone, and traditionally it's not an unreasonable punishment for muderer. I suggest you ask the DM the following: Is it evil to execute a prisoner if that prisoner is a known to be a murderer beyond any reasonable doubt? If he says no. In his world murderers get executed. If he says yes... Someone should advise the paladin's player. Then you should make arangements to be responsible for the care, welfare, and actions of every murderous orc, bugbear and drow who happens to survive combat with you. You may wish to be careful about declaring that execution of known murderers is an evil act. There are likely many towns and cities full of decent people who deal with murderers in this way. Declaring them all evil is unwise. We are headed back to town anyway and he would like to see him put on trial rather than just killing him while he is helpless out in the woods However, you're right that there should be some sort of aparatus of justice, preferably with a third party judging matters. Ideally we try murderers for a variety of reasons. Just bear in mind that you do know he's guilty of, at best, participating in multiple murders. He did participate in trying to kill YOU. Since these guys have been attacking town recently, town knows what's up. Since his guilt is blatantly obvious, what with the being in the marauding group and trying to kill the party. You could, and it would likel be best if you did, have a trial, but we all know how that turns out in the village that's lost mothers and fathers to this guys band. You don't seem to have an argument with the punishment of a murderer, since you'd let the town do it. Your main problem seems to be that the paladin dispensed with the formalities and executed the prisoner himself, rather than having the town do it for you.
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-13-06, 04:44 AM	Declaring murder (which it continues to be, regardless of whether it's dressed up in the term "execution") an evil act is not the same as declaring all people who have executed criminals evil. One evil act does not an evil man make. However, by RAW, one willing evil act does convert a paladin into an ex-paladin. This survivor was bound, and then when we realized we could not get answers from him the paladin killed him. (emphasis mine) The bugbear was not an immediate threat, in fact he was helpless. Killing him is not justifiable as self-defense or defense of the innocent. Was this a legal if sloppy execution? We don't know, and it's beside the point anyway, legality has no influence on whether or not an act is evil. The moment the survivor was bound, his status changed from combatant to prisoner. The paladin, being LG, had a responsibility to see that his prisoner was not mistreated. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. He failed miserably, dishonorably taking a life that was completely at his mercy. Whether or not he retains his powers, make no mistake, this is an ex-paladin. EDIT: *deep breaths* Nobody's perfect, but paladins are expected to try, and suffer when they fall short. However, this is dependent on how strictly one interprets alignment. There is some difficulty here because, while morals and ethics are black and white in D&D, they are not so in the real world. Everyone's own morals and ethics shade their view of the alignment spectrum, so people cannot help but interpret the same acts differently, necessarily bringing shades of grey into what is meant to be a black and white system. What I've said here is the correct answer for me, and for the people I game with, however, it would be foolish not to concede that other people's moral compasses will point differently. While I stand by what I say, please understand it is not intended to offend. EDIT 2: Also please understand that I have been awake since Wednesday, so some of this may be insane sleep-deprivation ranting.
Eightbitmage 01-13-06, 07:47 AM	I just feel like in any movie or book I have seen I have never seen a hero/cop/main character who isn't an anti-hero, kill a bound person. Also regardless of how the DM feels on alignment I'm not really asking for advice on that. I want to know what my PC should do when he feels what the paladin is doing is very very wrong.
Missing Minds 01-13-06, 08:13 AM	Leave for his own saftey. I wouldn't want to stick around in a party with "good" characters onto to see them breaking moral laws as I see it. Make a new character, possibly chaotic stupid (no insult ment towards you at all, Eightbitmage) and have fun causing havoc in the name of good.
RedWizard 01-13-06, 08:20 AM	I find it interesting to keep hearing about rehabilitation and trials. Most medieval villages had no "trial" system as we know it today. The closest thing to a judge would have been the paladin. One was certainly not going to "rehabilitate" an orc. The odds of wiping his entire upbringing of morals are pretty slim. The paladin could easily have seen a swift death a merciful option to the torture the villagers would have preferred after he killed their loved ones. Had he left the orc to their tender mercies I would have called him on it. His options then were, 1. Just let it go (Uhhh, no, that would not happen. It was evil and had commited acts that required a punishment.) 2. Give it to the angry villagers (we all know what angry villagers do from watching Frankenstein). 3. Give judgement and exact it. (There was no seperation of powers back then. A knight was the legal system) And bear another thing in mind. Paladins are Lawful Good. Now all too often I see people focus only on the latter part of that. The Lawful part is every bit as important to a paladin and that means LAW. He is Johnny Law and he will not let a known killer go without punishment to fit the crime. An eye for an eye. Death for death. Lawful Good is like the republican party, they have no problem with strict punishments if they feel the punishment fits the crime. Chaotic good are your liberals here. They just want good to be done and they don't mind if laws are broken to do it. But not Johnny Law, he sees that the innocent are saved and the guilty are punished.
WayneTheGame 01-13-06, 08:51 AM	Depending on the campaign itself, I think the paladin did the right thing. Paladinds tend (again, this depends on the exact campaign nature) to be able to be judge/jury/executioner in areas with no immediate law (such as the wilderness). I have done this with my paladin in previous games; to be fair though, we play in FR and I'm a paladin of the Triad which includes Tyr, god of justice. So I *AM* allowed to pass judgment on the guilty without having to haul a prisoner back to town for a trial. It might be different in your case.
Eightbitmage 01-13-06, 09:28 AM	with no immediate law (such as the wilderness) Didn't mention this, but we are 3 hours outside of town, and can make it back by nightfall
Ozymandias V. 01-13-06, 11:41 AM	Killing is not good or bad. What makes it good or bad is WHO is killing WHO, and WHY. For example, a human killing an orc because he's an orc? That's wrong. Heck, it's murder. A human killing an orc because he was in a violent raiding party? That's acceptable. The orc gave up any defense when he started pillaging. It isn't murder. It's justice. Do you kill the orc, or do you give it a chance to be reformed? A chance that is almost GUARANTEED to fail. A chance that also puts the lives of other innocent people at risk. A chance that the proven killer will kill more people all because you don't have the conviction to protect them by terminating the creature that places no value on the lives of others.
Eightbitmage 01-13-06, 12:19 PM	So can I get some more advice on what I should do rather than weither or not he was right? If it was a bad thing to do then I don't want to see it done again, and even if it was a good thing to do my wizard doesn't want it to happen. My PC really doesn't want to see another helpless person die. Even if the town tries to kill him I might be able to get him brought down to living his life in prison.
RedWizard 01-13-06, 01:51 PM	What prison? The most you can expect is a dungeon where he would spend the rest of his life chained to a wall covered in his own feces. I don't know, it depends on your campaign and the GM. I run a campaign that mirrors real medieval life. But perhaps your GM does have some sort of modern day penal system in place. If so then push for it. If not, then the merciful thing to do would let the wretched creature die fast for his crimes.
Gedrin 01-13-06, 02:48 PM	Here's my recomended course of action. Come up with a course of action that meets the following criteria: It is practical: Something that you can actually do without extreme cost or turmoil. It is safe for innocents: The party may consent to the risk involved, but they must be able to assure the safety of others. It is reasonably safe for the party: Again, the party may consent to risk, but stupidly dangerous plans are out. It meets the burdens of good: The plan must uphold good. It would be best if it advanced the cause of good more than simply executing a murderer in the field. It meets the burdens of law: The plan must uphold the law. It would be best if it advanced the cause of law more than simply executing a murder in the field. Crimes are punished and innocents are protected: Any plan that involves known murderers let go to roam free is out. Murder must be punished. Probable future murder must be prevented. Now, presuming your plan meets these criteria, talk to the Paladin BEFORE another crisis arrives. I'm guessing that, being a proactive Lawful and Good guy, he's interested in any idea that will advance the cause of good and law. If he doesn't listen at all, he's a zelot and you're done. Wish him and his fellow the best of luck on their path and you go your seperate way. If he does listen, you could tell him things like... "I know he's done murder, and may deserve to die for his crime, but don't the villagers need to see that justice has returned to them? Maybe it would be good for them to hear the crimes, know what he's being punished for, and then to see that the dead are avenged and justice is served? Killing him here just stops him. Letting the village put him on trial, and serve out their punishment, shows the horror of his crimes to all, and lets everyone see that there are consequences to those who would do such evil. Besides, we don't want to set a precident about adventurers doing summary executions. Some evil folk might think to take advantage of that. All that considered, wouldn't it be better to haul him back to town?" I know it's a novel idea...compose an argument and attempt to persuade others that you're right...but when I have disagreements with people, it's a method that has served me well.
Eightbitmage 01-13-06, 03:16 PM	I know it's a novel idea...compose an argument and attempt to persuade others that you're right...but when I have disagreements with people, it's a method that has served me well. I hope this doesn't get me punished in any way on this board for saying but, you sir are an ass.
Gedrin 01-13-06, 03:28 PM	Seriously, I gave a plan of action. Provided options for success and failure of the plan. Presented an example argument that would appeal to a paladin. Your response was to ignore all that and call me an ass.
Eightbitmage 01-13-06, 03:39 PM	I didn't ignore your adivce, I said that you were being an ass. Specifically in the section I quoted. Sarcasm and speaking to me like I am an idiot place you firmly in the "ass" category. So let me rephrase: Thank you for the attempt at helping. But adding that last part makes you an ass.
Gedrin 01-13-06, 03:53 PM	Huh...well, it seemed that you hadn't actually tried the "compose a persuasive argument" plan yet. I'll admit it seemed a bit silly to me that you were looking for help without first trying to do that, and that sarcasm was indeed intended to refelct that I felt it was silly. I didn't think you were an idiot, just jumping to conclusions about your fellow PC's/Players. I think you might want to avoid jumping straight to the murderer or ass epithets in the future, or assuming that a gentle ribbing is a personal attack. It seems you have also wound up in conflict with your entire adventuring party in game, and that's normally a bad sign. It's possible that everyone is wrong and bad and you are right and good, but it's kinda rare for things to work that way. Just consider it, and I'll leave you with the last word.
Eightbitmage 01-13-06, 04:17 PM	I did attempt to stop him the first time but when the DM said it was ok I was at something of a loss. The PC still feels that it is wrong regardless of if it is held to be wrong on the good evil alignment axis that the DM uses. I asked this question on this forum for advice on what types of argument I should make, because I thought people understood that is what I am going to try to do. I am fairly certain that the paladin was going to kill him because it happened before and as the session was ending he was saying that he was getting up and taking out his sword to off the prisoner, and then I stepped in to try to stop him. The session then ended. I dont know if you noticed but I never once called him a murderer, I said that my character doesn't like what he is doing and is looking for a way to resolve this without killing a helpless prisoner. Take that as you will, and I would suggest you be more careful with your "gentle ribbing" as it seems more condesending than anything.
RedWizard 01-13-06, 04:26 PM	If your character is against it then stand in front of the orc and block the paladin's way. Aside from that all I can suggest is a stern frowning.
Auburn 01-13-06, 04:30 PM	I just feel like in any movie or book I have seen I have never seen a hero/cop/main character who isn't an anti-hero, kill a bound person. Lonesome Dove. Two ex Texas Rangers on a cattle drive catch up with a group of men who'd been robbing and killing people for the last few hundred miles. Now while all in the group had been robbing only one had actually killed anyone, but they'd travelled with this guy while he murdered to farmers and killed one of the other robbers who'd gotten injured. Anyways they finally catch up with the group and find out another ex Rnager who'd been close friend of theirs was in the group. Once the theives are captured he says, "I was worried about Indians and just staying with them until we got through the territories." The reply, "I wish you'd took to leaving a little sooner Jake. Its been an awful long time to stay with a murdered. You know the rules. You ride with an outlaw you die with an outlaw." Or Saving Private Ryan where all but one of the group wanted to kill a German prisoner they'd captured. Now I'm not advocating hanging for thieves, but this little warband the survivor came from seems to have been killing people. In addition to this he's a member of a race predisposed to evil. I don't know what to say about the problem other than I'm with the main party. Nothing wrong with them killing this guy.
Rolof 01-13-06, 04:31 PM	Just for the record, for those who say that a paladin is able to act as the law: 1)Only if he is a knight to a noble lord, or king, and within that superior's fief, kingdom, whatever. I don't know many paladin players who actually do the feudal thing though, they usually like being independent or acting for a church. 2) I've never actually seen a rule saying that, however, there DID used to be text saying that a RANGER, not a paladin, had such power, in the wilderness or frontier areas away from the regular source of justice. Also, unless the paladin did something hideously, obviously evil, like making a virgin sacrifice, I would never strip them of power for the FIRST perceived offense. If it's something questionable, like killing a bound evil foe, I'd just tell them they have nightmares that night, which causes them to be fatigued all the next day. A decent player will get the hint that the DM has different ideas than they do about what is right and moral, and will either stop doing it, or ask the DM for a private discussion about what they are and aren't able to do as a paladin. Which isn't a bad idea in the first place.
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-13-06, 06:32 PM	1) I'm dumb when I haven't slept in a couple days. Also, unless the paladin did something hideously, obviously evil, like making a virgin sacrifice, I would never strip them of power for the FIRST perceived offense. If it's something questionable, like killing a bound evil foe, I'd just tell them they have nightmares that night, which causes them to be fatigued all the next day. A decent player will get the hint that the DM has different ideas than they do about what is right and moral, and will either stop doing it, or ask the DM for a private discussion about what they are and aren't able to do as a paladin. Which isn't a bad idea in the first place. 2) Good call, Rolof. Assuming the paladin knows he's doing the wrong thing may be a bit hasty. The paladin has lots of strict teaching and training under his belt, but the player doing the thinking for him is not the paladin, and may make mistakes. Your solution seems fair.
Lincoln Hills 01-13-06, 07:28 PM	...The problem is he is rather meek and hates causing conflict with the other PCs. We are headed back to town anyway and he would like to see him put on trial rather than just killing him while he is helpless out in the woods... Hm. Try asking the party to do what would benefit the most people, rather than simply trying to dissuade them from doing what is - after all - the simplest solution to their problem. (I'm not going to start in on whether or not it's evil: I think we can all agree that it is the EASIEST solution, yes?) Gedrin raises some good points regarding possible courses of action. A prisoner forced to help rebuild destroyed buildings and re-sow planted crops - while being exposed to at least the possibility of repentance or redemption - is a better thing, Good-alignment-wise, than a corpse. A prisoner required to carry gear is - while less Good-aligned - still of potential use to the party... more, at least, than a corpse is.
ChibiQueso 01-13-06, 08:31 PM	And lets not forget, killing the bugbear will just give more corpse-fodder for the approaching necromancer with undead army in tow. Thereby giving more power to the necromancer, who wants nothing more than to kill and raise people. So killing the bugbear is evil. And I wonder who will flame me about that, without reading this statement explaining the sarcasm that drips from the necromancer comment. But hey, if the wizard wants to make a flesh golem the corpse *could* be useful. On actual topic for the killing innocent people = evil, it in all truth depends on the doctrines of the paladin's faith. If for example his is a bigtime war against evil church, it makes sense for him to kill the obviously vile and evil bugbear, as it is evil and never can become anything else (hey look, more sarcasm). If said paladin came from a more benevolent church, he should at least not kill the bugbear outright, and turning it into the villagers, though cruel, would be a more appropriate course of action. And instead of killing him, said paladin could suggest that they have the bugbear pay for its crimes by helping to rebuild the town. Or be shot with a hammer. P.S. I'm starting to notice a theme in all of my paladin related posts...they're long and rambling.
Gedrin 01-13-06, 10:26 PM	Gedrin raises some good points regarding possible courses of action. A prisoner forced to help rebuild destroyed buildings and re-sow planted crops - while being exposed to at least the possibility of repentance or redemption - is a better thing, Good-alignment-wise, than a corpse. A prisoner required to carry gear is - while less Good-aligned - still of potential use to the party... more, at least, than a corpse is. I'm pretty sure that most villages would just execute the guy. The trial, unless there's a very serious commitment to such things, to consist of "Yep he's one of them. Get a rope." It's pretty obvious that he couldn't be used for hard labor safely anyway, given the resources of a typical town. Still, there are good, solid, arguments that apeal to both Law and Good for allowing the village the chance to try a criminal. Evil is still punished. The wronged are still avenged. The crimes are exposed for all to see. The course of law is followed. The townsfolk can see that evil is defeated, there are consequences to such actions, and order is still being maintained. Additionally, it allows the town to take hand in the resolution of their own problem. All these are true if the murderer is executed or put to hard labor. Personally, I would think that most paladins would find these things valuable enough to spend some time on. Baring some extraordinary concern for a rapid solution, a trial seems the best choice. The PC's may have the authority, as agents of the town, to dispense justice in the matter, but they are not required to use the full limits of their authority just because they could. Again, probably nothing really evil cutting out the middle man to execute a confirmed murderer. It's not even unlawful if that authority has been granted as an agent of a just authority. That doesn't mean there aren't other, better, ways of doing things, and a paladin should be open to considering anything that does more good and a better job of upholding order.
Yabanjin 01-14-06, 10:46 AM	.... What should he do? Your character (and I suspect you, yourself) seems to have some issues with murky moral dilemmas. :clap: If things (truth, honor, justice etc) were really black and white, the world would be a vastly different place I suspect. How about change your character's alignment to CN? What I mean to say is that sometimes, alignments like CN or LN can really help the player. It may not be the best option and you may not like it at first, but at least your character will be able to 'look away' and you won't feel the player/character moral stress that has careened all over this thread. Certainly after this experience the DM would likely allow an alignment shift, or you could bring it on slowly - either way, if you're to stay on with this DM and this group, the real question might be how are you going to accommodate their expectations rather than trying to alter them?