# Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 20, 2006)

In our last game, our party slaughtered a company of orc soldiers and left one alive for questioning.

We managed to secure the survivor's cooperation without physical coercion, and he told us everything he knew about his ogre overlords. After ending the interrogation, I was prepared to cut him loose with a simple warning:

"Cross our paths in battle again, and you will die."

However ... before this could happen, our paladin drew her sword and demanded the prisoner's immediate execution. The orc then began blubbering and begging for mercy, citing his obligations to four wives and fourteen children. In short, he was absolutely pitiful.

Ignoring the orc's pleas and my argument for fair treatment of war captives, the paladin moved forward to dispatch him. I blocked her path and released the orc before she could reach him. He immediately started running away; I urged her to let him go.

She hesitated for a moment, gave me a dirty look, mounted her horse, and ran down the orc ... killing him in cold blood. He was unarmed.

Am I wrong to think that our paladin's actions were ethically inappropriate?

-Samir Asad (a.k.a. The Yarrowstaff)


----------



## Xilo (Sep 20, 2006)

Yeah I'd have to say so. Even if the orc is evil, it was unarmed and at your mercy. If the paladin's order has sworn to kill every orc on the face of the planet then maybe not, but the lack of mercy and compassion should get the a smack on the wrist if nothing else.


----------



## Ringan (Sep 20, 2006)

Between breaking a quasi-contract (orc talks, is shown mercy, similar to accepting a surrender), and killing someone unarmed and essentially harmless in cold blood I'd say that was pretty inappropriate.

Paladin loses extra points for not listening to some solid, rational and pertinent counsel offered by her fellow party member.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 20, 2006)

That sounds more LN and hardassed to me than LG and honorable. However, it's not an unquestionably evil act. Technically, it's a violation of the paladin code, but it's not the part that causes automatic losss of paladin abilities, that I can see.

EDIT: If I were the GM, I wouldn't punish the paladin for it immediately, but I would warn them that they are headed toward LN or N territory if they keep it up.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2006)

I agree with Pawsplay here.  Although, I disagree on the lawful aspect.  This is chaotic through and through.  Taking the law into your own hands and vigilanteism is chaotic, not lawful, as well as breaking agreements that the prisoner would be unharmed.

A loss of status?  Perhaps not, but certainly a very stern talking to by the powers that be and perhaps a three or four day loss of abilities until Ms. Paladin does some penance.


----------



## painandgreed (Sep 20, 2006)

Paladins kill evil. That's their job.

As a DM, I wouldn't have an issue with it unless she had made a deal with the orc of safety for information.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 20, 2006)

Did the paladin agree to the terms of the deal with the orc?
Was the orc evil in alignment?
The code states that paladin's punish those who harm or threaten innocents, did the orc do that previously?
Was it against the legitimate authorities laws to kill the orc?

If the paladin didn't agree to the terms of the deal, knew the orc was evil and had harmed, had a history of harming and/or threating innocents and was not protected by the any governing laws -- I don't see the paladin as having violated any portion of her code of conduct.

Evil Slain/Innocents Protected - Check.

But on the other hand, you can get something similiar that turned into a great story hour with a Succubus tempting a paladin, being discovered and then begging for forgiveness and wanting the opportunity to convert (Sepulchrave's story hour) -- placing the paladin in a moral dilemma. But, if it hadn't begged for atonement and made a good faith effot in changing its evil ways, then my previous opinion stands.

To those of more relaxed ethics, I could see this as chaotic or repugnant in action, but for paladins, much more tend to be black and white unless the DM goes to good lengths to bring moral play into the game.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 20, 2006)

Not paladiny at all. It's one thing to defeat evil, but another to murder in cold blood. She could have insisted that he be brought to justice. But this was wrong.

- Killing in cold blood, and someone unarmed at that.
- Breaking other party members' words.

And since we're not talking about a LG fighter here, but a paladin the repercussions be immediate: Loss of paladin abilities with the need to atone before they come back, if ever.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 20, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Am I wrong to think that our paladin's actions were ethically inappropriate?



There is reason to believe you are.



			
				Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil *without mercy* and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.


----------



## tonse (Sep 20, 2006)

As long as the paladin didn't promise the orc anything, I have absolutely no problem with this. Just because the orc was unarmed, doesn't mean he is not dangerous. Maybe not for the party, but as he said, he is raising 14 members of the next generations of slaughtering, pillaging, evilworshiping critters. No paladins should allow this to happen.
On a side note: In the generic D&D-World orcs aren't exactly soldiers but a race of psychos intent on slaughtering anybody else. When this is finished, they will happily kill other orcs. Absolutely irredeemable. So no, I don't buy the "Prisoner of War-Argument".


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 20, 2006)

It would depend on the game world you were playing in.  If orcs are always evil, psycopaths and the party is campaigning in a lawless area, then I think this paladin's behavior would be understandable.  If it is possible to redeem some and the local law is big on putting any humanoid on trial before execution, then I would say this behavior is not acceptable.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 20, 2006)

*On a related note...my paladin, Herax Marshall*

Currently my RPG group is playing the Temple of Elemental Evil (original).  My paladin is a worshipper of Pelor, and he's a rough-and-ready type.  He doesn't wear polished armor since he likes to try to sneak up on the enemy, if able, and he carries a battle-axe instead of the typical sword.  Although he doesn't practice it, he tolerates shady dealings such as his companions enjoyment of ladies-of-the-night, since it isn't against the law to do so.  Now to the big moral question...

We used to make an effort to take those that surrendered to us and bring them to Hommlet for imprisonment and trial, but they would either be released due to corrupt guards, or people on the outside would slay the guards and free them.  The good people were frightened of the more corrupt ones in their midst, making a trial impossible.

After a few incidents, my paladin came up with a solution.  He has a speech ready when he enters a room full of low-lifes or when humanoids surrender after a few rounds of combat.  It goes like this: "Gentlemen, you have three choices.  First, you may surrender yourselves to me and I will place you under arrest in our fortress (converted Moat House).  There you will receive food and a cell to rest in, but will have no trial until we have cleansed this land of evil.  This may be a long time, but afterwards you will be tried by the good people of Hommlet.  Your second option is to agree to repent your evil ways and convert to Pelor.  You will still be kept in a cell, but we will see to your religious education and free you when we are confident that you have seen Pelor's light (by using Detect Evil).  Finally, I can judge you here and now.  I warn you that my judgement is harsh, and it will most likely end with your execution.  You will have your say, and if I deem you guilty, I will allow you an hour to pray to your god before giving you the axe."

So far I have had a lot of surrenders, one conversion, and one execution.  The execution shocked the party.  I put a river pirate on trial and his only verbal defense (after he asked for the trial) was to spit at me.  So I had him locked in a room to pray for an hour, drug him out to the edge of his vessel, tied him down, and told him to say his last prayers to his sea god and asked if he had any last requests.  He asked to be thrown into the sea he loved, and we had a short dialogue of mutual respect, before I gave him a moment to make his prayer, chopped his head off, and kicked both pieces of his body into the river.

The rest of the players stared wide-eyed and thought it a very un-paladin thing to do.  Given the state of law in the area and the danger of keeping the really evil characters in the cells, the paladin thought it was for the best.  Right now the 'Three Choices' is a running gag.


----------



## tonse (Sep 20, 2006)

Deuce Traveler said:
			
		

> The rest of the players stared wide-eyed and thought it a very un-paladin thing to do.  Given the state of law in the area and the danger of keeping the really evil characters in the cells, the paladin thought it was for the best.  Right now the 'Three Choices' is a running gag.




For me life as a paladin never has been about being a nice guy, but about making tough decissions and living with the consequences. Your party faced a huge dilemma and you were the one to come up with a practical solution. You did the dirty work, they did the whining. So unless the rest of your party consists of aasimars, demigods and the proverbial only good drow, they just have no business to question you. After all adminstering justice is what you do for a living.

To be slightly OT: What's the reason nobody tells a thief how to pick locks, but everbody knows how a paladin is played "right"?


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

What the paladin did was stupid and chaotic. I would stop well short of saying it was evil, though.

It was stupid because when the (hypothetical) scouts of the (hypothetical) rest of the tribe find the bodies, and determine that their fellow was cut down in cold blood while unarmed and running away, they'll know not to surrender in future. Which denies the party any future access to information from members of that tribe.

It was chaotic because the party (as a whole) had agreed terms with the orc: information for his life. If the paladin had had an issue with that arrangement, she should have voiced this before the deal was made. To renege on a deal after the other party had maintained their part of the bargain is chaotic. (And this is a clear case of plea-bargaining, which is hardly a new concept, nor one at odds with a lawful justice system.)

The reason I would stop short of labelling this 'evil' is that the orc in question was an enemy combatant, was probably evil himself, and would almost certainly have caused the goodly folk of the region more trouble in the future. I think the manner of the 'execution' makes it a non-good act, but don't think it slides far enough to be evil.

If, however, the orc in question had not been an enemy combatant, and was being executed because "he's an orc", then I would label it evil. Genocide is a decidely evil thing, whether it's performed one individual at a time or on a larger scale.

IMC the consequences to the paladin would be as follows: I would take the paladin player aside at the end of the session (or sooner if this was at the start of a long session), and make sure she understands my position on alignment. I would point out that those actions, if continued, would result in an alignment shift... and that that alignment shift would result in a loss of paladin status when it happened. And that would be it.

My philosophy on alignment is that players should portray their characters as they see fit. If their actions don't match the alignment on the sheet, then I (as DM) will change the sheet, without fuss, and without appeal. I generally don't give alignment warnings, except to make sure early on that people know my interpretation of alignments. So, if you're playing the paladin, you're entirely free to maim, betray, murder and steal as much as you want, and I won't say anything. However, you shouldn't be surprised when the alignment on your sheet no longer reads "Lawful Good", and your class now reads "Former Paladin".


----------



## Gold Roger (Sep 20, 2006)

Deuce Traveler said:
			
		

> Currently my RPG group is playing the Temple of Elemental Evil (original).  My paladin is a worshipper of Pelor, and he's a rough-and-ready type.  He doesn't wear polished armor since he likes to try to sneak up on the enemy, if able, and he carries a battle-axe instead of the typical sword.  Although he doesn't practice it, he tolerates shady dealings such as his companions enjoyment of ladies-of-the-night, since it isn't against the law to do so.  Now to the big moral question...
> 
> We used to make an effort to take those that surrendered to us and bring them to Hommlet for imprisonment and trial, but they would either be released due to corrupt guards, or people on the outside would slay the guards and free them.  The good people were frightened of the more corrupt ones in their midst, making a trial impossible.
> 
> ...





Now that's a paladin I can respect. I generally don't like executions in D&D, but if done after a fair trial and in a good way, like here, that's alright.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 20, 2006)

tonse said:
			
		

> To be slightly OT: What's the reason nobody tells a thief how to pick locks, but everbody knows how a paladin is played "right"?




Check for all the threads on people who have rogues that steal from party members.


----------



## Imruphel (Sep 20, 2006)

Deuce Traveler said:
			
		

> (snip) 'Three Choices' (snip)




_Sorry, I hate needless overquoting so lots of snippage there._

Great story, Deuce Traveller. I think you played that paladin perfectly and that that story is worth saving as an example of a well-played paladin.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 20, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Did the paladin agree to the terms of the deal with the orc?
> Was the orc evil in alignment?
> The code states that paladin's punish those who harm or threaten innocents, did the orc do that previously?
> Was it against the legitimate authorities laws to kill the orc?
> ...




This reflects my opinion on the matter too.


----------



## Turanil (Sep 20, 2006)

The paladin's player obviously doesn't understand the paladin concept and how it should be played. I would be the DM she would lose her paladin status. Then, since I am not a harsh DM, I would later let her become a LE paladin (as per Unearthed Arcana variant).


----------



## Henry (Sep 20, 2006)

If the orc is evil, he's going to raise his kids to be evil. Letting him go you're turning 14 orcs who will without doubt be evil upon the world. Just because someone whines and pleads when disarmed does not make them good or even neutral.

One thing that always gets to me is that people start talking about trials in lawless lands. If the orc were a member of an organized nation or something, that's one thing. But a lawless bandit who has been part of raiding parties, etc. justice IS killing him, not letting him go.

Now, if this were someone who showed nonviolent tendencies, even in the fight, it would be different; but more than likely, he was snarling and hacking away at the party with the rest of his marauding band just 10 rounds ago, and the only reason he's pulling the "wife and kids" schtick is to save his green toothy butt.

On the final hand, however, if the paladin's party DID make a deal beforehand with the orc for safety, it's a breach of code and needs to be addressed.


----------



## Henry (Sep 20, 2006)

In fact, "Cross our paths in battle again, and you die," IS an explicit contract of safety to me, and would be a breach.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 20, 2006)

I view the paladin as being a party to the contract where the orc's surrender is accepted and release given subsequent to cooperation.  If the paladin did not intend to accept the orc's surrender and cooperation, he should have spoken up earlier.  To do otherwise is dishonest.  It's like ordering a meal in a restaurant, eating it, and then leaving without paying because "I thought the prices were too high, and anyway I never said I was going to pay."

He also made his party member a liar by voiding the promise of safe conduct; that dishonors the party member and destroys the unity of purpose of the party. The paladin's action also diminished the dignity of the orc.  Either you treat the orc as not possessing any dignity as a sentient being- in which case you don't treat or negotiate with him at all- or you give him at least the dignity to defend himself.  The paladin dishonored himself by his behavior.

I might have an NPC cleric of the paladin's faith scold him (making the points I made above) but I wouldn't strip him of his powers; I try not to be that kind of DM.  I would try to arrange the consequences more subtly- like having the paladin rely on the honesty and discretion of a Lawful Good institution, and have his trust be violated.  Without any sign of divine disapproval of the institution.  I would also try to have (lawful) evil opponents treat him honorably (respecting deals, etc.) - enough so that he recognizes the benefit of this kind of behavior.  

But subtly, subtly.  It should improve the ability of the player to engage in moral reasoning.  Not be some kind of ham-fisted exercise of the DM's arbitrary authority.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 20, 2006)

I would agree with Henry there.  In a lawless land, with creatures and bandits who seem beyond redemption, the paladin is often the bringer of the law if he or she stays consistent.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 20, 2006)

I'm not sure I would define lawful good or being a paladin as always being required to tell the truth, although I would expect them to follow an oath that was not made while under durress.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 20, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> tonse said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




or the threads on clerics as medic
or the threads on wizards/sorc as the magic source or magic item factories
or the threads on druids as tree huggers
or the threads on...

each class has a niche and some people like to put each class in its own box and leave it there.

it isn't wrong or right. just a different way to play each.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 20, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Am I wrong to think that our paladin's actions were ethically inappropriate?



Yes you are wrong. As Vegepygmy's quote showed, the PHB is explicitly clear on this. It is quite permissable for a paladin to show no mercy to evil. In my view not all paladins are of this school but some are.

The real issue in the situation you described was the PC conflict over how to deal with the prisoner which I'm guessing led to some player vs player heatedness. That's best dealt with by discussing the issue with the other players.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 20, 2006)

Read Oath Of Gold or the Deed of Paksenarrion by Elisabeth Moon. It has what I consider the definitive word on traditional paladins.

Basically it boils down to detect evil. If I was a paladin and I detected evil then eventually I will kill it. The only mercy given will be a clean and swift death.

Now in the Deed of Paksenarrion the paladin Detect Evil isn't like a absolute alignment detector. Most people (and other sentient creatures) read as a mix of good and evil. So you can't just use it to separate people into the good guys who cheer you, and the evil guys who you kill. But  it does work when people are working directly for evil, committing evil acts, or about to commit an evil act.

Rob Conley


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yes you are wrong. As Vegepygmy's quote showed, the PHB is explicitly clear on this. It is quite permissable for a paladin to show no mercy to evil. In my view not all paladins are of this school but some are.




That's fair enough (possibly - flavour text in an example in the PHB is probably a poor guide to the exact intent of the rules). However, in addition to the issue of mercy dealt with by the PHB quote, there is also the issue of the agreement with the orc, "talk, and we'll let you live".

Having made that agreement, the paladin should have honoured it. By failing to do so, she is not upholding her code.

Or do you not agree?


----------



## Halivar (Sep 20, 2006)

Turanil said:
			
		

> The paladin's player obviously doesn't understand the paladin concept and how it should be played. I would be the DM she would lose her paladin status. Then, since I am not a harsh DM, I would later let her become a LE paladin (as per Unearthed Arcana variant).



While I disagree with the first sentence, I would, as a player, acknowledge the DM's sovereignty in the matter, and change my character sheet to LE.

But I would still play my own concept of LG regardless, and use whatever tools you give me to advance my own in-game agenda of protecting innocents, and all good and goodly folk, even if I have to cut down a hundred orcs. Little letters on my sheet don't change my character, or his goals.


----------



## tzor (Sep 20, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> She hesitated for a moment, gave me a dirty look, mounted her horse, and ran down the orc ... killing him in cold blood. He was unarmed.




In my humble opinion this deserves nothing less than a complete fall from grace, a fate worse than death itself.  Yes, the horse is guilty!  

(Hey she's a celestial animal if she's the paladin's mount, she's should have known better.  Shame on the DM for not playing the horse properly.)

Oh and the paladin deserves to be knocked off her high horse as well.


----------



## tonym (Sep 20, 2006)

It's up to the player of the paladin how the paladin would react.  Killing and not killing the orc are both correct actions.  Clearly the player of the paladin felt their paladin character would not feel bound by the other PC's negotiations and would kill the orc.  There is nothing wrong with this.

On the other hand, if the player let the orc go free, there is nothing wrong with that either.

There is more than one way to run a paladin.  If the DM doesn't force a strict, narrow interpretation, then a player can choose his or her own interpretation of what constitutes a "paladin"--as long as it jives with the PHB rules.  

Killing the orc would only violate the PHB paladin rules if the orc was not evil and the paladin knew it, or if the paladin, with his own voice, promised the orc freedom in exchange for information.

A paladin can be roleplayed many ways nowadays.  

Note: I'm assuming the group is NOT playing 1st Edition.  

Tony M


----------



## Gold Roger (Sep 20, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yes you are wrong. As Vegepygmy's quote showed, the PHB is explicitly clear on this. It is quite permissable for a paladin to show no mercy to evil. In my view not all paladins are of this school but some are.
> 
> The real issue in the situation you described was the PC conflict over how to deal with the prisoner which I'm guessing led to some player vs player heatedness. That's best dealt with by discussing the issue with the other players.




I agree. This is a common conflict about gaming preferences that far to often gets pushed into a right/wrong conflict. The players should talk this out OOC and come upon a common denominator on what's acceptable in game. For example I'm in agreement that lawfull executions aren't entirely out of scope for a LG D&D society. However, mercyless executions of unarmed NPC are something I'm a bit uncomfortable with when done by PC's, so it's something I prefer to be clear about with my group.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 20, 2006)

So let me get this straight. The "Paladin" thing to do now is to let people get away with murder, so long as they swear up and down to be good? BS.

This concern over whether the paladin has jurisdiction to execute a criminal is silly. Paladins are the sword arms for good/justice, its stupid to saddle them with transporting villains around for due process, a concept which certainly didnt exist in midieval times, and most likely doesnt exist in most campaign worlds.

Ditch the paladin code (and alignment), and you wont have this issue, just the (more important) RP one of how the party reacts to her. 

Paladins... starting more arguments than chaotic evil assassins played by a 14 year old on meth since 1977.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 20, 2006)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Not paladiny at all. It's one thing to defeat evil, but another to murder in cold blood. She could have insisted that he be brought to justice. But this was wrong.
> 
> - Killing in cold blood, and someone unarmed at that.




An execution falls under this category as well. The prisoner would be bound and unarmed. Oh no, poor orc. 



> - Breaking other party members' words.




The paladin is not responsible for keeping the word of her comrades, or even her own if doing so would cause harm.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Sep 20, 2006)

it is all very campaign specific.

if the orc had been brought up to understand that the pink skins are out to destroy all orc kind and surrender is never an option. I think the issue is the orc surrendering in the first place. 
If he expected to be treat like a prisoner (cos that the way the campiagn is) then the paladin was in the wrong. 
If the orc surrendering was unique and had never happened before then id not overly berate the paladin

Our current campaign has two paladins, 1 msytic theurge (well nearly), 1 favoured soul, 1 scout and 1 ranger. all either LG or NG. They have enemies that are the enemies of their blood and for countless centuries have been and until one wipes out the other, far into the future too. The campaign dictates no mercy on either side. Historically the 'good guys' have excepted parley and diplomacey with the 'bad guys' and it always ended in betrayl and deciet and woe for the good guys. Paladins arent stupid scmucks.

JohnD


----------



## Benimoto (Sep 20, 2006)

There's a lot of ambiguity about what consitutes lawful or good behaviour, but to find common ground, let's look at the PHB definitions of the alignments:



> “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



So while you can't really argue that the paladin was committing an evil act by those definitions, she definitely wasn't committing a good one.  I tend to agree with Cheiromancer that running down a fleeing orc implies a disrespect for the dignity of the orc.



> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if
> they feel like it.



And while the original poster implies that the party was about to promise the orc safety, but hadn't yet, the paladin acting against the party's wishes and killing the orc was probably a chaotic act.  The paladin was defying the authority of the party and following her own conscience.  The dirty look she gave only reinforces that. That seems chaotic.  If following her own conscience would put her at odds with the party, then she should either leave the party or renegotiate how the party will act in such circumstances.  Acting unilaterally, even in judgement, is not a lawful act according to how I'm interpreting the PHB.

So, my own personal verdict here is that the paladin was acting in a CN manner.  I don't see a willful evil act here, or a gross violation of the paladin's oath, so I don't see a reason to strip her of her powers.  However, continued actions in that manner would be cause for a little chat about the responsibilities of lawful good.


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> It's up to the player of the paladin how the paladin would react.




Of course. It's up to the DM how to apply the consequences of that choice (as far as alignment is concerned).



> Killing and not killing the orc are both correct actions.  Clearly the player of the paladin felt their paladin character would not feel bound by the other PC's negotiations and would kill the orc.  There is nothing wrong with this.




Disagree. For the paladin to have the authority to execute the orc, she must take the position that the party are the rightful authority in the region. That's a reasonable stance to take. However, once the party strikes a deal with the orc to spare his life, the paladin is then bound by that agreement. If the paladin refused the terms of the deal, the time to say so was before it was struck.



> There is more than one way to run a paladin.  If the DM doesn't force a strict, narrow interpretation, then a player can choose his or her own interpretation of what constitutes a "paladin"--as long as it jives with the PHB rules.




Agree.



> Killing the orc would only violate the PHB paladin rules if the orc was not evil and the paladin knew it, or if the paladin, with his own voice, promised the orc freedom in exchange for information.




Agree with the first part, but not the second. By not voicing her objection as or before the deal was struck, the paladin is impliticly agreeing with the terms of that agreement. Just as it is not acceptable for the paladin to "leave the room" so the rest of the party can torture prisoners, so it is not acceptable for the paladin to weasel out of the deal by claiming "well, I never said _I_ agreed to it."

For me, that's the crux of it. I won't label the paladin's actions evil, because of the context (the orc was recently an enemy combatant, almost certainly will be again, and is evil), but they are chaotic. When the paladin is showing less honesty than a random captured orc, there's a problem.


----------



## grimslade (Sep 20, 2006)

*Pally Justice*

If the paladin had argued against the agreement with the orc, i.e. I do not guarantee safe passage for this minion of evil, the paladin is in the clear with his deity. No sanctions. No warnings. Jobs a good'un! The roleplaying elements of the parties interaction with the paladin should be interesting, however. 
If the paladin agreed to the 'plea bargain', even by silent consent, then there should be a deific warning on the wayward paladin for staining his honor. No loss of abilities. The killing of the orc is not an issue, it is the giving a promise to the rest of his party that is the problem. A paladin should be forthright in dispatching evil.


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight. The "Paladin" thing to do now is to let people get away with murder, so long as they swear up and down to be good? BS.




Then don't agree to spare them in exchange for information. The paladin can have it one way or the other, but not both. Tricky thing, having principles.



> This concern over whether the paladin has jurisdiction to execute a criminal is silly. Paladins are the sword arms for good/justice, its stupid to saddle them with transporting villains around for due process, a concept which certainly didnt exist in midieval times, and most likely doesnt exist in most campaign worlds.




Killing the orc isn't the problem. Promising the spare the orc and then killing him is the problem.



> Ditch the paladin code (and alignment), and you wont have this issue, just the (more important) RP one of how the party reacts to her.
> 
> Paladins... starting more arguments than chaotic evil assassins played by a 14 year old on meth since 1977.




Alternatively, one could argue that all these alignment arguments are actually a good thing. The questions of what it is to be good, noble, honourable and true are difficult questions. The fact that people are being forced to think about them might be considered a good thing. Ditching alignment (and the code) just skips past the questions, which might be convenient, but is it really better?


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 20, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Alternatively, one could argue that all these alignment arguments are actually a good thing. The questions of what it is to be good, noble, honourable and true are difficult questions. The fact that people are being forced to think about them might be considered a good thing. Ditching alignment (and the code) just skips past the questions, which might be convenient, but is it really better?




Our games dont use alignment (Arcana Evolved/D&D hybrid), and the players have mature, in-character discussions on eithics, morality, religion, etc. Some characters are more merciful, some are more honorable, but there is no litmus test for determining if someone is "good" or "evil". Indeed, their adventures have brought them into conflict with both sides of the classic D&D spectrum. None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment.  There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations. People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.

Alignment is 2 words written on your sheet, that in most groups seem to invariably lead to conflict between player and GM in regards to mechanics (loss of paladin abilities, holy weapons, etc). You dont need to write anything down to figure out a character's personality, and how he upholds or violates their personal morals as the situation warrants.


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Sep 20, 2006)

Here's the sticky points for me:

a)  The paladin acquiesed to the surrender and interrogation of the orc, if only by his silence.  If he objected to taking the orc prisoner, he should have voiced this objection before they started pumping it for information.  Accepting the surrender is am implied contract, no one is going to surrender if they believe they are going to be summarily executed.  That's kind of what it means.  Once the paladin goes along with this, he can't then decide he feels like chopping necks.  And this goes doubly once they start interrogating the thing - again, the implied exchange is information for not-having-your-head-chopped-off-by-the-angry-paladin.  

Whether taking a captive and then executing them, especially after questioning, is a "good" act may be debatable - it really does depend on the nature of the captive (in this case, whether orcs in this setting are simply violent humanoids with a chance for redemption, or Tolkien-y constructs of pure evil), the state of the region where they are (is imprisonment possible and/or feasible, what kind of governent is in place and are they known for treating captives fairly), and - perhaps most importantly - what's at stake (is letting an orc go or holding them captive simply going to be an inconvenience, or it's going to jeopardize the last hope to Save the World), and a host of other factors besides.  

What's not really debatable is that this is an un-paladin-worthy act - a paladin has to hold themselves to a higher standard, even when it's inconvenient or possibly dangerous.  Moreover, whatever the position on the good-and-evil axis, this sort of deal-breaking (implied as the deal may be) is unquestionably chaotic.

b)  The paladin, after adventuring and fighting with her comrades, presumably adding her strength to theirs in their endeavours and utilizing their strength to advance her pursuit of Good and Justice, has a certain obligation to obey the rule of law within the party.  Whether they should have let the orc go, or killed it, or what, was up to the party at large, and she doesn't have the moral authority to suddenly go rogue and ignore their decisions (especially when their concerns for clemency for a prisoner and a chance for redemption are in conflict with her desire to slay and execute).  This is, without a doubt, a chaotic deed.  Riding the orc down and re-capturing it would not have been an irrevocable act (they could then come to an agreement as to the fate of the captive), but you can't take back a beheading.  (I'm pretty sure I read a Hallmark card to that effect, once.)

Really, the role of the Paladin needs to be examined between DM and player before play begins, and - more importantly - the code of the order the paladin belongs to needs to be spelled out.  Two different orders serving the same god could have completely different obligations, let alone orders serving two different gods.  (For example, in the FR campaign I run, a paladin of Chauntea will have a much more relaxed attitude towards "questionable" acts by other party members, and be more inclined to "lead by example", then - for example - a paladin of Tyr, or Helm.)


----------



## tonse (Sep 20, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment.  There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations. People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.




Wow,someone seems to have a little chip on his shoulder.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 20, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.





i like my cows. if you want to attack my style of play why didn't you just say so.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 20, 2006)

> Paladins are the sword arms for good/justice, its stupid to saddle them with transporting villains around for due process,




Not true. At the very least jurisdiction was important, as the Church maintained only it had the right to try clergy.


----------



## tonym (Sep 20, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Disagree. For the paladin to have the authority to execute the orc, she must take the position that the party are the rightful authority in the region. That's a reasonable stance to take. However, once the party strikes a deal with the orc to spare his life, the paladin is then bound by that agreement. If the paladin refused the terms of the deal, the time to say so was before it was struck.




The paladin has probably taken an oath to kill evil beings.  But the paladin has probably 'not' taken an oath to the party, or at least taken an oath to the party that overrides her oath to kill evil.  

As much as the party may feel that the paladin must obey their spontaneously negotiated agreements, she will only doso insofar as those agreements do not conflict with the extremely serious oaths that she took towards becoming a paladin.

That particular paladin clearly takes her oaths very seriously.  I bet every character in that party lives only several seconds away from being attacked by that paladin.

For example, if the party found an evil gem and one of the PCs decided to become evil so they could use its cool powers, the paladin would likely kill them, *no matter what* the party said...even if the other PCs agreed amongst themselves to let the evil PC go free in exchange for information, the character's bag of holding, or whatever else.

Tony M


----------



## Benimoto (Sep 20, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> The paladin has probably taken an oath to kill evil beings.  But the paladin has probably 'not' taken an oath to the party, or at least taken an oath to the party that overrides her oath to kill evil.
> 
> As much as the party may feel that the paladin must obey their spontaneously negotiated agreements, she will only doso insofar as those agreements do not conflict with the extremely serious oaths that she took towards becoming a paladin.
> 
> ...



But the point that I and a few other people in the thread have raised is that kind of "I'll do what I think is right no matter what you guys want" attitude is actually chaotic.  Part of being a paladin is being lawful, and being lawful means being loyal, particularly to your friends, and respecting their decisions.  If the paladin is several seconds away from attacking any of the party members, then the paladin isn't being trustworthy or reliable to them.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Sep 20, 2006)

I like alignments. Its just too little words to set as a  starting block set in stone (or adamantium in the case of paladins as its very strong).

when people wander of  about epic in-character discussions about ethics and such makes me wonder why they play D&D and not some more high brow/intellectual sort of 'game' or non-game. They are vast amounts of rpg's out there, leaves us our hp, AC and alignments. 

Why have detect evil if u aren't meant to combat it? I guess with the OP post we dont about the campaign specifics and exact conversations / 'deal or no deal' set with the orc

Alignment works as long as the campaign/lays down what is what and everyone sticks to it (or not i guess if u r CN or CE!)

JohnD


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 20, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> But the point that I and a few other people in the thread have raised is that kind of "I'll do what I think is right no matter what you guys want" attitude is actually chaotic.  Part of being a paladin is being lawful, and being lawful means being loyal, particularly to your friends, and respecting their decisions.  If the paladin is several seconds away from attacking any of the party members, then the paladin isn't being trustworthy or reliable to them.




I agree, your "I'll do..." statement is very chaotic, however I don't agree thats what the Paladin likely was saying. "I'll follow my code no matter what you guys want." is probably more accurate and that is not a chaotic attitude, that is lawful.

You can respect a decision made by a party member and not consider yourself bound to it if it violates your code, because to do so would be to sacrifice your entire class. Just because you can't agree to abide by party decisions that would cause you to forfeit your class, doesn't mean you are being disloyal. 

When I've played a Paladin it was, God & Code, Country, Locale, Party with respect to obeying the laws & principles required of Paladinhood. The party knew I had to answer to a higher calling and code then themselves and often did things without my characters knowledge so I was placed in the prediciment of becoming a weak fighter. 

Depends on the alignement of the party, if they are all chaotic neutral, a Paladin could be seconds from attacking them for some of their actions and decisions and it has nothing to do with trustworthyness or reliability -- it has to do with poor player planning and party makeup. Everyone has to work on compromises with a Paladin in the party, the problem is, the Paladin can't compromise as much as everyone else.

When I read the OP's post, he didn't mention alot of things. He clearly stated what HIS intent was (and that he didn't get to do what he intended to do), but it doesn't clearly state what the party knew or even if the Paladin agreed to it or knew what was going on. Just because a prisoner was taken, I don't agree that was silent consent to allow that prisoner to escape to slaughter another day once his information had been imparted.

Some more information would go a long way to making it more clear as to what was really going on from a wider perspective and not just how the OP was interpreting what the Paladin was thinking/agreed to.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 20, 2006)

tonse said:
			
		

> Wow,someone seems to have a little chip on his shoulder.




Not really, its a crappy rule that causes WAY too many arguments in all but the best run games (where its unnecessary to begin with), and its time to be ditched. If not liking a poorly thought out game rule constitutes a "chip" then yes.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 20, 2006)

TheNovaLord said:
			
		

> I like alignments. Its just too little words to set as a  starting block set in stone (or adamantium in the case of paladins as its very strong).
> 
> when people wander of  about epic in-character discussions about ethics and such makes me wonder why they play D&D and not some more high brow/intellectual sort of 'game' or non-game. They are vast amounts of rpg's out there, leaves us our hp, AC and alignments.




Because D&D/d20 is pretty solid rules set that is easy to learn and works well for a game of fantasy RP'ing? I use 2 out of 3. /shrug.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Sep 20, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> Read Oath Of Gold or the Deed of Paksenarrion by Elisabeth Moon. It has what I consider the definitive word on traditional paladins.




I love those books.  It's been years since I read them, but I may have to dig them out and do so again.  IMO, Moon really did create the ideal paladin.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 20, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Our games dont use alignment (Arcana Evolved/D&D hybrid), and the players have mature, in-character discussions on eithics, morality, religion, etc. Some characters are more merciful, some are more honorable, but there is no litmus test for determining if someone is "good" or "evil". Indeed, their adventures have brought them into conflict with both sides of the classic D&D spectrum. None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment.  There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations. People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.




Granted I agreed with you. Also granted that we don't know the full circumstance of the campaign in which this incident took place.

But if we use the concept of alignment as given in the spirit of the original rules and the concept of paladin, orcs,etc in the spirit of the original rules.  Is the paladin acting like a paladin?

My own answer is by the rules he is.

Because

a) the Orc is Evil. 
b) Paladin is the champion of GOOD.

The paladin being the champion of Good overrides all other consideration. His lawful oath is to the force of good not to a party, lord, or king. In a situation where there conflicting resolution then a paladin's oath to good takes precedence. 

In this case means running down the clearly evil Orc so he can't breed or support his evil children that will venture forth and slay hapless farmers and travellers. This is despite the wishes of the party because his oath to good outweigh his oath to support the party and its leadership.

Of course if you don't like the traditional paladin then it perfectly alright to make a campaign with different codes, and a different treatment of alignment.

But in a world where gods and forces are real and give power to true believers you will have the "paladin" problem. There will be characters (good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever) who will be champions of these gods and powers and their oath will always be to them first. And they will be REWARDED for follow that oath and PUNISHED for failing to uphold that oath. That of course if your campaign has such champtions. 

This is what makes traditional paladins a pain in the ass to those who deal with them. They are so damn uncompromising. Chosen to follow a call that few others will willingly take up. Willing to sacrifice everything including thier own life for the sake of the cause of good.  That what the traditional paladin represents. 

In this particular case the paladin sacrificed his good standing with the party in order to prevent the evil aligned orc from ever again commiting another act.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Not really, its a crappy rule that causes WAY too many arguments in all but the best run games (where its unnecessary to begin with), and its time to be ditched. If not liking a poorly thought out game rule constitutes a "chip" then yes.





Consider, ehren37, that you have just called a major game concept "juvenile".

The implication is that you are an authority on maturity, and have a right to proclaim that other ways of playing the game are immature. To folks who like alignment, this can easily come off as being pretty "high horse", and rather insulting.

Dislike aspects of the game all you like, but please remain respectful of other people, and how they like to play.


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Our games dont use alignment (Arcana Evolved/D&D hybrid), and the players have mature, in-character discussions on eithics, morality, religion, etc. Some characters are more merciful, some are more honorable, but there is no litmus test for determining if someone is "good" or "evil".




Good for you. I'll submit that your experience is far from universal. In my experience, having run many many games featuring alignment, and a similar number not featuring alignment, games which feature alignment are far more likely to spawn interesting debates about the nature of ethics and morality than those without. Putting those two little words on the character sheet has a way of focusing attention on such matters, while simply omitting them tends to lead to morality simply being sidelined throughout the game. Characters operate under a morality of expedience, and don't give a second thought to the wider implications of their actions.

There is value in running games without alignment. But they have a distinctly different feel to them than games featuring alignment. As such, the use of alignment can be considered a stylistic choice, and as such the use of alignment has merit. You may choose to discard it, but doing so is because of your opinion, and should not be confused with an objective measure of the value of the alignment system.



> None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment.




Alignment works for some games. It doesn't work for others. That doesn't make the concept "dated and juvenile". Unless, of course, you consider ethics and morality "dated and juvenile".



> There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations.




It's a coarse measure. A sundial rather than an atomic clock, if you will. And since mankind as a whole has not been able to objectively quantify good and evil, it's hardly surprising that the extremely small subset that is D&D players have not yet resolved the issue.



> People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.




Funny, I've been using alignment for years, and there's nothing kiddie-style about my games. I'm sure others have had similar experiences. I guess sacred cow just doesn't agree with you.



> Alignment is 2 words written on your sheet,




And a marriage certificate is just a bit of paper. It's the meaning that these things have that is important. I'm sure any newlywed couple will agree.


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> But if we use the concept of alignment as given in the spirit of the original rules and the concept of paladin, orcs,etc in the spirit of the original rules.  Is the paladin acting like a paladin?
> 
> My own answer is by the rules he is.
> 
> ...




The paladin is also required to be lawful, and that's where she's running into problems. Had the paladin not allowed her group to make the deal with the orc, and conducted the 'trial' and execution, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as the paladin makes the deal, she's bound to it. Otherwise, she's behaving with less honour than the orc, which can't be considered right.

And by not speaking up when the party made the deal, the paladin consented to it.


----------



## delericho (Sep 20, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> I agree, your "I'll do..." statement is very chaotic, however I don't agree thats what the Paladin likely was saying. "I'll follow my code no matter what you guys want." is probably more accurate and that is not a chaotic attitude, that is lawful.
> 
> You can respect a decision made by a party member and not consider yourself bound to it if it violates your code, because to do so would be to sacrifice your entire class. Just because you can't agree to abide by party decisions that would cause you to forfeit your class, doesn't mean you are being disloyal.




Abiding by the party's decision would not threaten the paladin's status, so that argument is moot. Furthermore, the 'party's decision' here is something to consider: isn't the paladin part of the party? As such, didn't she have the opportunity to influence that decision? What's more, if she felt so strongly about it, why didn't she simply veto the decision? All it would have taken is a statement that "if you don't kill this orc, I will".

No, the paladin stayed silent because it was convenient to let the orc think he was going to live. When she had no further use for it, she reneged on the deal she struck (or, by not opposing, consented to). And that's chaotic.



> Depends on the alignement of the party, if they are all chaotic neutral, a Paladin could be seconds from attacking them for some of their actions and decisions




Now, why is it that in-party alignment differences always seem to be seconds away from violence? If the relationships within the party are so strained that that's the case, how can they possibly hold together long-term? (I see this frequently in paladin threads. I see it frequently in threads where one party member has knifed another in his sleep over some trivial matter. It's crazy. To survive long-term, a party simply must trust one another, probably with their lives, and that doesn't really allow one or more members to be "seconds from attacking" one another, no matter their alignments.)



> Some more information would go a long way to making it more clear as to what was really going on from a wider perspective and not just how the OP was interpreting what the Paladin was thinking/agreed to.




If more information becomes available, I may revise my assessment, as happened in two of the "Is this fair" threads. However, given the scenario as presented, the paladin took a distinctly chaotic (and non-good) act. In itself, that doesn't matter too much, but a pattern of such actions calls for an alignment shift, and the fall from grace that goes with it.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 20, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> Granted I agreed with you. Also granted that we don't know the full circumstance of the campaign in which this incident took place.
> 
> But if we use the concept of alignment as given in the spirit of the original rules and the concept of paladin, orcs,etc in the spirit of the original rules.  Is the paladin acting like a paladin?
> 
> ...




It's probably within the range of paladin behavior.

However, the player shouldn't play his PC in a way that will just tick people off.

Also, this logically ends up making the paladin a bad person, which seems wrong.




> The paladin being the champion of Good overrides all other consideration. His lawful oath is to the force of good not to a party, lord, or king. In a situation where there conflicting resolution then a paladin's oath to good takes precedence.




You seem to be assuming that there is only one answer that is GOOD.

There are probably multiple answers consistent with the ideal of GOOD, some of them mutually contradictory.




> In this case means running down the clearly evil Orc so he can't breed or support his evil children that will venture forth and slay hapless farmers and travellers. This is despite the wishes of the party because his oath to good outweigh his oath to support the party and its leadership.




His "evil children"?

You don't seem to hold out much odds on the orc learning his lesson.

What if a successful Sense Motive roll had shown the Orc meant what he said about reforming?  Would that change things?




> Of course if you don't like the traditional paladin then it perfectly alright to make a campaign with different codes, and a different treatment of alignment.




Or chose to emphasize other aspects of GOOD.



> But in a world where gods and forces are real and give power to true believers you will have the "paladin" problem. There will be characters (good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever) who will be champions of these gods and powers and their oath will always be to them first. And they will be REWARDED for follow that oath and PUNISHED for failing to uphold that oath. That of course if your campaign has such champtions.




Paladins do what they views as the right thing, because they view it as the right thing.  That some force or entity chooses to assist them with power is purely a nice bonus.



> In this particular case the paladin sacrificed his good standing with the party in order to prevent the evil aligned orc from ever again commiting another act.




Ever committing another act, good or evil.


----------



## Halivar (Sep 20, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> The paladin is also required to be lawful, and that's where she's running into problems. Had the paladin not allowed her group to make the deal with the orc, and conducted the 'trial' and execution, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as the paladin makes the deal, she's bound to it. Otherwise, she's behaving with less honour than the orc, which can't be considered right.
> 
> And by not speaking up when the party made the deal, the paladin consented to it.



To which my orc-killing paladin replies, "I'm a paladin, not a lawyer."

After all, all lawyers are inherently LE.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 20, 2006)

*Mercy*

The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds

MERCY
For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme — respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless. 

A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.​


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 20, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> To which my orc-killing paladin replies, "I'm a paladin, not a lawyer."
> 
> After all, all lawyers are inherently LE.




Beautiful.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 20, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Good for you. I'll submit that your experience is far from universal. In my experience, having run many many games featuring alignment, and a similar number not featuring alignment, games which feature alignment are far more likely to spawn interesting debates about the nature of ethics and morality than those without. Putting those two little words on the character sheet has a way of focusing attention on such matters, while simply omitting them tends to lead to morality simply being sidelined throughout the game. Characters operate under a morality of expedience, and don't give a second thought to the wider implications of their actions.




I have to disagree with this. People using alignment fall frequently into walking stereotypes. Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, whatever you will. Theres little reason to consider much beyond whether someone registers on the evil-meter whether they should be killed. People's principles have come up considerably more in our Dark Matter, Unknown Armies and Arcana Evolved games than in virtually all D&D games I've played in. Why? Because you have to put more effort into fleshing your character out, than take a 2 letter crutch. If you flesh your D&D character out that much, then alignment wasnt needed to begin with, and only serves to be a pain in the ass when your DM tells you your alignment shifted because your character tortured the man who kidnapped his daughter, or that a LG character wouldnt stoop to using knockout poison, or the multitude of other pointless arguments that pop up on message boards on a daily basis. 



> There is value in running games without alignment. But they have a distinctly different feel to them than games featuring alignment. As such, the use of alignment can be considered a stylistic choice, and as such the use of alignment has merit. You may choose to discard it, but doing so is because of your opinion, and should not be confused with an objective measure of the value of the alignment system.




Of COURSE its my opinion. I'm stating it, and presumably I'm not lying about my experiences and opinions on the matter. I dont feel the need to preface every statement on the matter with a wishy "IMO". I dont see anyone presenting any objective merits of alignment either. However, I'd count the numerous fights alignment spawns as a reason to ditch it, and a non-subjective one at that. 



> Alignment works for some games. It doesn't work for others. That doesn't make the concept "dated and juvenile". Unless, of course, you consider ethics and morality "dated and juvenile".




I consider little boxes that everything fits neatly into a rather juvenile and simplistic concept. I consider black and white morality simplistic as well. So yes, to me, the alignment system as a whole feels like its aimed at crudely providing moral structure for a bunch of 12 year olds.



> It's a coarse measure. A sundial rather than an atomic clock, if you will. And since mankind as a whole has not been able to objectively quantify good and evil, it's hardly surprising that the extremely small subset that is D&D players have not yet resolved the issue.




Then what GOOD is it as a rule if the average player cant easily figure out what Batman, Carmilla Soprano, or anyone else's alignment is? If a descriptor is needless at best, and causing problems in many games, why keep it? For loyalty to Gygax? As near as I can tell, thats the sole basis. 



> And a marriage certificate is just a bit of paper. It's the meaning that these things have that is important. I'm sure any newlywed couple will agree.




You CAN play a chracter without an alignment. Plenty of people are doing it in other games. You can play a GURPS character exactly the same as  LG D&D character. You cant really legitimately be married if you arent actually married, can you? So in that case, the bit of paper has value.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds



PHB trumps BoED


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 20, 2006)

> In our last game, our party slaughtered a company of orc soldiers and left one alive for questioning.
> 
> We managed to secure the survivor's cooperation without physical coercion, and he told us everything he knew about his ogre overlords. After ending the interrogation, I was prepared to cut him loose with a simple warning:




I don't see where it says the Orc surrendered, just that one was left alive. I also don't see any info that the party had discussed letting the captive live - other than the one character who was prepared to cut the orc loose with a warning.

It is possible that this orc was the only one left at more than -10 hp at the end of the battle that they were able to heal back up to 0+. The orc could have just dropped his weapon and said "I surrender" with no gaurantee of safety. The party may have discussed letting the orc go if it answered questions and the paladin may have stated that she wouldn't let it just walk away.

As for the OP's question - IMO the paladin didn't do anything wrong. This might change depending on what actually happened, but it is unlikely.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 20, 2006)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> As for the OP's question - IMO the paladin didn't do anything wrong. This might change depending on what actually happened, but it is unlikely.




Did the player of the paladin do something wrong, then?  Was playing his PC that way the best decision for the gaming enjoyment of the group?


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds
> 
> MERCY
> 
> A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.​




This is the biggest load of crap for how a good character should act I ever heard. Because it make the character lawful STUPID. You have detect EVIL for crying out loud. Blind obidence to this tenet can cause greater evil down the line.  

Mercy is for those who can be redeemed i.e. have the capacity of changing their alignment. 
Mercy means that you don't torture and give evil enemies a clean and quick death.

The whole assumption that all of the sentient creatures in standard D&D are capable of choices about their alignment. Some are but for many they are instrinctly good or instrinctly evil. That is the nature of the game.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Sep 20, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> This is the biggest load of crap for how a good character should act I ever heard. Because it make the character lawful STUPID. You have detect EVIL for crying out loud. Blind obidence to this tenet can cause greater evil down the line.
> 
> Mercy is for those who can be redeemed i.e. have the capacity of changing their alignment.
> Mercy means that you don't torture and give evil enemies a clean and quick death.
> ...




This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds fell short.  It was uninspired, unlike the Book of Vile Darkness, which seemed to be written by someone who enjoyed the challenge.  The Book of Exalted Deeds read as if it was written just because the company thought it would be a good marketing idea after they came up with doing the BOVD.


----------



## painandgreed (Sep 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.




It doesn't say that after accepting their surrender, being bound, and treating them kindly, that they can't still find them guilty according to objective standards and summarily execute them in a manner as quick and painless as possible.

There's plenty of wiggle room in the alignments for the DM to adjudicate them how they feel. Indeed, how it is done may differ from campaign to campaign according to setting, play style, and atmosphere. Most DMs I have ever had simply ignored alignment all together. The one that didn't and expected PCs to be good and preform good actions had the following rational:

D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff, not about moral dilemmas. Therefore, alignment should be handled so that it should not interfere with the goal of killing things and taking their stuff if not aid it. Heroic games are about good fighting and overcoming evil. If the good characters aren't allowed to do this then the entire genre falls apart. So being good, should mean killing evil. Being good determines the methods they use and reasons for doing so, but should not interfere with it. 

This has always made sense to me. If you plan on running a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, then you shouldn't sweat the rules that might interfere with that. If you want to run White Wolf's Paladin: the Angsting, then by all means complicate things with interpretations that make the character's life harder. But please, make sure you explain your interpretations to the PCs ahead of time and make sure they understand them, because no matter how clear you think the rules are, I garantee you that others will disagree. Being the DM may mean that you are correct, but unless you just like hour long arguements that stop the game completly and cause bad feelings between you and the players, please make sure they know your feelings on things before you tell them their character is nerfed because of behaviour they thought was perfectly fine. My personal advise to DMs is that if players are goign to do something that would grossly violate their alignment, then you should warn them of such before the actions takes place and allow them to decide their course with that knowledge. Then they at least won't be surprised when they lose their paladinhood. If you happen to miss telling them of such, you might warn them, but otherwise let the issue drop, because if it wasn't obvious enough for you to catch it during play and talk to them about it, it's not important enough to start arguements over.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 20, 2006)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> PHB trumps BoED




Ok I'll bite....where does it say a paladin can kill an unarmed orc that was under his protection?

They might be able to ignore mercy under the guise of lawful, but if they broke their word, they broke their code.  

also

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing...out of duty to some...deity.​
I can't say the paladin had respect for the dignity of the orc and I'd have to say he had no compassion for the orc & killed without qualms.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 20, 2006)

Depends on the type of paladin.  

For every paladin that acts as the firm hand of mercy, there's another who takes up the mantle of the unwavering fist of justice.

And they're both equally right.


So no, your paladin was okay, they just follow the 'suffer no evil to live' road more than not.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Ok I'll bite....where does it say a paladin can kill an unarmed orc that was under his protection?
> 
> They might be able to ignore mercy under the guise of lawful, but if they broke their word, they broke their code.
> 
> ...





"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."


----------



## Sejs (Sep 20, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> To which my orc-killing paladin replies, "I'm a paladin, not a lawyer."
> 
> After all, all lawyers are inherently LE.





Heh, well, nah to be fair they're supposed to all be LN.  You just get some who are LE and get away with it because they stick to the L.  The other lawyers pick up on their true colors pretty quickly, though, and man do they not like it.


sejs "why yes, my wife is a lawyer, why do you ask?" ooi.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 20, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> This is the biggest load of crap for how a good character should act I ever heard. Because it make the character lawful STUPID. You have detect EVIL for crying out loud. Blind obidence to this tenet can cause greater evil down the line.




The paladin could have just insisted that the orc be taken back to some authority (unless he is part of the law enforcement/justice for country.)  If the orc had betrayed them, he could have killed him.  I'm not saying the paladin shouldn't want more justice.  I am just saying that he acted as if he was the judge, jury, and executioner for someone that was entirely defenseless.  Just because you can detect evil does not mean you have a right to kill all evil.    I am not sure what the metaphysical scales are in D&D core since evil is defined by actions.  If someone was evil all there life and then decides to be good, does that out way their actions?  As far as player characters go, the player has to start acting the alignment, so wouldn't an evil player still detect as evil for awhile until his actions changed his alignment? 

Also since alignment is based on actions that means all evil sentient beings are born good.



			
				robertsconley said:
			
		

> Mercy is for those who can be redeemed i.e. have the capacity of changing their alignment.
> Mercy means that you don't torture and give evil enemies a clean and quick death.
> 
> The whole assumption that all of the sentient creatures in standard D&D are capable of choices about their alignment. Some are but for many they are instrinctly good or instrinctly evil. That is the nature of the game.




That depends on the setting....for say Eberron that would not be true.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 20, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Abiding by the party's decision would not threaten the paladin's status, so that argument is moot. Furthermore, the 'party's decision' here is something to consider: isn't the paladin part of the party? As such, didn't she have the opportunity to influence that decision? What's more, if she felt so strongly about it, why didn't she simply veto the decision? All it would have taken is a statement that "if you don't kill this orc, I will".




I know some DM's who would disagree with your opinion regarding that -- but, I agree it's a moot argument. We don't know if she had any influence or anything to say in the decision or not, the OP didn't extrapolate on that. I don't see anything in the code which would prevent her from getting information from the orc firs tand then giving him a quick, painless death. That apparently seemed to be her course of action, contrary to what the OP wanted to do.



> No, the paladin stayed silent because it was convenient to let the orc think he was going to live. When she had no further use for it, she reneged on the deal she struck (or, by not opposing, consented to). And that's chaotic.




We don't know she stayed silent or was even aware of the intent of the OP to let the orc go. I also don't agree that 'silence' equals consent. So, until I see a post saying she agreed to let the orc go and then killed it, I don't see her as reneging on the deal and performing a chaotic act.



> Now, why is it that in-party alignment differences always seem to be seconds away from violence? If the relationships within the party are so strained that that's the case, how can they possibly hold together long-term? (I see this frequently in paladin threads. I see it frequently in threads where one party member has knifed another in his sleep over some trivial matter. It's crazy. To survive long-term, a party simply must trust one another, probably with their lives, and that doesn't really allow one or more members to be "seconds from attacking" one another, no matter their alignments.)




I see this quite frequently too and I agree, its crazy. This party doesn't need to be together if they are going to be at odds with each other, because otherwise it will fall apart at some critical juncture when the stress is high. But, I've always heard that to have a paladin in your party, you have to have a certain type of party make-up (with regards to alignment/outlook) or it can lead to alot of internal strife. It was never a problem in the group I played a paladin in.



> If more information becomes available, I may revise my assessment, as happened in two of the "Is this fair" threads. However, given the scenario as presented, the paladin took a distinctly chaotic (and non-good) act. In itself, that doesn't matter too much, but a pattern of such actions calls for an alignment shift, and the fall from grace that goes with it.




I agree here as well and reserve the right to revise my assessment if more information appears. But, I disagree, given the information presented, the paladin did exactly what she was supposed to and should reap no concequences for her actions in regards to her paladinhood, though in all probability, there should be some serious party discussion going on.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 20, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Did the paladin agree to the terms of the deal with the orc?
> Was the orc evil in alignment?
> The code states that paladin's punish those who harm or threaten innocents, did the orc do that previously?
> Was it against the legitimate authorities laws to kill the orc?
> ...




IMO the paladin broke, or at least heavily strained, their Code based on their action _towards their allies._  The paladin has dishonored her ally, shown she has no respect for their word, and done so over a creature that could have been redeemed in some fasion.  

Basically the paladin just told the OP that "Hey, you can make all the promises you want but I personally hold your word in such low regard that I will spit on your oaths in front of your face."

Yeah, I'd go whack-a-mole on this paladin.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> The paladin could have just insisted that the orc be taken back to some authority (unless he is part of the law enforcement/justice for country.)



 Two points, and I'll admit, I'm a stickler for this one.  

First, passing the buck like that is intellectual sloth.  It's saying there's this morally uncomfortable question that's come about, I'll hand it off to someone else so as to spare myself any guilt on the matter.  A paladin may haul an offender off (see point two), but they could just as easily take up the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner themselves and as above both would be equally right.  If the paladin, or anyone really, deals with it themselves, moral courage then comes in the form of living up to those actions and if necessary, taking the reprocussion without complaint.   

Secondly, they're pretty much tantamount to the same thing.  Carting away badguys so the proper authorities can give them a time out is a very modern concept.  In less civilized times, punishment generally came in one of four flavors - execution, maiming, humiliation, and reparation.  Taking that orc to the 'proper authorities' would just have them say thanks and then kill the orc themselves.  The only difference is some travel time and who holds the sword, in the end. 




> _That depends on the setting....for say Eberron that would not be true._



  Granted, though to be fair Eberron does also take pains to point out that not all generally-evil humanoids = badguys ripe for the killin', by making a point to have things like gnolls, orcs, hobgoblins, etc part of normal, functional, semipolite society.

There's the further end of the scale - if a daelkyr said he was sorry and is repenting, would you take it as face value - but that's another matter.



> _Also since alignment is based on actions that means all evil sentient beings are born good._



 Not counting Always X critters who are born with their alignment as is mentioned expressly, still no.  That means all evil sentient beings arn't born good, they're born neutral.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I am not sure what the metaphysical scales are in D&D core since evil is defined by actions.  If someone was evil all there life and then decides to be good, does that out way their actions?  As far as player characters go, the player has to start acting the alignment, so wouldn't an evil player still detect as evil for awhile until his actions changed his alignment?




That's the big debate - what does alignment represent?

We take the example of, say, Xena.  She's been an evil warlord, and delighted in slaughter.

And then she has a revelation, and realises that Evil Is Not The Way, and declares her intention to Fight The Good Fight.

What is her alignment at this instant?  The answer, depending on who you ask, will fall into one of three main categories:

1. Evil.  Alignment is a record of past deeds, and her past evil acts dictate her alignment.  She may gradually migrate to Good if her future actions begin to outweigh her past.

2. Neutral.  She's no longer someone who would perform evil deeds, so she shouldn't radiate evil, but she can't be Good until she's proven herself worthy.

3. Good.  Alignment gives us a guideline to how someone will react to a given situation, and with her new resolution, her reactions will be those of a Good person.

The problem is, different people won't agree on what alignment actually tells us...

I'd argue, personally, that the existence of the Helm of Opposite Alignment is evidence for case 3.  Alignment reflects your current outlook, not your past deeds.

Someone who performs evil deeds without evil intent might not have an evil alignment.  Someone with an evil outlook who never quite gets around to acting on it can still be evil.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> IMO the paladin broke, or at least heavily strained, their Code based on their action _towards their allies._ The paladin has dishonored her ally, shown she has no respect for their word, and done so over a creature that could have been redeemed in some fasion.




Where did the paladin break the code? It's either broken or not, you can't strain it. It's a moral code, it breaks not bends. As for showing no respect for his word, we don't know if he said anything regarding it or if she initially stood against it or not. Whether the creature could be redeemed or not is a debate and will differ from DM to DM.

Lets go to the SRD:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Code of Conduct
> A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> 
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




Additionally, we don't know the details of the agreement, all we know is one of the paladin's ally *intended* to let the orc go. We don't know if the paladin agreed with that course of action or not, before taking action herself. So, assuming the paladin disrespected or dishonored her allies is a jump. We could speculate either direction though. Maybe the allies disrespected the paladin's code that she HAS to live by, by making a deal with an evil creature against her wishes.

At the bones of it though, the paladin killed an evil creature and the OP gave an incomplete and view of it when asking for opinions.



> Basically the paladin just told the OP that "Hey, you can make all the promises you want but I personally hold your word in such low regard that I will spit on your oaths in front of your face."
> 
> Yeah, I'd go whack-a-mole on this paladin.




Lets discuss associates.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Associates
> While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, *a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.* A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.




Emphasis mine.

Could be this paladin and group aren't going to be haning together for long.  This is often how that kind of fracture within parties often start. 

So you know what the paladin actually said? You were THERE then? Well gods be praised, we can clear up ALL the questions now 

How do you know the paladin didn't say, "I am bound to kill this evil creature. Question it all you want, but upon being done I will slay it since there is no proper authority we can turn it into. I understand you wish to let this creature go and have told it so despite my contrary stance, but it is an affront to all I stand for. My code is gods given for me to obey and I cannot abide with its freedom when it has shown it will come back to wreck havoc upon these innocents again when we are not around to protect them." (because remember, these orcs were just slaughtering people previously)

I wasn't there either, shouldn't put words in peoples mouths. If any character said your quote to mine, I'd go play whack-a-mole with that character.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Campaign Specifics: Mysteries of the Moonsea*

To clarify:

01. We were adventuring in the Thar (FRCS) ... a lawless land crawling with savage humanoids.
02. We were employed by the Harpers to end ogre banditry on the Glister Road.

03. The orc captive was indeed affiliated with a citadel of ogre bandits.
04. The orc was also clearly a mook.
05. Nonetheless, he provided us with a fairly detailed (and accurate) description of the citadel's forces.

06. The paladin did not protest until we were about to let the orc go.
07. Our party has released captive mercenaries before, after securing their cooperation.

08. My character, Nigel Yarrow, is a CN (CG) wizard from the Moonsea region (i.e., Thentia).
09. Nigel was adopted by a kindly mage, after his mother abandoned him.
10. His best friend is Mival "Ogrebane", the party's half-orc tank. Mival is from Glister.

11. Nigel speaks fluent orc and giant.
12. He understands the corrupt geopolitics of his homeland and acts pragmatically in his dealings with local hoodlums.

I hope these statements help. Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Keep 'em coming!

-Samir (Nigel)


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> To clarify:
> 
> 06. The paladin did not protest until we were about to let the orc go.
> 07. Our party has released captive mercenaries before, after securing their cooperation.
> ...




Did the paladin (character) know the result was going to be to let the orc go and agree with that course of action? (I'm not one of those that believe silence equals consent).

I guess you could also ask, did the player know the orc was going to be released and did the player say anything to the contrary?

Mercenaries are not always evil, they may just be working for an evil cause and therefore the same rule about no mercy to evil doesn't apply.

Was the conversation with the orc in orcish and does the paladin speak it?

Thanks for supplying some additional information.  I think we need a few more tidbits though.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> The paladin could have just insisted that the orc be taken back to some authority (unless he is part of the law enforcement/justice for country.)  If the orc had betrayed them, he could have killed him.  I'm not saying the paladin shouldn't want more justice.  I am just saying that he acted as if he was the judge, jury, and executioner for someone that was entirely defenseless.  Just because you can detect evil does not mean you have a right to kill all evil.




Paladins don't answer to local authority first they answer to good first. Now I gave a flippant answer in actual practice you are somewhat right a paladin doesn't go around defying local authority figure be because they aren't in his chain of command. Paladin is lawful as well as good. But the example given was a party on a mission in the middle of nowhere with a evil orc. So the Paladin doesn't just have the right he has to duty to kill that orc before it could do any harm.



			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> I am not sure what the metaphysical scales are in D&D core since evil is defined by actions.  If someone was evil all there life and then decides to be good, does that out way their actions?  As far as player characters go, the player has to start acting the alignment, so wouldn't an evil player still detect as evil for awhile until his actions changed his alignment?
> 
> Also since alignment is based on actions that means all evil sentient beings are born good.
> 
> That depends on the setting....for say Eberron that would not be true.




First off in various settings my statments are total baloney. You have read up on what gods, good, evil means for THAT setting.

But I am refering to what is laid out in the CORE books. Alignment is by choice for the PC Races. But monsters that are evil are well... evil. An Orc is a monster in core D&D. There is no reason to let a orc live in a core D&D adventure.

Now if this was say Sovereign Stone or World of Warcraft it is way way different for orcs. 

In the original post it start out the party slaughtered a group of ORC SOLDIERS. So this wasn't a hunting party, wasn't a group out gathering stuff. No these orcs are the kinds that goes out and attacks the local farmers and pillages the villages. They are the vanguard of the evil that orc inflict. 

The paladin was every bit justified in disagreeing with the party leader's decision and it was entirely within the bounds of his alignment and class to take action and slay the orc. A traditional paladin doesn't answer to anybody but the call of good. And if you are a leader of a party that has a paladin you are fool to think that any compromise can be made if your decision comes into least bit of conflict with the paladin's call to uphold the good.

Traditional Paladins is a great ally to have but they are also a pain in the butt.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 21, 2006)

Here are some quotes from Elisabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion which I consider the best written protrayal of a D&D paladin.

"Most of them had thought, ... being a holy warrior meant gaining vast arcane plowers -- they would be invincible against any foe. .... Although paladins much be skilled at fighting, that was the least of their abilities. A quest may involved no fighting at all, or against beings that no steel could pierce."

"Paladins show that courage is possible." ... "It is easy enough to find reasons to give into evil. War is ugly ... We don't argue that war is better than peace; we [paladins] are not as stupid as that. But it is not peace when cruelty reigns, when stronger men steal from farmers and craftworkers, when the child can be enslaved or the old thrown out to starve, and no one lifts a hand. That is not peace: that is conquest and evil. We start no quarrels in peaceful lands; we never display weaponskill to gain applause. But we are Gird's [a patron saint] cudgel dare greater force to break evil's grasp on the innocent. Some we can do that without fighting, without killing and that is best."

[ed note: this is in response to a question on why paladin are so likable, high charisma]

"It't important ... We come to a town, perhaps, where nothing has gone right for a dozen years. Perhaps there is a grange [church] of Gird, perhaps not. But the people are frightened and they've lost turst in each other, in themselves. We may lead them to danger; some will be killed or wounded. Being likeable helps them trust us."

On Detect Evil

"A paladin can sense good and evil directly, now you may think that that makes everything simple: on the one side are bad people and you kill them, and over here are the good people, and they cheer for you."  <laughter ensues> "But that's not how it works. Normally you will experience people much as you do now -- liking some, and not liking others. Most people - including us -- are mixtures, neither wholly evil nor wholly good. But if you are close to someone intent on evil, you will know that evil is near and be able to locate it."

The discussion end with this

"Realize that like any other gift, it is a tool and you must learn to use it carefully. or it can slip in your hand."


----------



## Storyteller01 (Sep 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds
> 
> MERCY
> For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme — respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
> ...





Stated before I did, although the illustration with that statement might help as well. The one where a paladin (looks like a female half orc) has two succubi at sword point.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> First, passing the buck like that is intellectual sloth.  It's saying there's this morally uncomfortable question that's come about, I'll hand it off to someone else so as to spare myself any guilt on the matter.  A paladin may haul an offender off (see point two), but they could just as easily take up the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner themselves and as above both would be equally right.  If the paladin, or anyone really, deals with it themselves, moral courage then comes in the form of living up to those actions and if necessary, taking the reprocussion without complaint.
> 
> Secondly, they're pretty much tantamount to the same thing.  Carting away badguys so the proper authorities can give them a time out is a very modern concept.  In less civilized times, punishment generally came in one of four flavors - execution, maiming, humiliation, and reparation.  Taking that orc to the 'proper authorities' would just have them say thanks and then kill the orc themselves.  The only difference is some travel time and who holds the sword, in the end.





I work in security. Does this mean I get to flog kids who were caught breaking into a building as opposed to calling the police. By current standards, I'd be facing jail time.

D&D is based in a dark age/pre-renaissance setting, but much of what goes on is usually based on modern ideology. Even with that taken out of the equation, judgements had to be handed down by officials (the village elder, mayor, king, etc) unless the parties in question were out in the woods, all alone...

Did the paladin ever specifically state in an oath, or have it stated to them via a higher order, that they could pass judgement and punishment while out in the field?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> But I am refering to what is laid out in the CORE books. Alignment is by choice for the PC Races. But monsters that are evil are well... evil. An Orc is a monster in core D&D. There is no reason to let a orc live in a core D&D adventure.




Are you certain?

My Core books have Orcs as 'Often Chaotic Evil'.

Definition of an 'Often' alignment?

"The creature tends towards the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly.  A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."

So the orc in a Core D&D adventure has a 40-50% chance of being Chaotic Evil.  Now, it may be that most of the other 50-60% are, say, Neutral Evil... but that's not guaranteed!

Pick a random core orc, and you can't say "He's evil"; all you can say are "About even odds he's Chaotic Evil".

That's 50-60% of all random orcs who might be NE, LE, or _not evil at all_.

And even those who are Chaotic Evil tend that way, but not strongly.  They're not irredeemable, like a vampire or a fiend.

-Hyp.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*The "Faithbringer"*



			
				DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> For example, in the FR campaign I run, a paladin of Chauntea will have a much more relaxed attitude towards "questionable" acts by other party members, and be more inclined to "lead by example", then - for example - a paladin of Tyr, or Helm.



By the way, our paladin is Tyrran ... although she venerates the entire Triad.

-Samir


----------



## Zapak Vim (Sep 21, 2006)

As the previous post said, orcs are NOT always psychoticand  evil etc. demons are, but orcs are not. from my reading of the MM, orcs evil is a cultural thing not an inherent part of Orkyness.
IMC that paladin would be in the poo with the gods and would definitely be required to atone or repent of his/her deed.

And yes the morality implied in the description of 'good' in the rules is  a far cry from standard morality in medieval tiems but as the BOED says, Playing an exalted character or a paladin is supposed ot be difficult. they are supposed to have a far higher standard than the rest of the society they are in. So what if the mainstream society considers it to be OK to exterminate orcs including the defenceless and children. paladins get all those special powers because their job is very difficult.

Of course the Paladins player should know all this in advance. its the DMs responsibility to explain alignment stuff to the players, especially to paladins and good clerics.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 21, 2006)

Score - Paladin 0 Orc 1

The paladin did nothing evil, however she acted WAY out in Chaos land - loss of powers, atonement before regaining and minor geas.  Though she did kill evil she did so in a way that violated the "Laws of War" (don't believe they exist, just ask a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine).  The following is a real world explaination of my opinion.
Definition of a combatant:
Any individual that is in a position to physical, harm, maim, or hinder the mission of a combat unit or soldier.
When a person is no longer in a position to harm another, through injury or inaction, that person is no longer a combatant, they become a non-combatant or prisoner.  If a prisoner is released by proper authority (and in this case they were) and then mistreated, the person committing the autrocity is liable for prosecution under the "war crimes" act of the Geneva convention.  
Using this as my guide I can stand of firm ground saying the paladin should "hang" for her inappropriate behaviour.  A sly cleric would also say that part of the reparations to atone would be supporting the family of the slain victim and ensure the are well cared for.  Raising orcs in a "non-evil" envirnoment and offering support to the widows is also a great role-playing hook.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Further Clarification:*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> I don't see where it says the Orc surrendered, just that one was left alive. I also don't see any info that the party had discussed letting the captive live - other than the one character who was prepared to cut the orc loose with a warning.



01. The orc prisoner was knocked out with a _sleep_ spell and subdual damage from a cudgel.
02. He woke up in captivity.

03. The party discussed its concerns before (and during) questioning ... in the Damaran tongue.
04. The paladin did not voice any objections at this point.
05. Nigel and Mival then conversed in Aragrakh, regarding interrogation strategy.
06. The paladin was angered by our "clandestine" discussion, but said nothing about the orc or the Q&A session.
07. Without knowing our reason for speaking Aragrakh, she verbally threatened me for talking " ... behind her back."
08. I stood my ground, and asked if she was prepared to strike me down. She backed off.

09. We resumed the interrogation without protest; the orc told us everything he knew about the citadel.

10. The paladin did not take action against the orc ... until we were about to release him.

-Samir


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Sep 21, 2006)

you know i have been known to give a lot of leway but yeah shes acting very controlingas a dm i could make this one fall hard  sad to say but for me looks like shes on her way down  whats that saying about the road to hell being paved and all that,...would love the hear your dm's take on this


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Pick a random core orc, and you can't say "He's evil"; all you can say are "About even odds he's Chaotic Evil".




Sure that handy dandy Detect Evil remember. In the example given the paladin had more than enough rounds to get through read on the orc.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And even those who are Chaotic Evil tend that way, but not strongly.  They're not irredeemable, like a vampire or a fiend.




In theory perhaps but in traditional D&D Orcs as whole are chaotic evil forming nations bent on the destruction of the good lands surrounding them. Since we now know the setting is Forgotten Realms that uses Orcs mostly in their traditional sense, along with the fact it was Orc Soldier in the service of Ogre bandit preying on the locals make the paladin's action correct in the context of upholding the good.

When released that Orc will return to his tribe or troop and continue to prey on Glister Road. Whatever the judgement of the party leader releasing the Orc is a mistake and only goes to strengthen evil.

Now could of the paladin handled the situation better with the party? Maybe, the paladin is only human you know. However I wasn't there. 
Perhaps the paladin fealt it was better to keep silent rather than just create party disenssion. One thing tho the paladin didn't need Detect Evil to know when something was going down that she wouldn't like when several of the party started speaking in a language that she couldn't understand. 

I been role-playing since 78 both table-top and live-action I had this done to my paladin characters, seen it done to other paladin characers, and done it to other paladin characters. It call "Don't let the paladin know" manueveur. Only in this case the paladin mostly played it cool until the end when she took matters in her own hand.

Understand she doesn't answer to the party she answers to good and good alone. Her lawfulness come from her commitment to follow that call regardless of the consquences to herself. In this case the good graces of her felllow party members.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*More Tidbits ....*



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> Did the paladin (character) know the result was going to be to let the orc go and agree with that course of action?



I don't honestly know. We were discussing the idea of releasing the prisoner during (and after) the interrogation, but we did not make any explicit agreements before the dispute broke out.



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> I guess you could also ask, did the player know the orc was going to be released and did the player say anything to the contrary?



Once again ... I'm unsure about personal thoughts. However, I do not recall the paladin PC saying anything about the orc ... until we already had the information we needed.



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> Was the conversation with the orc in orcish and does the paladin speak it?



It was in both Common and Orc. The paladin does not speak Orc, but there was nothing that we said in Orc that we did not also repeat (or paraphrase) in Common.

For the record, three of the five party members speak fluent Orc ... including Nigel and Mival.

-Samir


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 21, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Thanatos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a "no," then.  The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.

So much for all the people screaming about how the paladin "broke her word," or "acted chaotically."


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Sep 21, 2006)

> That's a "no," then. The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.



 true but they had to know everyone else had planed to let them go they should have spoken out its a breach of trust between the pcs  and as i said earler small staps is all it takes to lead down the path of the great fall


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Clarification:*



			
				Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> That's a "no," then.



Only if her player says so. I can't read minds, and I don't run other people's characters.

However, I have notified my pal Dewey (a.k.a. "Wyndess Faithbringer") about this thread. He can speak for his paladin, if he chooses to do so.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Further Clarification:*

The paladin interfered after we had finished the interrogation, and while we were figuring out what to do next.

Instead of discussing the matter with us, she stepped forward with a drawn sword and demanded the orc's death.

-Samir


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> That's a "no," then.  The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.
> 
> So much for all the people screaming about how the paladin "broke her word," or "acted chaotically."



_Having gotten the information they needed, the group turned to their prisoner. 

'As our group agreed, in exchange for your life and freedom, and your promise to cease your evil deeds, we will release you to take care of your children.  Take care to see this example of mercy and raise your children to see the world through eyes not shaded by evil,' the bard pronounced diplomatically, as usually.

'Oh thank you sirs!  You are truly merciful--thank you!' the pitiful orc blubbered, as the bard released him.

Grinning with a twinkle in her eye, Keryth drew her sword and stabbed the orc in the back.  As the colour drained from its face, eyes wide in a betrayed look, it could only stammer out 'But...you promised...' 

'I promised you nothing orc,' Keryth smiles, satisfied, as she pulls her blade clear and cleans in on the dying orc's clothes and laughs, 'My comrades agreed to let you go without harm.  I, on the other hand, never said a word.  By the letter of the law, I have kept our bargain.  Abyss take you, wretch!'_


Nope--she didn't break her word.  Using letter of the law to get what you want without regards to others (the other PCs and the orc in this case) is Lawful Evil.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 21, 2006)

> 01. The orc prisoner was knocked out with a sleep spell and subdual damage from a cudgel.
> 02. He woke up in captivity.
> 
> 03. The party discussed its concerns before (and during) questioning ... in the Damaran tongue.



Did these concerns include what to do with the orc after the questioning was done (in other words, kill or let go)?


> 04. The paladin did not voice any objections at this point.



If what to do after was discussed - and "let the orc go" was the conclusion reached by those discussing - did the paladin
1)say nothing/give no input at all one way or another during the discussion about what to do after the interrogation was completed?
2)suggest the orc should be dispatched after questioning - and then say nothing when others didn't agree?

Also was she the only one who voiced no objections?



> 05. Nigel and Mival then conversed in Aragrakh, regarding interrogation strategy.
> 06. The paladin was angered by our "clandestine" discussion, but said nothing about the orc or the Q&A session.
> 07. Without knowing our reason for speaking Aragrakh, she verbally threatened me for talking " ... behind her back."
> 08. I stood my ground, and asked if she was prepared to strike me down. She backed off.



Why did you and another player decide it was necessary for your characters to discuss interrogation strategy in a language not all the other characters could understand?



> 09. We resumed the interrogation without protest; the orc told us everything he knew about the citadel.
> 
> 10. The paladin did not take action against the orc ... until we were about to release him.



I get the impression that the paladin's player had already decided what was going to happen to the orc when your characters were done interrogating and didn't tell you because you had had your characters leave her character out with your private discussion.

IMO the paladin still didn't do anything wrong (as in evil) but may have been a little chaotic (depending on the exact way things were played out). No one ever states the mage is evil because the fireball she just cast on the BBEG kills all his helpless, unconcious minions the party waded through to get to him. In a game where the good guys routinely kill the bad guys - I have no problem with paladins offing the bad guys.



> By the way, our paladin is Tyrran ... although she venerates the entire Triad.



It may be that the paladin's player has been looking at this from the description of the Tyrran faith from Faiths and Pantheons

"Tyrrans tend to view all affairs in clear cut moral terms, preferring to see the world ordered by just laws that provide the greatest benefit to all. They tend toward intolerance, sometimes violently so, and seldom tolerate mockery, parody, or questioning of their faith.

Clerics of Tyr bring law to lawless lands, often serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Without a civilized legal code with which to guide their judgements, they often default to a doctrine roughly equivalent to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Depends on the type of paladin.
> 
> For every paladin that acts as the firm hand of mercy, there's another who takes up the mantle of the unwavering fist of justice.
> 
> ...




QFT

Seriously, My philosophy is that "The paladin is usually right." Why? Because my game usually isn't about finding what the players did wrong. So I don't sweat it. It could be a fun sticking point and discussion area amongst the party members, and if I want to interject an opionion, I've got plenty of routes to do it. This situation is, at most, a road sign. And if it's a long dark road we've been on for a while, well maybe it's time to take a look. 

But ultimately, I'm one of those folks who feels that a paladin should only lose his or her abilities if the player agrees to it. Seriously. If the player disagrees, than pushing it is only going to bring about strife. And if I feel stongly enough to push for it, and they feel strongly enough to keep protesting the the game is probably in the middle of some problems anyway. Ultimately, a loss of paladinhood needs to be fun, or it pretty much goes against the reason that I game. 

To the original poster: Do you think it'd be more fun for bad things to happen to the paladin, or for you and she to have an argument about her actions?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> Sure that handy dandy Detect Evil remember. In the example given the paladin had more than enough rounds to get through read on the orc.




That asks the question "Is an Evil alignment justification for execution?", which in turn comes back to "What does an Evil alignment represent?"

If alignment represents outlook, rather than a record of past deeds (and I maintain, based on the Helm of Opposite Alignment, that it does), then someone can have an Evil alignment _without ever having done anything wrong_.  Do they merit immediate execution?

If alignment is a record of past deeds, then in our Xena example, a woman who would be a powerful force for Good would be executed because of her past, while someone who had performed many good deeds in the past but who is now a psychotic murderer would get a pass because his evil acts haven't tipped the scales past neutral yet.

-Hyp.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Interrogation Conversation*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Did these concerns include what to do with the orc after the questioning was done (in other words, kill or let go)?



Yes, but to be fair we had not firmly decided on a course of action. However, no one openly suggested punishment or execution.

In fact, no one even threatened the prisoner ... until the paladin stepped in (after the interrogation was over).

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Word ....*



			
				ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> Do you think it'd be more fun for bad things to happen to the paladin, or for you and she to have an argument about her actions?



Neither really, but to be honest the session made me feel uncomfortable. Talking about it is cathartic and allows me to achieve discernment.

Ideally, I'd like to work out differences between my mage and the paladin. After all, I am friends with her player IRL.

If I come to the conclusion that Nigel Yarrow cannot co-exist with the Fair Wyndess, then I will have him leave the party and create a new character that can.

In-game drama is fine, but so is plot "flow".

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*Masters of a Dead Tongue ....*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Why did you and another player decide it was necessary for your characters to discuss interrogation strategy in a language not all the other characters could understand?



We spoke in Aragrakh because the orc would probably not know it (i.e., it's a very obscure language). We specifically used this draconic patois during the Q&A.

-Samir


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Based off the new information, I find I do not need to reconsider my opinion.

The Paladin did not implicitly agree to anything since it had not been decided in the first place.

The fact that it wasn't discussed by the paladin is really moot; the paladin apparently understood the course of action she had no choice but to take in thus matter. On the flip side, no one bothered to ask the paladin her thoughts regarding the matter. Her being Tyrran though, seems to really make it clear what dictates her actions.

Rules of war don't apply without formal agreements between fighting factions, so even that is moot. Characterizing the actions as lawful evil is really funny -- I love the little stories people imagine in how this all shook down.

Playerwise, it wasn't the smartest way to handle this whole thing. The fact that so many people are divided on the issue indicates to me, she played close to the line, with opinions differing on whether she crossed it or not.

Hopefully she won't find her character unjustly nerfed by the DM IMO.

Sorry to hear you have chosen to remove that character from the gaming session. I can certainly understand why...I've done that once before (and ended up getting cussed out and banned from the DM's house in perpetuity).


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 21, 2006)

*More ....*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> If what to do after was discussed - and "let the orc go" was the conclusion reached by those discussing - did the paladin
> 1)say nothing/give no input at all one way or another during the discussion about what to do after the interrogation was completed?
> 2)suggest the orc should be dispatched after questioning - and then say nothing when others didn't agree?



01. We discussed the matter, but the paladin acted before a decision was ever reached.
02. She gave no input during the interrogation other than criticizing me for speaking Aragrakh.
03. She never _suggested_ anything about the prisoner ... she did however _demand_ his execution (after the questioning).

-Samir


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Based off the new information, I find I do not need to reconsider my opinion.
> 
> The Paladin did not implicitly agree to anything since it had not been decided in the first place.
> 
> ...



 It is definitely Lawful Evil to twist the law in that way, by omission.  She allowed an agreement to be made by a spokesperson on behalf of the party and then balked using the letter of the law, since she had not personally and specifically submitted to this agreement.  If this is _not_ true, and she didn't deviously twist the letter of the law in this way, then she was acting blatantly against it, in a Chaotic manner.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> It is definitely Lawful Evil to twist the law in that way, by omission.  She allowed an agreement to be made by a spokesperson on behalf of the party and then balked using the letter of the law, since she had not personally and specifically submitted to this agreement.  If this is _not_ true, and she didn't deviously twist the letter of the law in this way, then she was acting blatantly against it, in a Chaotic manner.




There has been no law twisted. Its is not an omission, especially since it had not been decided yet what to do with the prisoner.

An "agreement" had not been made. Read what he said.

And then, a paladin is not bound to what the party spokesperson says if it is a violation of her code. She isn't required to discuss the tenats of her code with the party, it might be the smarter thing to do, but its not required. Perhaps she knew the fight it would cause and decided to just avoid the fight and do what was required of her. Till that person posts here, we won't really know for sure on all counts and in regards to all the details.

LOL so if you can't get her one way, you'll get her another. Her actions weren't chaotic, they were right in line for someone who believes in a lawless land that they have divine right to be judge, jury and if necessary, executioner. 

I think your crediting this player with far too much deviousness.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> 01. We discussed the matter, but the paladin acted before a decision was ever reached.
> 03. She never _suggested_ anything about the prisoner ... she did however _demand_ his execution (after the questioning).
> 
> -Samir




So, it wasn't agreed before questioning and getting information what would be done with the prisoner at the end of questioning. In other words, there was no expectation on the part of the prisoner and common agreement among the characters, he would be let go.

Of course she wouldn't have...because she knew what course of action she had to take, so there was no option for her to discuss it.

I'd still really like to hear from the player of the paladin though...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> There has been no law twisted. Its is not an omission, especially since it had not been decided yet what to do with the prisoner.
> 
> An "agreement" had not been made. Read what he said.
> 
> ...



 If the Paladin had killed the orc _before_ allowing the other PCs to negotiate with the orc for its life and freedom for information--even slaughtering it while they tried to talk, there wouldn't be a problem.  By failing to do so, the Paladin allowed an agreement to be made and then went against it.  Thus, in this way, the actual victims of the Paladin's Evil act were the other PCs.  If one of the other PCs who made the agreement was also a Paladin, for instance, he would have to turn the killer paladin into the authorities and/or beat her up to stop the killing or else fail to uphold the code by going against his word by failing to act to prevent it.

It is the lack of respect for anyone but herself and the willingness to act alone regardless of the effect to the other PCs that makes this act either chaotic or evil, depending on the modus operandi and how it was carried out.  Breaking the consensus to do what you want is Chaotic unless the person you are ignoring is your vassal or subordinate.


----------



## Dross (Sep 21, 2006)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> That's a "no," then.  The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.




If a paladin needs to *explicitly* agree to this deal she needs to do so with all deals. So did the paladin explicitly agree to the job of getting rid of the ogres? If not she cannot accept any payment.  

Also the indication I read is that the discussion was not finished when the paladin decied to execute the orc. Ccan she be certain that the orc was going to be let go (as likely as it was)?



			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil *without mercy* and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."




Who should then have finished the orc strait away, because allowing it to live, even for a little while, is showing mercy is it not? Otherwise it is providing false hope deceitfully to someone that is helpless against you before you kill them.

Letting the orc live = orc prisoner. How is the paladin supposed to treat prisoners or orc prisoners? By Tyrran code her actions _might_ have been acceptable.

A trial, or at least a statement of “You are evil, I cannot abide to let you live” should be given, and if the party has had any experience with the paladin they should know this stance. A trial does not mean a judge back in town as a paladin should have the power to judge and if need be execute in the wilds. Given the further information, the group and the paladin (probably) have the authority to execute the orc for banditry at least. And a “trial by combat” has already been performed. 

Why did the OP’s PC not say to the Paladin: my intent was to let the orc go since he has provided valuable information? and let the discussion continue.

Why did the paladin not say a word as to why she chose to do run the orc down?

Why does the paladin work with people that she doesn’t trust? Why didn’t she ask the PCs talking to talk in Damaran? Why did the other PC’s not tell her their reasoning?

Paladin has accepted the orc as a prisoner by not killing it but by tying it up and letting it regain consciousness (unless the paladin had an honourless reason to tie up the orc????). The party has gotten information (useful or not), should the paladin not take this into consideration (Thank you for your help, your death for your crimes will be quick and painless. CHOP!)?

To me the paladin should have been more forthright in what her actions were going to be. In discussing the matter, the paladin should have made her views clear as to why to orc could not be released. 

As to what happens? A little more explanation about the choices PCs and the DM are going to make is needed. This one scenario shows that not all the group are on the same wavelenght.

And the right answer is one that the group is happy with.


----------



## delericho (Sep 21, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I don't honestly know. We were discussing the idea of releasing the prisoner during (and after) the interrogation, but we did not make any explicit agreements before the dispute broke out.






			
				Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> That's a "no," then.  The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.
> 
> So much for all the people screaming about how the paladin "broke her word," or "acted chaotically."




I agree. If the party didn't deal with the orc beforehand, then the orc has no right to expect release. The paladin is entirely entitled to require justice, which in this case might well be considered to be a quick and painless death.

The paladin may have acted in a somewhat dishonourable manner, riding down an unarmed and fleeing opponent, but her actions were basically okay, and no sanctions are warranted.

(As I said in an earlier post, in the light of new information, I reserve the right to adjust my opinion   )


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> If the Paladin had killed the orc _before_ allowing the other PCs to negotiate with the orc for its life and freedom for information--even slaughtering it while they tried to talk, there wouldn't be a problem.




Well we agree here.



> By failing to do so, the Paladin allowed an agreement to be made and then went against it.  Thus, in this way, the actual victims of the Paladin's Evil act were the other PCs.




An agreement *was not made* by the OP's own admission. They interrogated the orc before reaching a conclusion as to his ultimate fate, thus there was no evil act. Did you read the OP's followup posts where he states that? 

Seems like she did the smart thing in regards to keeping her character from being put in the dilemma of being forced to decide whether to do what the party wanted or what her code demands. Still, not smart in how it was sprung on the players.



> If one of the other PCs who made the agreement was also a Paladin, for instance, he would have to turn the killer paladin into the authorities and/or beat her up to stop the killing or else fail to uphold the code by going against his word by failing to act to prevent it.




This has no bearing on anything and really shows nothing. I would disagree and say in your little skit that both of the paladins would be likely agree that the orc had to be killed. Its still moot since no agreement was made and there were not two paladins in the party.



> It is the lack of respect for anyone but herself and the willingness to act alone regardless of the effect to the other PCs that makes this act either chaotic or evil, depending on the modus operandi and how it was carried out.  Breaking the consensus to do what you want is Chaotic unless the person you are ignoring is your vassal or subordinate.




Following her code is not a lack of respect for herself. And acting out, regardless of the other pc's when it concerns her code is demanded of her and that is not chaotic or evil. I'm sorry, but following the dictates of her code, no matter how you try to slice and portray it, is not chaotic of evil. Even if it goes against the consensus of the party, she is bound to her code first. Thats what being a paladin is all about -- being held to a divine standard over a non-divine one.

Except there was no consensus. Aside from that, if the consensus went against her code, she would still have to follow her code anyway or risk losing her abilities.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos--I don't think anyone except you on this thread is trying to argue that killing the orc was _required_ to avoid violating the code and losing her powers.  Most of the others are saying it was _allowable_ by the code, which is a legitimate argument.  You should read Dross's post--it has some nice succinct insights.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Oh my god, would you care to nitpick more? LOL

Please. replace all the words I used with required with allowed :rolls eyes:

Required by the code is an equally legitimate argument.

I read it. I don't see the same thing you obviously do.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Seems like she did the smart thing in regards to keeping her character from being put in the dilemma of being forced to decide whether to do what the party wanted or what her code demands.




Easier to obtain forgiveness than permission?

Sounds like downright _lawyerin'_ to me!

As an analogy, a paladin's code requires he not lie.  Can he get away with prevarication?

I'd think that any time a paladin has to defend his actions with "Well, _technically_...", he's in violation of the spirit of his code, even if he's within the letter... and I'd think, to a paladin, it's the spirit of the code that's important.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Thanatos--I don't think anyone except you on this thread is trying to argue that killing the orc was _required_ to avoid violating the code and losing her powers.




I've certainly seen it fervently argued in the past that the paladin _must_ destroy anything that detects as evil, or be in violation of the code.

"Evil ping?  Paladin smash!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Oh my god, would you care to nitpick more? LOL
> 
> Please. replace all the words I used with required with allowed :rolls eyes:
> 
> ...



 No, that's important.  Most of your argument in that last post was that the paladin was required to kill the orc by her code and that therefore it was not an evil or chaotic act to blatantly ignore everyone but herself.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've certainly seen it fervently argued in the past that the paladin _must_ destroy anything that detects as evil, or be in violation of the code.
> 
> "Evil ping?  Paladin smash!"
> 
> -Hyp.



 I have too.  I've just been happy to not really see it in this thread--once the thread gets to that point, it usually quickly degenerates and I lose interest.  I agree with you on this one and think that the Xena argument is an apropos one.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Well it usually is where parties are concerned.

LOL -- I don't think it sounds like lawyering though.

I have no idea if the player thought that way or not. But what matters is the characters motivations. So far, we've only gotten information from the OP, not the actual player.

I agree mostly though...the spirit of the code is more important then the letter, but I think both have to be followed, Tying in the tenats of whatever faith the paladin follows though, means not all paladins will make the same exact decisions.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No, that's important.  Most of your argument in that last post was that the paladin was required to kill the orc by her code and that therefore it was not an evil or chaotic act to blatantly ignore everyone but herself.




No, its not important. Whether required or allowed, she felt/believed/whatever that was the course of action she had to take.

Also, ignoring your party members to do something is not a blatently evil or chaotic act.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> No, its not important. Whether required or allowed, she felt/believed/whatever that was the course of action she had to take.
> 
> Also, ignoring your party members to do something is not a blatently evil or chaotic act.



 Ignoring the group's consensus that was made on behalf of all to do your own thing is Chaotic--it is the quintessential act of rejecting legitimate authority, equivalent to flouting a law but on a different social scale.  Allowing them to make it realising that you could get away with technically not being bound by it and intending to renege on it by the letter of the law is Lawful Evil.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ignoring the group's consensus that was made on behalf of all to do your own thing is Chaotic--it is the quintessential act of rejecting legitimate authority, equivalent to flouting a law but on a different social scale.  Allowing them to make it realising that you could get away with technically not being bound by it and intending to renege on it by the letter of the law is Lawful Evil.




So does pursuing a Chaotic end via Lawful means make it a Neutral act?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So does pursuing a Chaotic end via Lawful means make it a Neutral act?
> 
> -Hyp.



 I would say that the Paladin is probably in an either/or here.  But if the Paladin was actually intentionally doing both at once, that could be entertaining and may indeed balance out to a Neutral Evil act.  It depends on the intention of the Paladin, really.  The only thing that seems clear is that it was not simultaneously both Lawful and Good.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ignoring the group's consensus that was made on behalf of all to do your own thing is Chaotic--it is the quintessential act of rejecting legitimate authority, equivalent to flouting a law but on a different social scale.  Allowing them to make it realising that you could get away with technically not being bound by it and intending to renege on it by the letter of the law is Lawful Evil.




Except there was no group consensus, the paladin acted before it was made. What part of this do you not get? The OP said no decision has been made. Why do you keep ignoring that?

And no, just because the rest of the group makes a decision the paladin feels is in conflict with her code, that does not make her obligated to follow it. That doesn't make her act chaotic. "Legitimate Authority" might be subject to interpretation, as she may consider herself the "legitimate authority" in that lawless land.

And again, we come back to the point no decision was made by the party when she acted.  Hence she did not renege or twist the letter of the law. She did so before they decided, perhaps she believes in regards to dispensing justice, she is the law over the partys decisions. The OP said it was in Thar, a lawless land.

In any event, if party decision conflicts with her code, she has to uphold her code first. That is not chaotic or evil or in any way twisting stuff to be lawful evil.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The only thing that seems clear is that it was not simultaneously both Lawful and Good.




Well, not every action a Paladin takes needs to be.  They need to be non-Evil, and they should generally be non-Chaotic, but there's no penalty to a Paladin even for choosing a Neutral act over a Good one (as long as he doesn't violate his code or actually become non-Good as a result).

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, not every action a Paladin takes needs to be.  They need to be non-Evil, and they should generally be non-Chaotic, but there's no penalty to a Paladin even for choosing a Neutral act over a Good one (as long as he doesn't violate his code or actually become non-Good as a result).
> 
> -Hyp.



 That's true.  However, if the act wasn't Chaotic but was instead a deliberate plot to manipulate the party for her own ends, then the act was Evil (though the 'Lawful' tag on that might slip to Neutral Evil).


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Except there was no group consensus, the paladin acted before it was made. What part of this do you not get? The OP said no decision has been made. Why do you keep ignoring that?
> 
> And no, just because the rest of the group makes a decision the paladin feels is in conflict with her code, that does not make her obligated to follow it. That doesn't make her act chaotic. "Legitimate Authority" might be subject to interpretation, as she may consider herself the "legitimate authority" in that lawless land.
> 
> ...



 So are you saying that I could create the following Paladin: 

She claims is that she herself is the only legitimate authority and that therefore she is infallible.  Also, she is the ultimate arbiter as to whether another being must be destroyed.  In general, she kills most people she meets who are not 'in need' (since she must help them) because she finds fault in them and considers them to be dangerous and non-innocent, but she always does it in an aboveboard manner with honour (no lying, cheating, or poison use).  Also, her exception to those 'in need' is broken for Chaotic or Evil people, of course.  Even if they are legitimately in need, if they are Chaotic or Evil (including Chaotic Good), they are never helped, as they will use the aid for Chaotic or Evil ends.  In fact, they are killed, as by virtue of being Chaotic or Evil, they are automatically dangerous enemies who put innocents in harms way by virtue of being alive.

So in summary, here is how she reacts to other characters:

CE: Kill instantly.  Evil and chaotic.  Threatens innocents.
NE: Kill instantly.  Evil.  Threatens innocents.
LE: Kill instantly.  Evil.  Threatens innocents.
CN: Kill instantly.  Chaotic.  Is a loose cannon that threatens innocents.
N: Will probably kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  If they ever threatened innocents through self-interest, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this).  If they are in need, she helps.
LN: Might kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  If they ever threatened innocents through self-interest or strict application of laws, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this).  If they are in need, she helps.
CG: Will probably kill whether or not they are in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  Their Chaotic acts are likely to threaten innocents.
NG: Might kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  If they ever threatened innocents through looking at the big picture and ignoring the fine details of the law in that particular case, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this).  If they are in need, she helps.
LG: Might kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  If they ever threatened innocents through zealous slaughter of those who don't meet their standards, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this).  If they are in need, she helps.  A special case--other paladins: They will almost always need to be killed unless they serve her or otherwise prove that they follow her code exactly because she is the ultimate arbiter of legitimate justice, and so therefore, if they don't follow her, they are dispensing illegitimate justice and killing innocents.

Whew, a mouthful!


----------



## delericho (Sep 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds
> 
> MERCY
> For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme — respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
> ...




Just one of many reasons why I hate that book. The above quote is certainly accurate, if Good = Stupidity.

While within the bounds of civilisation, the paladin will feel bound to accept the surrender of foes, and turn them over to the legitimate authorities for trial and punishment (unless the legitimate authorities are manifestly corrupt or grossly incompetent). And note that if the villain has repeatedly escaped from captivity to continue his evil deeds, the paladin may justly feel that the authorities are incompetent, and that the burden of administering justice does fall to her. At which point, if the just punishment is deemed to be execution, the paladin is free to carry out the sentence.

However, while in the wild (read: typical adventuring environment), the ability to transport captives to the legitimate authorities is curtailed. What's more, the paladin can consider herself to BE the legitimate authorities.

True, the paladin is still required to treat prisoners with appropriate care and respect. She's still not permitted to torture prisoners, nor may she withhold such essentials as food, water and sleep while the prisoner remains alive and in custody. However, the paladin is free to dispense justice, acting in this regard as judge, jury and (if appropriate) executioner.

Of course, the paladin must be careful to be even-handed in the dispensation of justice. She cannot simply summarily execute all captured foes, without at least giving them the ability to defend their actions somehow. It is, after all, possible that those 'orc raiders' who have so 'terrorised' the town were, in fact, being falsely accused. Finally, if an execution is warranted, the paladin should conduct it as quickly, cleanly and painlessly as possible. The issue here is again one of justice, rather than revenge - an execution may be called for, but that doesn't mean it should be conducted with anything other than sorrow.


----------



## quetzyl (Sep 21, 2006)

Everyone seems to be ignoring the most important actor in this drama: the orc! It seems to me that the orc must have been given some reason to believe that it would survive, otherwise why would the orc have told them anything. That means either the party tricked the orc into giving up information, or they promised it freedom and the paladin went against the oath of the party. Either way, I consider this kind of behavior dubious for a paladin. If the orc is so evil that it must be executed, then the execution should be carried out quickly and humanely. I consider that allowing the rest of your party to interrogate the prisoner first, then gutting them, is placing expediency above morality, and if done repeatedly could be grounds for atonement. In my view it doesn't matter what the precise circumstances of who promised what to whom; if you interogate a prisoner, and they answer your questions that entitles them to merciful treatment.

Cheers,
            quetzyl


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 21, 2006)

> Everyone seems to be ignoring the most important actor in this drama: the orc! It seems to me that the orc must have been given some reason to believe that it would survive, otherwise why would the orc have told them anything.



Or, the orc was scared out of its wits by the group that "slaughtered" its comrrades and was hoping, and had decided on its own, that by giving up information it would be allowed to live.


By the way, what are the other PC's alignments?


----------



## Janx (Sep 21, 2006)

Rich Burlew has some good comments on Paladins and being at odds with the party:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

The last 5 paragraphs or so in particular.  Go read it, then come back here.  I'll wait.


My interpretation is that for the good of the game, players do not have a right to blatantly stir up conflict within the party.  Nor, do they have the right to tell another player how to act.

Now at some point in this encounter with the prisoner orc.  The questioner seemed to take the lead.  And he made a decision.  The paladin disagreed with that decision.  And brought it up.  The issue could have been left there, but then the paladin went and killed the orc, apparently against the wishes of the party (the OP is now far away from screen...to validate all details).  At that point, the paladin chose an action that was more conflicting with the party.  What could have been left as a simple "role-played" disagreement that can be glossed over, now starts moving into the real and definite conflict with the other players.



The paladin class's design doesn't help matters.  It has Detect Evil.  If I'm a paladin, and I Detect Evil on you, and you come up as evil...well, it's pretty clear that you're a bad guy.  And bad guys are meant to be destroyed.  The problem is, nobody else has this ability.  And there's no real world equivalent.  So everybody else feels the need to prove he's evil.  A paladin has no such compunction, because it's a done deal.

Case in point, I've got a paladin I'm playing as a cross-bow shooting, "I see demons" buddhist warrior priest.  He interprets his detect evil ability as seeing demons within people.  They're not possesed, effectively they are demons. Generally, the only cure is to kill them.  He doesn't boss the party around in telling them what's right and what's wrong.  He merely is confident in his actions to kill evil when he sees it.  However, even that collides with the Sorceror PC who's on an Exalted Deeds trip.  The feats in there hurt fellow PCs who don't follow the strict limitations set by those feats that the Sorceror took.  Now that violates the "one player telling another how to play his PC" rule.

Overall, you've got to play your PC (paladin included) as able to roll with the party.  If they want to do something that you don't, bring it up as an objection.  If over-ruled, try to find a way to go along with it anyway.  You can always bring it back up later, if the start trending too far off the path.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So are you saying that I could create the following Paladin:
> 
> She claims is that she herself is the only legitimate authority and that therefore she is infallible.  Also, she is the ultimate arbiter as to whether another being must be destroyed.




You miss the point. Her paladin isn't the ultimate arbiter. A paladin is a SERVANT of good. A paladin heeds the call of good. But good is the one that directs the paladin. 

This doesn't mean the paladin needs to abandon reason or is just some type of automaton. What is means that the paladin is receiving guidance in the form of her detect evil, and direction in prayer or commune from those she follows. A true paladin never acting alone and on a whim.

In practical terms that means a DM can define what is "good" for a paladin in his game by how detect evil, prayer, and commune works. A playing a traditional paladin means that you rely on the input of higher powers. A paladin's judgement comes into play when she decide how to best fulfill the goals her call outlines.

This supercedes party loyalty, fealty to kings, etc. Again traditional paladins answer to good and good alone.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 21, 2006)

I been arguing on the basis of what a TRADITIONAL paladin is. I.e. the setting less paladin that is presented in the core rule books. 

A lot of the arguments are over details. What the various WoTC books say, what does FR says, etc, etc. And they are just that, details. What really sets a paladin apart is their faith. Faith to follow their god, creed, or philosphy and becomes it champion. That it. So the detail flow from the specific god, creed, or philosphy. 

So what is the philopshy of good and evil behind the core D&D books. Answer that then you answer what a traditional paladin does. As for the specific incident that started this thread you need to ask what is the philopshy behind good and evil in Forgotten Realm. Which from what I understand stems from what god the paladin follows.

Understand that the concept behind the paladin isn't novel or special. Clerics are supposed to have the exact same issue. The main differences that by the core rules there are clerics of every alignment and that broad role of a paladin is to be the champion (i.e. confront the enemy) while the cleric's role is to be the pastor (i.e. protect and nurture the flock). 

While I do run D20 most of my games are run using GURPS. There are no alignments in GURPS but in my campaign there are strong convinctions. The defining characteristic of paladin-types is to be the champion of their god and follow the call. Indeed I have not only Paladins but a group known as Myrimdons who are the paladin's counter parts following the major "lawful evil" diety of my game. 

When I run D20 I use alignments as labels not absolute, what counts more is the cultural and religious backgroud of the characters.

Now this seems to bit contrary to what I was arguing about paladins before. But the core D&D rules have their own philosphy of good and evil that woven into it. There is absolute good, absolute evil, and the PC races occupy a broad grey range between the two. That even tho PC races have free will and choose there is a point where they become so committed that they are consider irredeemable lost to that side. For example a human Evil High Priest vs a elven paladin.

I admit there are points for alternative views for the philosphy that the core rules give. After all it not like D&D is meant as a work on good and evil but rather uses it as a means of structuring a game. But if you look at the history of D&D and the myths that it was founded on there are elements that help define what a traditional D&D paladin.

From there you get all the different campaigns that are run, and the differences that are found in published campaigns like Ebberron, FR, Greyhawk, etc.


----------



## tonym (Sep 21, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I stood my ground, and asked if she was prepared to strike me down. She backed off.




Aha.  Sounds like your PC was being a jerk to the paladin.  Now it all makes sense.

You knew darn well that the paladin wanted that orc dead, but you went ahead and put that paladin in a sticky situation.

When a paladin enters a party of adventurers, the party TACITLY AGREES that the paladin does not get put into sticky situation by jerky PCs.  And if a jerky PC thoughtlessly puts the paladin in such a situation, the paladin should not be criticized for getting herself out of the situation.

You knew you were angering the paladin and knew the paladin wanted the orc dead, but you went ahead and concocted a difficult situation.  You should have done a much better job of getting information from the orc.

If I was running the paladin, I would've had her say to your PC, "Those who aid evil, may find themselves killed by the same blessed sword of justice," or some other threat to make it clear that the paladin HAS to follow her code, and to interfere with it is to imperil yourself.

Tony M


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Sep 21, 2006)

New info, some new points:

First, the setting:  If the paladin follows Tyr, then they're going to have about the harshest interpretation of law and order and the least tolerance for chaotic and/or evil shenanigans of anybody around, so from a certain point of view that's to be expected.  Doesn't mean they can use that to excuse un-paladin-worthy behavior - they're held to a different standard then the mainstream clergy, no matter what deity they follow.  

And if you're adventuring in Thar, then "local authority" is as good as non-existant.  (This really didn't figure into my earlier thoughts, anyway, but it's worth noting.)  Thar is about as grim and dangerous a frontier as you're likely to see.  So "escorting to the friendly neighborhood lockup" is probably not an option.

However, by the same token, if you're in Thar, this was more than likely a gray orc (assuming your DM uses Monsters and/or Races of Faerun, or previous products describing this).  Which throws the MM out the window.  These are (for those of you who aren't familar with the setting) an etirely different breed, with a much greater intelligence and capacity for honor.  I don't actually have the entry in front of me, but I believe they are listed as often NE or LE, one or the other.  Still evil, granted, but the sticking point is that they're not automatically going to lie to save their skins.  (Again, this is i your DM even uses these products.)

The real thing that's standing out here, for me, is that she actually threatened your character simply for conversing in a language she doesn't understand - this paints her as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill bully, far from a divine champion of justice.  Again, the real problem here is not so much her conduct towards the orc, but towards the members of her own party.  Unless this is an extremely short-lived alliance of convenience, a paladin should (ideally) hold few in higher regard than their brothers (and sisters) in arms, members of her order or not.  And she is simply not honoring her fellow "soldiers", in any regard.  (This, of course, based on what facts have been established so far.)


----------



## sckeener (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."




I believe I covered that he can ignore mercy under the guise of law...but there is an _and _there.  What innocent did he protect?  In other words, the paladin broke the good part.

“Good” implies altruism, *respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.* Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing...out of duty to some...deity.​


			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> Not counting Always X critters who are born with their alignment as is mentioned expressly, still no.  That means all evil sentient beings arn't born good, they're born neutral.




ack...true....good catch.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> While within the bounds of civilisation, the paladin will feel bound to accept the surrender of foes, and turn them over to the legitimate authorities for trial and punishment (unless the legitimate authorities are manifestly corrupt or grossly incompetent). And note that if the villain has repeatedly escaped from captivity to continue his evil deeds, the paladin may justly feel that the authorities are incompetent, and that the burden of administering justice does fall to her. At which point, if the just punishment is deemed to be execution, the paladin is free to carry out the sentence.




Isn't it better to work on finding out why the villians are escaping?  I think I'd rather capture that escaped villian to figure out where the hole in the system is.   What brings more order and good to the world, wiping up one drop (the escaped villian) or fixing the hole in the bucket (the criminal justice system?)




			
				delericho said:
			
		

> However, while in the wild (read: typical adventuring environment), the ability to transport captives to the legitimate authorities is curtailed. What's more, the paladin can consider herself to BE the legitimate authorities.




nope.  Someone considers that their land and unless that paladin is part of that societies' justice system, they are just being vigilantes.  



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You knew darn well that the paladin wanted that orc dead, but you went ahead and put that paladin in a sticky situation.
> 
> When a paladin enters a party of adventurers, the party TACITLY AGREES that the paladin does not get put into sticky situation by jerky PCs.  And if a jerky PC thoughtlessly puts the paladin in such a situation, the paladin should not be criticized for getting herself out of the situation.




actually I believe the player that put the paladin in that spot is CN.  I am not sure what the other alignments are in the group.  It is more likely that the paladin isn't in the correct group.  

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.​


			
				DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> The real thing that's standing out here, for me, is that she actually threatened your character simply for conversing in a language she doesn't understand - this paints her as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill bully, far from a divine champion of justice.



Agreed.



			
				DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Again, the real problem here is not so much her conduct towards the orc, but towards the members of her own party. Unless this is an extremely short-lived alliance of convenience, a paladin should (ideally) hold few in higher regard than their brothers (and sisters) in arms, members of her order or not. And she is simply not honoring her fellow "soldiers", in any regard.




the player is CN/g so of course the paladin and him are not going to get along.  It sounds like either the paladin or the chaotics in the party shouldn't be together.


----------



## Halivar (Sep 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Isn't it better to work on finding out why the villians are escaping?  I think I'd rather capture that escaped villian to figure out where the hole in the system is.   What brings more order and good to the world, wiping up one drop (the escaped villian) or fixing the hole in the bucket (the criminal justice system?)



That's a discussion that only comes into play (IMHO) if the paladin has an INT of 12 or higher.




			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> nope.  Someone considers that their land and unless that paladin is part of that societies' justice system, they are just being vigilantes.



What if it's orc land? Is the paladin required to take the orc before an orc tribunal, or something? You're also assuming that the paladin's code precludes vigilantism.

Lawful for a paladin means adhering to a strict code of ethics, not political legalism. A perfect example of a LG character adhering to a strict vigilante code is Batman (yeah, I know, I'm a nerd).


----------



## delericho (Sep 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Isn't it better to work on finding out why the villians are escaping?  I think I'd rather capture that escaped villian to figure out where the hole in the system is.   What brings more order and good to the world, wiping up one drop (the escaped villian) or fixing the hole in the bucket (the criminal justice system?)




A smart paladin would want to do that also. However, reforming the system is probably a long-term goal, if it can be accomplished at all. In the meantime, there are all these evil villains who keep escaping. At some point, you have to deal with the symptoms of the problem, rather than always going for the root cause.



> nope.  Someone considers that their land and unless that paladin is part of that societies' justice system, they are just being vigilantes.




Yes, the land belongs to the orcish tribe that the party are currently in the process of rooting out. Somehow, I doubt the paladin should be considered bound to the rules and legal system of the tribe.


----------



## ehren37 (Sep 21, 2006)

Hunter In Darkness said:
			
		

> true but they had to know everyone else had planed to let them go they should have spoken out its a breach of trust between the pcs  and as i said earler small staps is all it takes to lead down the path of the great fall




And letting a murderer go free ISNT wrong?


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So are you saying that I could create the following Paladin:
> 
> She claims is that she herself is the only legitimate authority and that therefore she is infallible.




no, no one said she claimed she was infallible. I reiterate, in a lawless place like Thar, a paladin is likely the legitimate authority.



> Also, she is the ultimate arbiter as to whether another being must be destroyed.




I don't know about "ultimate arbiter" -- but if its evil, her code is clear.



> In general, she kills most people she meets who are not 'in need' (since she must help them) because she finds fault in them and considers them to be dangerous and non-innocent, but she always does it in an aboveboard manner with honour (no lying, cheating, or poison use).




Are most people she meets evil monsters? then probably so. Fault is completely different then being evil in alignment.




> Also, her exception to those 'in need' is broken for Chaotic or Evil people, of course.  Even if they are legitimately in need, if they are Chaotic or Evil (including Chaotic Good), they are never helped, as they will use the aid for Chaotic or Evil ends.  In fact, they are killed, as by virtue of being Chaotic or Evil, they are automatically dangerous enemies who put innocents in harms way by virtue of being alive.




No, the code doesn't say anything about "chaotic" people. Just evil...you are trying to lump something else in there that should not be. One of these things is not like the other. This has no bearing on the issue in any event, its another of your "What If's" like if there were 2 paladins in the party.



> So in summary, here is how she reacts to other characters:




Thats just nonsense. You're making up slanted examples up to try and show your right. You have no idea how this character behaves towards other characters of other alignments and trying to show you do with skewed examples is silly when I can do the same thing right back showing my point.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 21, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> You're also assuming that the paladin's code precludes vigilantism.
> 
> Lawful for a paladin means adhering to a strict code of ethics, not political legalism. A perfect example of a LG character adhering to a strict vigilante code is Batman (yeah, I know, I'm a nerd).




I believe there are a few posts in the anti-hero thread that put Batman in the Anti-hero.  IMHO I think anti-heros paladins shouldn't be paladins...maybe corrupt avengers (heroes of horror).

I mean in the early days of Batman he killed criminals.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Yes, the land belongs to the orcish tribe that the party is currently in the process of rooting out. Somehow, I doubt the paladin should be considered bound to the rules and legal system of the tribe.




True, though it doesn't mean the paladin couldn't hold on to him until they get to civilization.  It means that the paladin viewed the inconvenience of having a prisoner as more trouble than taking a life.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> no, no one said she claimed she was infallible. I reiterate, in a lawless place like Thar, a paladin is likely the legitimate authority.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> 
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




It does not mention killing evil either   It just says 'punish those who harm or threaten innocents'.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Yes, I am sure you think you are very clever. Now you are using "well technically..." in your arguements.

However, the paladin obviously felt/believed/whatever just punishment was killing the orc. Thats what we are talking about.

You keep trying to change the scope of the discussion.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Yes, I am sure you think you are very clever. Now you are using "well technically..." in your arguements.
> 
> However, the paladin obviously felt/believed/whatever just punishment was killing the orc. Thats what we are talking about.
> 
> You keep trying to change the scope of the discussion.



 No, I don't think I'm trying to 'be clever' here.  Please stop making accusations.  I know that we both agree that not all Paladins are the same, but I don't quite agree with some of your other logic, so in trying to understand your thought process, since I know it is hard to recognise the other person's thought process over the internet, I'm trying to figure out if you would allow this other paladin I suggested.  I _definitely_ don't think that the Paladin in the original post is following the criteria I raised earlier--it's a new example that as far as I can tell is allowable by your logic.  If the answer is 'Yes', that you would allow it, then I finally do understand what you're getting at and can admit that II agree to disagree with it.  If you say 'No', then I still can't understand your reasoning completely yet.


----------



## delericho (Sep 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I believe there are a few posts in the anti-hero thread that put Batman in the Anti-hero.  IMHO I think anti-heros paladins shouldn't be paladins...maybe corrupt avengers (heroes of horror).




I'm inclined to agree. Batman certainly is not a paladin and, depending on the incarnation, probably isn't Lawful Good. I would further argue that the "respects legitimate authority" clause of the paladin's code DOES preclude vigilante actions.



> I mean in the early days of Batman he killed criminals.




However, I don't agree that this in itself is a bar to either Lawful Good alignment or even paladinhood. Context is crucial here.



> True, though it doesn't mean the paladin couldn't hold on to him until they get to civilization.  It means that the paladin viewed the inconvenience of having a prisoner as more trouble than taking a life.




If the villain's actions are such that the just punishment for those actions is execution, then the paladin is free to execute the criminal. She's bringing justice in that situation. Notions of due process, fair trials, and the like exist in our society in an attempt to ensure justice, but they're only one means of doing this. (Naturally, the paladin must be extremely careful to ensure that it is justice that she is bringing. But that's not the same as saying she must always cart a villain back to 'civilisation' for trial an execution.)

Besides, what gives the courts in the 'civilised' lands the right to stand in judgement over those who live beyond the frontier? There is no law in these places, and so can be no crimes. Yet there still exists the concept of justice (moral justice if nothing else, quite separate from notions of law). Is the paladin to say to travellers who have been viciously attacked in these regions, "sorry, there's nothing I can do. There's no law here, so no court to try your oppressors."? No, he should bring justice to the oppressed, even in regions where 'law' hasn't reached.

(Actually, this thread reminds me of the Zogonia comic in Dragon #347 - "A trial? For an orc?")


----------



## sckeener (Sep 21, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Besides, what gives the courts in the 'civilised' lands the right to stand in judgement over those who live beyond the frontier? There is no law in these places, and so can be no crimes. Yet there still exists the concept of justice (moral justice if nothing else, quite separate from notions of law). Is the paladin to say to travellers who have been viciously attacked in these regions, "sorry, there's nothing I can do. There's no law here, so no court to try your oppressors."? No, he should bring justice to the oppressed, even in regions where 'law' hasn't reached.
> 
> (Actually, this thread reminds me of the Zogonia comic in Dragon #347 - "A trial? For an orc?")




 I agree.  In fact, the last bit about the travellers goes right to the code.  However in this case there were no innocents around.  The paladin was going to kill 'gollum' the orc.

“What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature [Frodo declares] when he had a chance!”

“Pity? [Gandalf replies] It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that [Bilbo] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”

“I am sorry” said Frodo. “But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.”

“You have not seen him,” Gandalf broke in.

“No, and I don’t want to,” said Frodo. “. . . Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.”

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or Ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many — yours not least.”​
I love that list bit about _even the very wise cannot see all ends_.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 21, 2006)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> I work in security. Does this mean I get to flog kids who were caught breaking into a building as opposed to calling the police. By current standards, I'd be facing jail time.



 I think we're both saying the same thing, Storyteller.  That by modern standards and with the present-day justice system, yeah, you'd be in trouble.  1500s spain? Not so much.



> _D&D is based in a dark age/pre-renaissance setting, but much of what goes on is usually based on modern ideology. Even with that taken out of the equation, judgements had to be handed down by officials (the village elder, mayor, king, etc) unless the parties in question were out in the woods, all alone..._



 Which, in this situation is pretty much what happened, on both counts.  Sent by an official authority to go deal with a threat, and they're currently off in the middleof nowhere.



> _Did the paladin ever specifically state in an oath, or have it stated to them via a higher order, that they could pass judgement and punishment while out in the field?_



 You'd have to ask the OP that.  But for your standard, generic holy roller paladin it's a pretty good bet they did indeed do just that.  Empowered by the authority of their church to go forth and smite evil in the name of the light.  That's a lot of what paladins do.  

And even if they havn't it still doesn't matter.  The fact that they are a paladin in the first place is pretty much lisence from the Unnamed Universal Good (tm) to go around detecting, smiting, healing, and summoning horses.  Part of the idea is that you don't just sprout paladin abilities, you get them because something out there wants you to have them and if you abuse them you don't get them anymore.  Or does 'higher authority' have to be implicitly human in agency?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Janx said:
			
		

> The paladin class's design doesn't help matters.  It has Detect Evil.  If I'm a paladin, and I Detect Evil on you, and you come up as evil...well, it's pretty clear that you're a bad guy.  And bad guys are meant to be destroyed.  The problem is, nobody else has this ability.  And there's no real world equivalent.  So everybody else feels the need to prove he's evil.  A paladin has no such compunction, because it's a done deal.




But is everyone who has an evil alignment worthy of immediate execution?

Even more problematically - is everyone who has an evil _aura_ worthy of immediate execution?

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No, I don't think I'm trying to 'be clever' here.  Please stop making accusations.




I'm not making an accusation. Consider how the context of that post could be taken. Looked like you were trying to be lawyerly and clever to me, and succeeding.



> I know that we both agree that not all Paladins are the same, but I don't quite agree with some of your other logic, so in trying to understand your thought process, since I know it is hard to recognise the other person's thought process over the internet, I'm trying to figure out if you would allow this other paladin I suggested.  I _definitely_ don't think that the Paladin in the original post is following the criteria I raised earlier--it's a new example that as far as I can tell is allowable by your logic.  If the answer is 'Yes', that you would allow it, then I finally do understand what you're getting at and can admit that II agree to disagree with it.  If you say 'No', then I still can't understand your reasoning completely yet.




Okay...now that MAKES alot more sense to me. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out why you were responding the way you were. No, it didn't occur to me to ask, sometimes I miss simple stuff like that... 

The problem that I have with your examples are they aren't universal, lacking some context to put them in perspective, as well as I think they were biased examples. Not all campaigns bask in moral dilemma for paladins and many DM's just do their best to keep it simple.

If there were 2 Paladins in the party, well they consider themselves brothers & sisters in arms, they very well could have had different conclusions about what to do in a given situation. I don't think a paladin would stop the actions of another paladin unless they directly conflicted with that paladins code. Then they would be forced to discuss a solution to whatever the problem was that was acceptable by the requirements of their codes.

Nor do I think a paladin would help people who were evil. Chaotic yes, but not evil. Even if they were in need, unless the paladin felt his actions had the possibility of opening up redemption to those beings. Thats going to depend on the campaign and the paladin though, because not all paladin codes are equal since faith plays a part in that (in that how a Tyrran paladin vs a Helm paladin might react to such things very differently). 

Furthermore, while I think the paladin in our OP had to chase the orc down and kill it, I don't necessairly think it was a good act to kill an unarmed and fleeing opponent, but a necessary one (I would call it a neutral action) -- lawful in regards to necessary punishment (justice): yes. The only realistic punishment (death) available in that lawless land: yes. In keeping with the Paladins Code: yes (just because an enemy has chosen to run away doesn't give them a free pass).

Hopefully that gives you some idea where I am coming from.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 21, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to agree. Batman certainly is not a paladin and, depending on the incarnation, probably isn't Lawful Good. I would further argue that the "respects legitimate authority" clause of the paladin's code DOES preclude vigilante actions.




When the police put a giant bat-spotlight on their roof to signal they want Batman's help and he comes to help them when they call, it's hard to say that he doesn't respect legitimate authority.

In many ways, Batman isn't really a vigilante because he never attempts to dole out justice on his own.  He stops crimes in progress and even gather evidence on criminals to stop crimes before they happen.  However, he doesn't make it his business to decide how criminals should be punished.  Batman stories all end with him handing the criminal over to the police to be tried and punished (or not) according to Gotham's justice system.  He doesn't keep his own private prison or beat up criminals to 'teach them a lesson'.  (Well, not usually.)

How can you get more respectful of authority than that?

Maybe Batman has too much chaos in him to be a paladin.  It's certainly arguable.  However, one consistent character trait has been a strong respect for the legal system.  Even though he knows it's corrupt and imperfect, he has a lot of respect for the institutions of society.  It's just that for the time being they are inefficient, and so need him to act outside the system.
[/quote]


----------



## Conaill (Sep 21, 2006)

tonse said:
			
		

> On a side note: In the generic D&D-World orcs aren't exactly soldiers but a race of psychos intent on slaughtering anybody else. When this is finished, they will happily kill other orcs. Absolutely irredeemable. So no, I don't buy the "Prisoner of War-Argument".



Alignment: *Often* chaotic evil


Doesn't sound like "absolutely irredeemable" to me at al...


----------



## Conaill (Sep 21, 2006)

Deuce Traveler said:
			
		

> "Gentlemen, you have three choices.  First, you may surrender yourselves to me and I will place you under arrest in our fortress (converted Moat House).  There you will receive food and a cell to rest in, but will have no trial until we have cleansed this land of evil.  This may be a long time, but afterwards you will be tried by the good people of Hommlet.  Your second option is to agree to repent your evil ways and convert to Pelor.  You will still be kept in a cell, but we will see to your religious education and free you when we are confident that you have seen Pelor's light (by using Detect Evil).  Finally, I can judge you here and now.  I warn you that my judgement is harsh, and it will most likely end with your execution.  You will have your say, and if I deem you guilty, I will allow you an hour to pray to your god before giving you the axe."



Sounds like a good solution, and unless such behavior would explictly go against the paladin's order or the law of the land, a very paladin-like thing to do. 

How do you deal with prisoners/converts when there is no quick way to get them to a cell? E.g. you're off on a mission in enemy terrain, or stuck in a dungeon with no exit in sight? Not every paladin can count on having a readily available detention facility, and dragging prisoners along for days may very well jeopardize your mission (possibly causing the deaths of many more innocent lives than the number of prisoners you're dragging around)...


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*Roll Call: Ethos*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Or, the orc was scared out of its wits by the group that "slaughtered" its comrrades and was hoping, and had decided on its own, that by giving up information it would be allowed to live.



That's my current theory too. However, only the DM knows for sure (i.e., we don't have access to _speak with dead_).



> By the way, what are the other PC's alignments?




*Wyndess Faithbringer:* Aasimar Cleric 3 / Paladin 2 --- (LG)
*Mival "Ogrebane":* Half-Orc Barbarian 3 / Ranger 3 --- (CG)
*Wade Tysel:* Elan Psychic Warrior 2 / Psion 4  --- (CG)
*Bogg Vargus:* Halfling Rogue 6 --- (CG)
*Nigel Yarrow:* Human Wizard 5 / Wild Mage 1 --- (CN)
-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*RE: Advice*



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Rich Burlew has some good comments on Paladins and being at odds with the party:
> http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html



Excellent article; far better than similar "log-jam" pieces I've seen in _Dragon_.

Thanks for the link!  

-Samir


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 22, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That sounds more LN and hardassed to me than LG and honorable.



Funny you should say that. At the moment I am running a LN cleric of St Cuthbert. When our party captures an enemy, they always seem to turn to me for mercy - they seem to assume I am LG. This often results in my yelling "Retribution!" and slamming a gauntlet into their face.  


			
				The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> *Wyndess Faithbringer:* Aasimar Cleric 3 / Paladin 2 --- (LG)
> *Mival "Ogrebane":* Half-Orc Barbarian 3 / Ranger 3 --- (CG)
> *Wade Tysel:* Elan Psychic Warrior 2 / Psion 4  --- (CG)
> *Bogg Vargus:* Halfling Rogue 6 --- (CG)
> *Nigel Yarrow:* Human Wizard 5 / Wild Mage 1 --- (CN)



Ever noticed that, no matter what the prevailing alignment of the party is, theres one guy who *always* has to be CN?


----------



## Sejs (Sep 22, 2006)

You know, far as I can see it the situation seems to boil down to one question:

Does a badguy become innocent by virtue of their having lost?


----------



## ZSutherland (Sep 22, 2006)

I have been reading this thread avidly but not commenting, until now.  Mr. Burlew's article is inciteful and generally correct, and I think it lends itself well to the problem at hand (as apparently did Janx).  I personally, don't see anything wrong with what the paladin did as I read it.  No decision had been reached by the group concerning the fate of the orc, so the paladin did not violate his word or the word of a party member.  In barbaric ogre/orc controlled lands, there is no "legitimate authority" of a humanoid sort (no king/lord/magistrate) to take the problem to, and Tyr certainly outranks them anyway, so his paladin does as well by extension.    So, no disrepect shown for legitimate authority.  You "could" make the arguement that running down a defenseless, unarmed orc on horse-back and slaughtering him was less than honorable, but I don't know that it qualifies as dishonorable.

However, you do clearly have a problem.  This sort of head-butting, if it is causing problems OOCly as it clearly is, is bad for your game and the enjoyment of all your players.  I think one of the fundamental problems you may be encountering is that the paladin is your only non-chaotic character.  The paladin is a delicate class that needs the right surroundings to flourish.  It needs a DM who communicates to the player directly and upfront his own views of the paladin class and is willing to work to incorporate the player's view and be consistent with what they agree on.  It needs a competent player who can handle the sometimes onerous burden of the paladin's alignment and code-of-conduct without putting undue strain on the other players, and it also needs other party-members that can handle and adapt to the paladin's often unique outlook.  Lacking the proper DM, the paladin is just a frustrating trap for some poor player who will constantly be harrassed for his IC behavior every time it doesn't conform to whatever unspecified opinion the DM has about the class.  Lacking the proper player, you get a paladin that disrupts the game with his holy-boy antics and creates resentment amongst the rest of the group.  Lacking the right party mix, you get a paladin who is just waiting to get backed into a moral quandry with no escape.  I think what you have is the wrong party mix.  That's not intended to be a slight on you, the player of the paladin, or any of your other players.  It's just that the character concepts you've all come up with don't mesh in a way that's conducive to the paladin, and quite honestly your character leaving the group will do little to salvage it.  Next time, it will just be the CG barbarian or rogue.

My suggestion is to talk to the paladin's player privately and express your concern and ask if he/she would be comfortable discussing it with the rest of the group.  You do all need to hash this out, but you don't want to risk your friendship by making the player feel like you ambushed him or tried to turn the whole group against him.  Perhaps just playing a paladin of a different diety would improve things dramatically.  All paladins have a proverbial stick up their backsides, but paladins of Tyr tend to opt for the triple-extra-large redwood tree.  A paladin of Ilmater might suit better, and a halfling paladin of Yondalla would probably have spared the orc after the confession about his children if he extracted a vow by the orc to forswear evil and teach his children not to act that way either.  Or perhaps just a cleric of a diety more likely to get along with a bunch of chaotic adventurers.  Ultimately, though, I think the paladin acted correctly and that continued correct action will just lead to further group strife in and out of character.  It may just be time to rethink the character.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*Play-By-Play*



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> Aha.  Sounds like your PC was being a jerk to the paladin.  Now it all makes sense.



I did insult her, but only after I perceived her as being psychotic. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have kept a cooler head ... however, I don't think I would have stood by and let an unarmed prisoner get punked during parley.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You knew darn well that the paladin wanted that orc dead, but you went ahead and put that paladin in a sticky situation.



Yes I did ... _after_ the interrogation, when she suddenly demanded his blood. However, I did not intend to compromise her code.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> When a paladin enters a party of adventurers, the party TACITLY AGREES that the paladin does not get put into sticky situation by jerky PCs.  And if a jerky PC thoughtlessly puts the paladin in such a situation, the paladin should not be criticized for getting herself out of the situation.



I provisionally agree. Party camaraderie is important; that's why I started this thread ... to work stuff out and maintain it.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You knew you were angering the paladin and knew the paladin wanted the orc dead, but you went ahead and concocted a difficult situation. You should have done a  much better job of getting information from the orc.



I was honestly not thinking about the paladin at that point; I was thinking about her sword piercing the internal organs of a defenseless mook who fully cooperated with us.

By the way ... if you can devise a form of interrogation that beats a full (unforced) confession, then please let me know.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> If I was running the paladin, I would've had her say to your PC, "Those who aid evil, may find themselves killed by the same blessed sword of justice," or some other threat to make it clear that the paladin HAS to follow her code, and to interfere with it is to imperil yourself.



She said something like that. I told her that she was welcome to strike me down, if she had the stones. I'll admit, I was confrontational ... but it all happened very quickly, and her actions seemed really twisted to me at the time.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*LotR Props!*



			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> “Pity? [Gandalf replies] It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that [Bilbo] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”



This is _exactly_ what ran through my mind, when I had Nigel defend the orc prisoner.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*187 on the Undercover Orc!*



			
				ehren37 said:
			
		

> And letting a murderer go free ISNT wrong?



I _knew_ that the orc was a bandit; I had absolutely no proof that he was a murderer.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*True Dat! (X100)*



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> Ever noticed that, no matter what the prevailing alignment of the party is, theres one guy who *always* has to be CN?



ROFL!  

For the record, I have played LG, NG, CG, LN, CN, NE, and CE.

-Samir


----------



## Slife (Sep 22, 2006)

My take on the paladin is as a servant of justice, regardless of whatever laws are in place.  Mercy isn't his _job_.  This seems to solve about 95% of the paladin questions.

Of course, I also prefer not to use neutral in any alignments titles other than TN.  I call NG True Good, LN True lawful, and so on.  

Brief two minute synopsis:
Justice is LG, mercy is CG.  TG uses both.

TL is for law for law's sake, TC is chaos for chaos's sake.  TN is typically reserved for animals, or REALLY passive people.  

CE is the love of destruction, violent rage, impulsive evil.
LE could be considered vengeance or corruption (the evil opposite, in one sense, of justice).  Tyrants fall between LE and TE
TE is just... evil.  Either completely dedicated to evil, or the self above everything else.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 22, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I _knew_ that the orc was a bandit; I had absolutely no proof that he was a murderer.



You think he was raiding caravans doing nonlethal damage, then?


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*Touché*



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> You think he was raiding caravans doing nonlethal damage, then?



You don't need to necessarily kill anyone to rob a caravan, however I definitely see your point.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 22, 2006)

*Pitiful Orc Behavior*

Also, I did neglect to mention two critical facts.

The orc prisoner promised to stop his evil ways while he was blubbering to us. He also specifically begged the "pretty lady" (i.e., the paladin) to spare his life.

-Samir


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 22, 2006)

Evil prisoners are the eternal dilemma of Paladins and other LG types.

To me, these are some of the relevant factors:

1. Will letting the prisoner live and/or flee ultimately endager the lives of more innocents? 

2. What are the chances for the prisoner to be rehabilitated? Are they genuinely remorseful for their misdeeds, or only interested in saving their own skin?

3. What emphasis does the Paladin and/or his church/deity place on revenge as opposed to rehabilitation? A Paladin of St Cuthbert might have a very different viewpoint than a Paladin of Pelor.

4. Will having to guard/transport the prisoner impede on the Paladin's abilities to protect other innocents? Is there an effective means of incarceration at hand?


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 22, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Neither really, but to be honest the session made me feel uncomfortable. Talking about it is cathartic and allows me to achieve discernment.
> 
> Ideally, I'd like to work out differences between my mage and the paladin. After all, I am friends with her player IRL.
> 
> ...




See, I think this is more the real issue. The paladiny coating just makes it easier as a mass market sort of thing. 

Mind if I venture a guess? In that situation, I'd be bugged that she went and killed the orc. But I'd be more bugged that she disregarded what I said. As another player at the table who knew about the conversation that had happened, she more or less decided to make a liar out of me and break the agreement. Even if the character didn't know what had happened, the player did. 

Of course, I could be completely wrong. Killing orcs might just be out of your comfort zone. 

Either way, I'd suggest having a conversation about it out of game. Just mention that you felt uncomfortable and see if there are any things you can do in the future to keep situaitons a little more in areas that you're both ok with. It also may help to simply explain why you got upset about it. I know that most of the people I RP with are boneheaded when it comes to recognising other people's thoughts.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 22, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Also, I did neglect to mention two critical facts.
> 
> The orc prisoner promised to stop his evil ways while he was blubbering to us. He also specifically begged the "pretty lady" (i.e., the paladin) to spare his life.
> 
> -Samir




Well...I don't know if I would call those critical. Afterall, a prisoner of most any kind is likely to say whatever he thinks his captors want to her in order to secure his freedom. And as long as he is evil, he is unlikely to keep his word left to his own devices.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 22, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Well...I don't know if I would call those critical. Afterall, a prisoner of most any kind is likely to say whatever he thinks his captors want to her in order to secure his freedom. And as long as he is evil, he is unlikely to keep his word left to his own devices.



Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Blubbering out promises when the other option is _...or else..._ doesn't really hold as much water.

Particularly, they're not the kind of promises that wind up being kept once the threat of looming death abates.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> You think he was raiding caravans doing nonlethal damage, then?



 He was the nicest orcish raider _ever_.


----------



## Telsar (Sep 22, 2006)

All of the following is just an opinion:

I think whether the paladin's actions were ethically inappropriate, or evil, is between that player and her GM.  Those two might have opinions on what proper paladin behavior is, possibly different or exactly the same, but their's are the only opinions that matter.

But this is the internet, so I'll give my opinion anyway.    If I were her GM, I'd say she committed an evil act.  Not because he was running away, or unarmed, (and I only skimmed this thread, so someone else may have stated this), but because she basically waited until her teammates got all the use out of him they could before she ran him through.  It's functionally equivalent to making the orc carry everyone's equipment back to their home base before killing him there.  If it was really so important that he die, she should have dispatched him before he woke up.

But the problem here seems to be an in-character one; the party probably already have had discussions on group decisions, like splitting up loot.  What to do with prisoners is another thing that the group should be deciding in advance.  You also need to decide if you all like/trust one another enough that one (or some) of you can make decisions for everyone... like letting a captured orc go.  If you don't trust each other enough, that's fine, makes for some interesting drama, but no one should be talking for the whole group as long as you don't.


----------



## Thotas (Sep 22, 2006)

"The killing of the orc is not an issue, it is the giving a promise to the rest of his party that is the problem. A paladin should be forthright in dispatching evil."

Grimslade covered it pretty much in entirety right there.  However, the part that is a problem is a _huge_ problem.  Palys get Charisma related powers to encourage them to become good leaders in the fight against evil and chaos.  The incident in question was far from an example of the sort of behavior that inspires others to follow you.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 22, 2006)

EDIT: No longer necessary--thanks PS


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 22, 2006)

Its hard to discuss what good *is* unless we examine what other thinkers (theologians and philosophers alike) have said on the matter.

To be clear, the quotes I was posting weren't meant to be indicative of a RW religion's particular theology or validity, but rather evidence of RW religions resonance with that particular section of the PHB- specifically the definition of a Paladin "without mercy" being LG.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Roman Catholic who believes that such sections of the Bible are more indicative of humans putting their words in God's mouth- its hard to reconcile the merciful God of the NT with the vengeful one of the OT.)


----------



## delericho (Sep 22, 2006)

Oops. There were two statements in my post, that Batman isn't a paladin, and that the paladin's code precluded vigilante actions. These were intended to be read seperately, but I fear you may have read, and replied to, them together. Sorry, I should have been more clear.



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> When the police put a giant bat-spotlight on their roof to signal they want Batman's help and he comes to help them when they call, it's hard to say that he doesn't respect legitimate authority.




As I said, it depends on the incarnation. Some versions of Batman don't feature the Bat-signal. Most have him acting, at times, whether it is lit or not. Some early incarnations have him killing criminals intentionally. Some even have The Batman using firearms. That's the major reason you can't pin down Batman's alignment - different versions have different alignments.

However, I don't know of any incarnation that would qualify as a paladin, or at least any incarnation not starring Adam West.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 22, 2006)

In all fairness, most incarnations of Batman in which he uses firearms (such as the Frank Miller Dark Knight) use rubber bullets or other less-than-lethal ammunition.

However, while I don't recall any intentional homicides that occur "on camera", both the original late '30's version and the Dark Knight version were not above threats of death and fairly brutal beatings, and some of his targets were left in states of health in which their demise was a definite possibility.  Their survival was not his concern.  And in certain cases, his threats of force would be considered outside of the laws governing the use of deadly force.  Yes- threatening to drop someone off a skyscraper IS a threat of deadly force.

His penchant for breaking & entering alone calls his lawfulness, and thus his paladin-ness, into question.

IOW, while he respects authority, he will often take "chaotic" actions in order to ensure justice is done.

More likely, he'd be best modeled (in D&D) by a CG UA Urban Ranger.


----------



## Numion (Sep 22, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> The orc prisoner promised to stop his evil ways while he was blubbering to us. He also specifically begged the "pretty lady" (i.e., the paladin) to spare his life.




Of course he would promise that - he was facing the capital punishment. But how would the paladin know the promise of an evildoer is kept? It would be unjust for the paladin to let evildoers talk themselves out of punishment. The code also requires the paladin to punish evildoers.

Also, whether the orc was a murderer or not is inconsequential. The death penalty is also whats in store for bandits. Not the only punishment possible, but a just one.


----------



## delericho (Sep 22, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Of course he would promise that - he was facing the capital punishment. But how would the paladin know the promise of an evildoer is kept? It would be unjust for the paladin to let evildoers talk themselves out of punishment.




Indeed. Even if truly repentant, the orc should be punished for past actions. Indeed, if truly repentant, the orc should accept the necessity of punishment. (However, I would still expect the orc to not want to die... but he might ask to be allowed to serve the party loyally for years in exchange for his life, or agree to accompany them to whatever prison they wish without trouble, or...)

My view on the paladin's actions keeps coming back to whether the orc was promised his life in exchange for information. If the party had promised that, I consider the paladin bound by the promise, whether she personally said she agreed to it, or merely stayed silent. Only by explicitly stating that she could and would not honour such an agreement would I consider her not bound to it. (Still, I would consider the violation a minor chaotic act, and therefore something to watch out for rather than cause for punishment.)

In the scenario as clarified by the OP, the party made no such agreement. The orc spilled all this information in the hope it would buy his life, or perhaps under the mistaken assumption that that would buy his life. Since there was no agreement of immunity for information, though, the party is not bound to it, and neither is the paladin.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 22, 2006)

Danny, I'm afraid I've had to remove your post above which was looking too closely at real-world religions - it could easily be the thin end of a wedge which derailed and closed this whole thread, and none of us want that, right?

Regards,


----------



## Numion (Sep 22, 2006)

Another interesting point is that by the Paladins Code, she cannot enter into a deal that lets the orc go unpunished in return for information. The Code requires that a Paladin punishes those that harm (or threaten to harm) innocents. As a bandit the orc fits the bill. So he has to be punished - no amount of pleads, information, surrendering, disarming oneself, running away or sweet talks will save him from punishment, or the paladin is in breach of her Code.

Now, she should've been upfront about this fact, but I think the greater breach of the Code would've been to let the orc go unpunished.

The severity of punishment is another debate - IMHO execution sounds about right for banditry.


----------



## delericho (Sep 22, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Another interesting point is that by the Paladins Code, she cannot enter into a deal that lets the orc go unpunished in return for information. The Code requires that a Paladin punishes those that harm (or threaten to harm) innocents.




The code does not, however, require the paladin to punish ALL those who harm innocents. There are a variety of good reasons why the paladin might elect to do otherwise: the evildoer has sincerely repented his ways and will see to his own redemption, the crimes of the evildoer are so long ago that punishment has become essentially meaningless, the paladin chooses instead to show mercy, or whatever.

Consequently, I disagree that the paladin MUST see this orc punished.



> As a bandit the orc fits the bill. So he has to be punished - no amount of pleads, information, surrendering, disarming oneself, running away or sweet talks will save him from punishment, or the paladin is in breach of her Code.
> 
> Now, she should've been upfront about this fact, but I think the greater breach of the Code would've been to let the orc go unpunished.




As I disagree with the assertion that the paladin MUST punish ALL those who do harm to innocents, I disagree with this assertion.



> The severity of punishment is another debate - IMHO execution sounds about right for banditry.




Indeed, the severity of the punishment is not specified. So, even if you assert that the paladin MUST punish the orc, it still falls to the paladin to determine the appropriate course of action. Therefore, death is not mandated. She could have the orc maimed, or castrated, or flogged, or fined, or stripped of his arms and armour and let loose in hostile territory, or...

However, my issue is not with the execution of the orc. Indeed, since the OP has clarified that there was no agreement with the orc to spare his life, I have no issue with the actions of the paladin at all. However, if there HAD been an agreement, my issue is with the paladin then breaking said agreement. Especially since there were plenty of ways for the paladin to act that would violate neither code nor alignment: veto the agreement to begin with (a simple statement that "I will not let this orc live" would suffice), or failing that, find a punishment that did not result in death (the afforementioned flogging, perhaps?).


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 22, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Of course he would promise that - he was facing the capital punishment. But how would the paladin know the promise of an evildoer is kept? It would be unjust for the paladin to let evildoers talk themselves out of punishment. The code also requires the paladin to punish evildoers.




Well, paladins do get Sense Motive as a class skill.  There are game mechanics for determining how sincere someone is being.  Possibly the orc could change his mind later, but you could at least get a sense for it it's all fake tears or if there's a chance he might try to change his ways.

As for, "the code also requires", I would refuse to play a paladin under any interpretation of the code that means my paladin isn't able to decide to show mercy and give people second chances, whether they deserve it or not.

That would be unfun.



> Also, whether the orc was a murderer or not is inconsequential. The death penalty is also whats in store for bandits. Not the only punishment possible, but a just one.




This is true.

Still, PCs are special people and D&D is a game of high adventure.  If the player characters elect to show mercy and try to demonstrate through actions that there is a better way, then they should have a chance at succeeding.  Proper punishment is fine, but perhaps if the paladin had shown even a thimbleful of forgiveness she might have created one more good person in the world, rather than merely resulting in one less evil one.

Is riding down and killing a fleeing prisoner what you envision the paragon of fair play and good ideals doing in a fantasy game of high adventure?  Because it sure feels wrong to me.


----------



## Halivar (Sep 22, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> His penchant for breaking & entering alone calls his lawfulness, and thus his paladin-ness, into question.
> 
> IOW, while he respects authority, he will often take "chaotic" actions in order to ensure justice is done.
> 
> More likely, he'd be best modeled (in D&D) by a CG UA Urban Ranger.



But, see, you're basing his "paladin-ness" on his following the letter of the law, whereas I called him a possible paladin archetype because of his strict, unswerving adherance to a moral and ethical code. This moral and ethical code is, at least in the current run of the Batman comics (exluding old runs and non-canonical stuff like DK), a central theme to his character. Batman solidly places himself above the law, but not above the _concept_ of law and integrity that he struggles to uphold. He has the strictest code of honor of any other superhero (IMO; this brings him into frequent conflict with chaotic heros such as Robin #1 and, more recently, Robin #2), which he not only follows zealously, but expects those around him too, as well.

A paladin, in my view, is a fighter who champions a law above that of mortal men. That law is absolute, and no worldly political legal system can constrain him from following it.

CG implies, to me, that a hero is extrinsically motivated (i.e. Han Solo) rather than intrinsically motivated (i.e. Indianna Jones, another LG archetype ("It belongs in a museum!")).


----------



## tonym (Sep 22, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I did insult her, but only after I perceived her as being psychotic.




The paladin was likely "psychotic" because you kept an orc bandit alive during the battle so you could release it later into the world, after you pumped it for information.

You knew the paladin would have a problem with this, so you tried to exclude her from your scheming, but you were not subtle enough.

It looks to me like you caused the problem.  Your PC should have explained to the orc immediately that the paladin may execute it following the interrogation.  Your PC was cruel and conniving to exploit the orc, knowing it's fate depended entirely upon the paladin.

A paladin is an expert in justice; their decisions should me respected by the whole party.  A wizard makes decisions about magic, a rogue about traps, and always the party defers to their expertise.  Likewise, your evil-nurturing, conflict-causing CN Wizard/Wild Mage should have asked for and respected the paladin's judgment on the fate of the orc.

You ran your character as if there wasn't an *Expert in Justice* in the party...and that was a mistake.


PS: Well...you did say "throw rocks" in the thread title!

Tony M


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

Yup, sure was honorable and brave of the LG Paladin to ride down a bound and helpless prisoner.  You bet.  Right up there with slaughtering infant orcs and crippled opponents.  But hey, let's hide behind the 'no mercy to evil' flavor text, shall we?  Because if the alignment says good, then everything they do must be good, right?  Because the opponents are _worse_, somehow.  

I quote straight from the SRD, no flavor text:

""Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."

"Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. 

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."

And people ask why the paladin is such a pain in these threads, and why the alignment system causes such issues.  Riding down a bound and helpless opponent is not altruistic, definitely desn't respect the creature's life, and there's a marked lack of concern for dignity.  Murdering a defeated opponent out of combat is _significantly_ different that killing in battle, folks.  But note that close-mindedness, judgementalness and lack of adpatability also.  Ditto 'honor' and 'compassion'.  The paladin was definitely acting out of alignment.

Thayan, you were in the right on this one - the paladin's player was playing the paladin as lawful jerk, instead of lawful good.  And that's right up there with playing LG as 'lawful stupid', IMO.


----------



## J-Buzz (Sep 22, 2006)

I totally feel the paladins actions could be taken as un-lawful, not to mention breaks any code of conduct that you would expect from a "knight" type of character.

My feelings are that if the paladin has a problem with an evil character/monster she would have never accepted the brutes surrender.  So if the Orc dropped his weapon and attempted to surrender and the paladin cut him down, not problems.   However once the surrender was accepted then the code of conduct or lawful alignment would prevent the paladin from killing the orc.

Accepting surrender then killing the creature is deceitful borderline evil.


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Sep 22, 2006)

The main problem I have with the "Paladins kill evil, that's what they do, why do you think they have _detect evil_ as a class skill?" argument, is this:  Fine, see evil orc, slay evil orc, that's one thing - what happens the first time the barkeep scans evil?  Or the city guard?  The commoner on the street?  How about the freakin' king?  Does the paladin just cut them all down in cold blood, one after the other, because they "felt evil?"  And can this be considered even _remotely_ "lawful good" behavior?


----------



## painandgreed (Sep 22, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> I quote straight from the SRD, no flavor text:
> 
> ""Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
> 
> ...




See, I read all that as supporting the paladin's actions. She is being altruistic by being out in the wilderness putting her life on the line to stop evil s that others may sit at home with their families. While she repects all life, the life that needs to be saved would be the life that also respects others lives, and that would be the lives of those back home who are being robbed and killed by the bandits. If she lets the prisoner go, she puts them all in danger. She was required to act. She was commited to oppose evil. She would not see injustice happen by letting guilty party go free and unpunished.

Notice how it was the only non-good person in the party that wanted to let the evil creature go and tried to thwart justice? I smell conspiracy. ;-)


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 22, 2006)

> My feelings are that if the paladin has a problem with an evil character/monster she would have never accepted the brutes surrender. So if the Orc dropped his weapon and attempted to surrender and the paladin cut him down, not problems. However once the surrender was accepted then the code of conduct or lawful alignment would prevent the paladin from killing the orc.



The orc didn't surrender - it was rendered unconcious (it seems for the purpose of forcing it to divulge useful information). When it woke up it apparently started spilling the beans in order to save its life without any garantee that its life would be spared.



> Yup, sure was honorable and brave of the LG Paladin to ride down a bound and helpless prisoner.



Those are the easiest ones to ride down - they're not moving.  This orc wasn't bound and helpless. You're not suggesting that just because the orc turned and ran away the paladin had to let him go, are you? The act of killing the orc was not dishonorable. The paladin had decided how justice was to be served (and given that it is a tyrran paladin the choice isn't surprising) and carried it out.  How the orc chose to meet his end was dishonorable, but not the act of delivering it to him on the end of the sword while he was trying to escape.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> See, I read all that as supporting the paladin's actions. She is being altruistic by being out in the wilderness putting her life on the line to stop evil s that others may sit at home with their families. While she repects all life, the life that needs to be saved would be the life that also respects others lives, and that would be the lives of those back home who are being robbed and killed by the bandits. If she lets the prisoner go, she puts them all in danger. She was required to act. She was commited to oppose evil. She would not see injustice happen by letting guilty party go free and unpunished.
> 
> Notice how it was the only non-good person in the party that wanted to let the evil creature go and tried to thwart justice? I smell conspiracy. ;-)




Afraid I have to disagree - this is the paladin doing an 'Unknown Soldier' routine.  

Explaining here - in the comic miniseries Unknown Soldier, the Soldier is driven to Dachau after its liberation.  Upon seeing the pure human evil there, he develops the philosophy that whatever he does is right, no matter what it is, because his enemy is worse.  During the course of the story, the soldier causes a nation to fall to a hostile power for a short-term benefit to his country, murders a hospital full of people who are sympathetic to his opposition, and kills a man who he intends to be his heir because that man discovers a dirty secret.  All of this is justified because the ultimate evil the Soldier has observed he feels allows him to commit any moral atrocity, because the other side is worse.  And in adopting that attitude - that because you're 'fighting evil', any act is justifiable - the Soldier becomes a monster himself.  

Saying that murder (which is what this is - the taking of a helpless life) is justifiable because your enemies are worse and do worse (are evil) is the same thing.  It's moral relativism (I'm right because they're not, and whatever I do is right because whatever the enemy does is evil) of the worst sort, especially in a non morally-relative universe, which an alignment-based D&D world is.  It's evil masquerading as good.  While some have stated earlier in the thread that they find the hard road of LG 'stupid', and provided an example from the Book of Exalted Deeds as proof...it's _meant_ to be hard, as would playing Chaotic Evil; they're extreme alignments, and restrictive.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Those are the easiest ones to ride down - they're not moving.




Y'know, that wasn't funny in Apocalypse Now, and it's really not funny here.



> This orc wasn't bound and helpless. You're not suggesting that just because the orc turned and ran away the paladin had to let him go, are you? The act of killing the orc was not dishonorable. The paladin had decided how justice was to be served (and given that it is a tyrran paladin the choice isn't surprising) and carried it out.  How the orc chose to meet his end was dishonorable, but not the act of delivering it to him on the end of the sword while he was trying to escape.




Yup, because killing an unarmed opponent out of combat who presents no threat to you _isn't_ honorable; it's cowardice of the highest order.  The paladin had every advantage and the orc had none.  Worse, the orc _presented no threat to an armed and trained party of adventurers_.  If the paladin was honorable, they'd have armed the orc and given it a chance to comport itself in battle.  It'd have still likely been one-sided, but it's not stabbing an opponent who can't defend themselves in the back while riding them down.


----------



## delericho (Sep 22, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Saying that murder (which is what this is - the taking of a helpless life) is justifiable because your enemies are worse and do worse (are evil) is the same thing.




I disagree with your definition of murder. By that definition, the execution of an unrepentant mass-murderer is itself murder, despite the fact that his crimes have earned that sentence several times over, despite the fact that he hasn't shown the slightest remorse, and despite the fact that he would commit the same crimes again given the opportunity.

If the orcs crimes are such that the appropriate and just response is death, then the mere fact that the orc is (currently) helpless doesn't change that.



> While some have stated earlier in the thread that they find the hard road of LG 'stupid', and provided an example from the Book of Exalted Deeds as proof...




I don't find the road of LG stupid in the slightest. That example from the Book of Exalted Deeds, on the other hand, very definately is.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> I disagree with your definition of murder. By that definition, the execution of an unrepentant mass-murderer is itself murder, despite the fact that his crimes have earned that sentence several times over, despite the fact that he hasn't shown the slightest remorse, and despite the fact that he would commit the same crimes again given the opportunity.




It's murder - the taking of a life.  The question is, is it _justifiable_ murder?  I say no.  I won't go into the concepts of social justice and murder-by-the-state here, since it's against the rules, but it's still murder by the most basic definition.  Adventurers murder in battle because it's (typically) a survival issue.  Running down an unarmed and fleeing opponent is a whole 'nother matter entirely, and has little to do with justice; you can't even justify it as revenge.  It's simply murder.



> If the orcs crimes are such that the appropriate and just response is death, then the mere fact that the orc is (currently) helpless doesn't change that.




Context is everything, especially in this case.  



> I don't find the road of LG stupid in the slightest. That example from the Book of Exalted Deeds, on the other hand, very definately is.




That's your opinion, which is hardly the objective measure here.  Just because you disagree hardly qualifies it as 'stupid'.


----------



## painandgreed (Sep 22, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> It's murder - the taking of a life.  The question is, is it _justifiable_ murder?



Nitpick: Killing is the taking of life. An unlawful (and therfore unjustified) killing is murder. 

The question does come down to if the killing was unlawful or not. Some say yes. Some say no. I still find your explaination lacking. The previous posted prisoner dilema where one can never execute a prisoner being one point*. Two, as I explained earlier, I find reasoning that this is is unjustified as being self-defeating to the genre and game.**

Even then, it would be a neutral/chaotic action, and there's nothing in the code about punishment for a non-lawful action, only evil ones.

*Not to mention holding them in captivity or any sort of punishment, because under the same reasoning, it seems like that would be described as torture.

**Actually, I just prohibit paladins while DMing and never play one so these issues just don't interfer with the game at all.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Nitpick: Killing is the taking of life. An unlawful (and therfore unjustified) killing is murder.
> 
> The question does come down to if the killing was unlawful or not. Some say yes. Some say no. I still find your explaination lacking. The previous posted prisoner dilema where one can never execute a prisoner being one point*. Two, as I explained earlier, I find reasoning that this is is unjustified as being self-defeating to the genre and game.**




Explain _why_.  The paladin is meant to be the paragon of rightful law and honor; running down an unarmed opponent from the back of a horse is slaughter, not justice.



> Even then, it would be a neutral/chaotic action, and there's nothing in the code about punishment for a non-lawful action, only evil ones.




Unlawful killing, by your own admission, therefore murder, by your definition, therefore evil.  Thus an infraction and the paladin in question is in the wrong.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 22, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Explain _why_.  The paladin is meant to be the paragon of rightful law and honor; running down an unarmed opponent from the back of a horse is slaughter, not justice.



 Again going back to the question of does losing = innocence.  The paladin wasn't running down Pollyanna the School Marm, she was running down an orcish bandit whose presence is the whole reason they were dispatched to the region in the first place.  The orc's execution is justice, and the only reason he had to be run down was because he was being let go.  His release was counter to what would be the mandated punishment for his crimes.

So yeah, it was justice.  Granted, it was sloppy in its administration, but that wasn't the paladin's fault.




> Unlawful killing, by your own admission, therefore murder, by your definition, therefore evil.  Thus an infraction and the paladin in question is in the wrong.




I'll just toss together a few quotes from the original poster here:

_In our last game, our party slaughtered a company of orc soldiers and left one alive for questioning.
01. We were adventuring in the Thar (FRCS) ... a lawless land crawling with savage humanoids.
02. We were employed by the Harpers to end ogre banditry on the Glister Road.
03. The orc captive was indeed affiliated with a citadel of ogre bandits._

Are the Harpers, a large organization dedicated to the betterment of all and the opposition of evil, to be considered a legitimate authority?  If so, then it wasn't an unlawful killing and hence wasn't murder.  If not, then killing any of the orcs from the group of ogre-bandit-employed company was murder, and the paladin was hosed from the get-go.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Again going back to the question of does losing = innocence.  The paladin wasn't running down Pollyanna the School Marm, she was running down an orcish bandit whose presence is the whole reason they were dispatched to the region in the first place.  The orc's execution is justice, and the only reason he had to be run down was because he was being let go.  His release was counter to what would be the mandated punishment for his crimes.




We're not arguing the orc here, we're arguing the paladin.  Running down an unarmed and therefore helpless opponent from the back of a horse isn't mandated punishment, it's slaughter.  See above for the weakness of the 'because he's eeeeeeevil' argument; the paladin must adhere to a higher standard.



> So yeah, it was justice.  Granted, it was sloppy in its administration, but that wasn't the paladin's fault.




On the contrary, it's entirely the paladin's fault, and an alignment violation to boot, by definition.



> I'll just toss together a few quotes from the original poster here:
> 
> _In our last game, our party slaughtered a company of orc soldiers and left one alive for questioning.  We were adventuring in the Thar (FRCS) ... a lawless land crawling with savage humanoids. We were employed by the Harpers to end ogre banditry on the Glister Road. The orc captive was indeed affiliated with a citadel of ogre bandits._




Therefore legitimate authority could be reached by the party.  An LG character would either a)administer a field trial according to the Harpers' edicts, likely resulting in the orc's execution for banditry, or b)haul the orc back for Harper justice.  Notice how riding down an unarmed opponent doesn't come in there.



> Are the Harpers, a large organization dedicated to the betterment of all and the opposition of evil, to be considered a legitimate authority?  If so, then it wasn't an unlawful killing and hence wasn't murder.  If not, then killing any of the orcs from the group of ogre-bandit-employed company was murder, and the paladin was hosed from the get-go.




It's not the death of the orc, it's the manner in which that came about - and I continue to maintain that running the unarmed orc down is slaughter, not justice.  No due process (a component of the Lawful axis), however in the field, no mercy (part of the Good axis), therefore an alignment violation.  Had the paladin held a field trial and proceeded to a judgement, the case'd be different.  They didn't, and chose expediency over justice.  Fault to the paladin.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 22, 2006)

Strip away all flavor text. Here´s the Paladin´s Code of Conduct, as per the SRD:

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

To summarize:
- Must not commit an Evil act;
- Must respect legitimate authority;
- Must Act With Honor, which includes (but is not limited to):
   - Must not lie.
   - Must not cheat.
   - Must not use poison.
- Must help those in need.
   - Such help may not be used for Chaotic acts.
   - Such help may not be used for Evil acts.
- Must punish those that harm or threaten innocents.

If the paladin gave her word (or, by omission, consented to the party giving their words), she was bound by honor to respect that word.

Running down an unarmed foe that she knows is guilty of murder (being evil =/= being a murderer) is not an Evil act, unless she caused suffering on purpose.

Note that the paladin code commands one to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Nowhere does it say the paladin must kill evil creatures.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 22, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> We're not arguing the orc here, we're arguing the paladin.



 Well, to be fair, we're arguing both.  Can't really have one without the other in the situation we're examining.  







> _Running down an unarmed and therefore helpless opponent from the back of a horse isn't mandated punishment, it's slaughter._



 You'll have to excuse me, but you're splitting emotional hairs here.  The orc's actions as a bandit slated him to be executed, whether he had a battleaxe in his hand at the time or not.  The fact that he was errantly let go and had to be chased also doesn't change the fact.  Ultimatly they come down to the same thing - orc gets killed because of his banditing.  Saying he was slaughtered versus he was executed doesn't change the core of the issue.



> _See above for the weakness of the 'because he's eeeeeeevil' argument; the paladin must adhere to a higher standard._



 Just for my own reference, are we talking about your Unknown Soldier comment, or the thing earlier on the weakness of the Detect/Smite without further investigation?  Because frankly I agree with both comments, that neither are acceptable ways for a paladin to act (though neither apply here), and that being a paladin requires a good deal of thought before action.  Hair-triggered, dimwitted paladins don't remain paladins for very long.



> _On the contrary, it's entirely the paladin's fault, and an alignment violation to boot, by definition._



 Wait, it's the paladin's fault that the orc was let go?  How so?  I think we're speaking to different points here.  Unless I miss my mark, you're talking about the paladin running down the orc, etc as the fault in question.  I'm saying that the orc being released in the first place, and thus necessitating the running down at all, was not the paladin's fault.




> _Therefore legitimate authority could be reached by the party.  An LG character would either a)administer a field trial according to the Harpers' edicts, likely resulting in the orc's execution for banditry, or b)haul the orc back for Harper justice.  Notice how riding down an unarmed opponent doesn't come in there._



 Okay, we're agreeing that the Harpers qualify as legitimate authority, then.  Great start.  

That being said, why would they have to go back and re-contact the Harpers? The fact that the party had been sent to deal with the situation caused by these bandits says that the authority had already been reached and that appropriate response had been metted out in the form of sending the party to deal with it.  Going back to hold trial for the sub-components of the bandits they're sent to dispatch would be pointless - the answer would be 'yes, execute him, that's why we sent you there in the first place'.  As for a field trial, it was already administered: you're a combatant, you're hostile, and you admit to being part of the bandit problem we're here for.  Case closed, trial over.




> _It's not the death of the orc, it's the manner in which that came about - and I continue to maintain that running the unarmed orc down is slaughter, not justice.  No due process (a component of the Lawful axis), however in the field, no mercy (part of the Good axis), therefore an alignment violation.  Had the paladin held a field trial and proceeded to a judgement, the case'd be different.  They didn't, and chose expediency over justice.  Fault to the paladin._



  I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree.  I believe the logic by which you reached your conclusion is faulted, primarily along emotional lines.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

That's an excellent summary, Claudio; thanks!  I wonder, though...would travelers and adventurers going through this region qualify as 'innocents'?  If so, are they expected to defend themselves and not rely on the Harpers' hirelings to protect them, and therefore be outside the Paladin's purview?


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 22, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, we're arguing both.  Can't really have one without the other in the situation we're examining.




On the contrary, that thin line is exactly what's being argued; the devil's in the details.



> You'll have to excuse me, but you're splitting emotional hairs here.  The orc's actions as a bandit slated him to be executed, whether he had a battleaxe in his hand at the time or not.  The fact that he was errantly let go and had to be chased also doesn't change the fact.  Ultimatly they come down to the same thing - orc gets killed because of his banditing.  Saying he was slaughtered versus he was executed doesn't change the core of the issue.




Context is everything if the orc was slated to be executed (and there's no indication that he was), then there's a number of ways the paladin could have carried out the sentence.  Forcing a living, thinking creature, evil or not, to die in misery and terror is hardly justice, nor is quite literally stabbing them in the back.  there were lawful and good option available, and the paladin chose to just walk the path of slaughter and expediency.  such an act may be suitable for Conan, but not Charlegmane.



> Just for my own reference, are we talking about your Unknown Soldier comment, or the thing earlier on the weakness of the Detect/Smite without further investigation?  Because frankly I agree with both comments, that neither are acceptable ways for a paladin to act (though neither apply here), and that being a paladin requires a good deal of thought before action.  Hair-triggered, dimwitted paladins don't remain paladins for very long.




Both.  The crux of the issue is the choice the paladin made - the ride down the fleeing orc, instead of carrying out a lawful sentence for banditry.  The end result is the same - the bandit orc is dead - but it's carrying out the action in a given way that tips things here.  Again, not going into social justice or (effectively) murder by the state, had the paladin carried out the execution after due process (however brioef and appropriate), this wouldn't be an issue.  Blackguards stab opponents in the back; paladins don't.



> Wait, it's the paladin's fault that the orc was let go?  How so?  I think we're speaking to different points here.  Unless I miss my mark, you're talking about the paladin running down the orc, etc as the fault in question.  I'm saying that the orc being released in the first place, and thus necessitating the running down at all, was not the paladin's fault.




Had a lawful field trial been carried out, then the orc wouldn't have run, negating the issue.  As it stands, the paladin would have been in alignment if they re-captured the orc _then_[ proceeded onward, fulfilling the obligations of the lawful and good axis.




> e're agreeing that the Harpers qualify as legitimate authority, then.  Great start.




As a good-aligned authority backed up with the blessing of civil authorities, I don't see any way they could be viewed as anything but the represenatives of legitimate authority for a paladin.



> That being said, why would they have to go back and re-contact the Harpers? The fact that the party had been sent to deal with the situation caused by these bandits says that the authority had already been reached and that appropriate response had been metted out in the form of sending the party to deal with it.  Going back to hold trial for the sub-components of the bandits they're sent to dispatch would be pointless - the answer would be 'yes, execute him, that's why we sent you there in the first place'.  As for a field trial, it was already administered: you're a combatant, you're hostile, and you admit to being part of the bandit problem we're here for.  Case closed, trial over.




Thing is, the field trial _wasn't_ administered - the orc was knocked out once (already opening up that possibility for the paladin to do so again), interrogated, then cut and ran.  Fleeing isn't a hostile action; it presents no threat to innocents or the party.  It'd have been simple enough to recapture the orc, pronounce sentence and give the orc an opportunity to repent or be executed.   Instead, the paladin ran down the fleeing, unarmed opponent and killed them.  It's details, yes, but those details are the important issue here - there were other options besides slaughter, and the paladin chose to ignore them in the name of expediency.

That said, I wouldn't have the paladin fall for this - but depending on the god in question, there's likely to be a divine eybrow raised and like as not a stern talking to or temporary loss of powers as to make an example.  Best of all, that leads to more roleplaying for the group, instead of party strife.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 22, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> If the paladin gave her word (or, by omission, consented to the party giving their words), she was bound by honor to respect that word.




IMO the big problem with the Paladin's behavior is either he has willingly givien his own word implicitly or he is allowing others to appear to give his word on his behalf.  So either he himself being dishonorable or he is _making his own friends appear dishonorable_.

That is not enough to violate the Code in my book.  However it does mean he is not merely failing to be a good role model, but encouraging the appearance of dishonorable behavior in general. 

If I were DM I would warn the player that playing it that close to the line is likely to backfire in the long run.  However I would give him some slack to explore this Retribution Paladin.  

Having had a Paladin PC myself, I have had the "pleasures" of sitting at the table with 8 other players and being given 17 million different ways of roleplaying a paladin that would be immensely superior to my own.      Yes, I have read _The Song of Roland_ just like you all.  Piss off.  I know what I am doing.

So I would cut the player some slack.  But he should be warned that there is a potential problem in the long run.  His Paladin is just not setting a good example is certain respects.

BTW this "needs legal authority" argument is bogus.  IRL we had the concept of "outlaw".  Being an outlaw literally means being outside the law.  Killing an outlaw is simply not recognized as a crime.  Bandits and other raiders are generally outlaws by a blanket proclamation by the king or other ruling authority.


----------



## Mad Mac (Sep 22, 2006)

Field Trial? For an Orc Bandit? Yowsers. Some of you people play very different games, apparently. I can't think of any precedent for that sort of action in the real world, in anything close to a medievel time period. Bandits are bandits. You can spare them if you feel like it, but no one is going to pout if someone butchers the whole lot of them, except maybe the bandits.

  I have to agree this is a good example of why taking prisoners in D&D is often more trouble than it's worth. I'm not sure I get the emotional response to "stabbing the orc in the back" either. I mean, is the Dark Lord Melkor Evilpants supposed to get a free pass everytime he feels like running? 

"Ah, rats. I mean, sure, he just sacrificed the entire village to the mad demongod Zomoulgustar, and he just flayed Bob alive 10 minutes ago, but he's running now, so we'll just have to wait until he gets enough nefarious minions together that he feels confident taking us on again, and hope next time he doesn't pull this strategically invincible "run-away" manuever on us again."

I mean, letting the prisoner go on purpose just so you can run them down...sure, that's cruel and evil. Tricking the prisoner into thinking you'll spare his life if he talks and then killing him, that's dishonourable. But that isn't what happened in the situation as described. 

I'm suprised though, that no one considered the possibilty of this poor wittle helpless Orc bandit joining back up with his Ogre bosses and telling them about the party. Could well be a safer bet than just hiding somewhere and hoping he doesn't get killed as a deserter or traitor by the other bandits in the area.

Incidently, I'm kind of a softie as a player and may well have let the orc go. I just don't see why people find the Paladins actions outrageous.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 22, 2006)

> Y'know, that wasn't funny in Apocalypse Now, and it's really not funny here.



I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - you didn't find it funny, fine, but you misquoted that the orc was bound and helpless.



> Yup, because killing an unarmed opponent out of combat who presents no threat to you isn't honorable; it's cowardice of the highest order.



No, it isn't. It is some peoples duty. Just because you personally find it distasteful doesn't change that.



> The paladin had every advantage and the orc had none. Worse, the orc presented no threat to an armed and trained party of adventurers. If the paladin was honorable, they'd have armed the orc and given it a chance to comport itself in battle.



Now this I find funny. Suddenly all is fine if you hand the 1 hd orc a sword and let it square off agianst the 10th level paladin. (No we don't know the actual HD of the orc or level of the paladin, but I doubt it would make a difference). Of course if the orc throws down the sword and refuses to fight you can't do anything either, except haul it around with you until an inopportune time presents itself that lets the orc cause the maximum harm to the party and forces someone to cut it down where it stands.



> It'd have still likely been one-sided, but it's not stabbing an opponent who can't defend themselves in the back while riding them down.



Its a sham, and a fairly transparaent one at that. If the character really wanted to make it fair he should take of his armor, wear a blindfold, and have the rest of the party pummel him until the nonlethal damage leaves him with a buffer of hit points no greater than the orc has total.

We obviously have two completely different views on this subject.
I agree we disagree.
Good gaming.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 22, 2006)

> Danny, I'm afraid I've had to remove your post above which was looking too closely at real-world religions - it could easily be the thin end of a wedge which derailed and closed this whole thread, and none of us want that, right?




No prob, but I wish you had left the 2 points at the end that essentially stated that:

1) The question of "old school" LG (absolutely no mercy towards evil) or "new school" LG (mercy is among the most highly valued virtues) should have been decided during the Paladin's creation so that both player and GM would have a solid and mutual understanding of the system by which the Paladin would be judged.  This is a question that is absolutely central to the particular PC's core conception.

2)  There is no evidence that I've seen that the Paladin assented to the conditions of the surrender other than the cessation of slaying.  Silence is not endorsement of the surrender.  The Paladin could have already judged the Orc irredemably guilty and given him a death sentence in his head, and the surrender and subseqent questioning was merely a chance for the Orc to get a couple of points in its favor (by confessing) for when it finally judged in the afterlife...which the Paladin saw as an immanent proceeding.



> But, see, you're basing his "paladin-ness" on his following the letter of the law, whereas I called him a possible paladin archetype because of his strict, unswerving adherance to a moral and ethical code. This moral and ethical code is, at least in the current run of the Batman comics (exluding old runs and non-canonical stuff like DK), a central theme to his character. Batman solidly places himself above the law, but not above the concept of law and integrity that he struggles to uphold. He has the strictest code of honor of any other superhero (IMO; this brings him into frequent conflict with chaotic heros such as Robin #1 and, more recently, Robin #2), which he not only follows zealously, but expects those around him too, as well.



A strong ethical code is not exclusive to LG.

By placing himself not just outside the law, but above it, he us substituting his personal judgement for that of society's AND is by definition a vigilante.

The way in which he uses force and the threat of deadly force (by dangling a petty crook off of the side of a skyscraper, for instance) is also at odds with of the concept of LG- the threat is far and away disproportionate to the crimes of the threatened person, and could very easily land him in jail for a decade or more per offense.



> The main problem I have with the "Paladins kill evil, that's what they do, why do you think they have detect evil as a class skill?" argument, is this: Fine, see evil orc, slay evil orc, that's one thing - what happens the first time the barkeep scans evil? Or the city guard? The commoner on the street? How about the freakin' king? Does the paladin just cut them all down in cold blood, one after the other, because they "felt evil?" And can this be considered even remotely "lawful good" behavior?




I dig, but this is in part a mechanical issue and part another aspect of old school/new school.

The mechanical issue is that, Paladins kill evil, yes, but they also kill non-evil beings who get in their path in combat.  What do I mean?

I mean that there is not a single player out there who Detects Evil on every opponent their Paladin faces- it takes time, after all.  So the LN guy who is in the Hall of Ineffable Evil just delivering sausages to the garrison of mercenary guards (various alignments- they're just in it for the gold pieces) and the soldiers who got pressed into service by the Mighty Bigbadevilguyicus (he threatened to burn down the village unless each family gave him a son for his army) are all likely to get greased when the Paladin & his allies sweep through.

And, to be fair, Paladins aren't just unthinking killing machines- they are "judges" of a sort.  They are constantly weighing the actions of others- Detect Evil doesn't give details.  That barkeep may come up "evil" because he shortchanges his patrons and waters his wine (mundane evil- he's a thief)...or he may be a member of a cult trying to bring back Vecna (mundane evil- he's in it because is the local equivalent of the Elk's Lodge)...or he could be that cult's leader (true evil- irredemable and doomed).  Because of this, they must weigh wether the evil they witness around them must be tolerated (for now, that is) until he can get to the root cause, or if it is worthy of "immediate cessation."

The Old school/New school aspect is that there have been societies that had one and only one punishment for what they considered to be illegal/bad/evil, that penalty being death, most famously the kingdom ruled by Dracon (from whom we get the term "draconic" when referring to extremely harsh laws or punishments).  The theory is that the extreme punishment is not only punishment of the evildoer, but also a deterrent to other would-be evildoers.  The good here is viewed as not just punishment, but in prevention of future evil, and places little or no faith in the possibility of redemption.

"New school" good, however, views virtually nobody as unredeemable.  There is virtue in allowing someone the chance to redeem themselves fully, and even repeated unjust acts may be forgiven.  The consequence, though, killing is almost never justified under most moral/ethical formulations of this type.  In extreme versions of this concept, even killing in self-defense is an impermissible violation of the ethical code.

Paladins, then, are seldom truly "New School," but neither are they usually played "Old School"- they are some mix of the two.  And again, this is something I feel needs to be discussed between player and DM before a single initiative die is rolled.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 23, 2006)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Field Trial? For an Orc Bandit? Yowsers. Some of you people play very different games, apparently. I can't think of any precedent for that sort of action in the real world, in anything close to a medievel time period. Bandits are bandits. You can spare them if you feel like it, but no one is going to pout if someone butchers the whole lot of them, except maybe the bandits.




Conducting such a trial, however brief, satisfies both the lawful and good axis of alignment.  Doing the equivalent of running over a fleeing opponent with your car (or mount) does neither.  Read the definition.



> I have to agree this is a good example of why taking prisoners in D&D is often more trouble than it's worth. I'm not sure I get the emotional response to "stabbing the orc in the back" either. I mean, is the Dark Lord Melkor Evilpants supposed to get a free pass everytime he feels like running?
> 
> "Ah, rats. I mean, sure, he just sacrificed the entire village to the mad demongod Zomoulgustar, and he just flayed Bob alive 10 minutes ago, but he's running now, so we'll just have to wait until he gets enough nefarious minions together that he feels confident taking us on again, and hope next time he doesn't pull this strategically invincible "run-away" manuever on us again."




Does the phrase _ad absurdum_ mean anything to you?  There's a significant difference between a fleeing 1 HD orc and a mass murderer/demon worshipper.  Eesh.  I never said the orc gets a free pass, either, merely that the act was out of alignment for the paladin.



> I mean, letting the prisoner go on purpose just so you can run them down...sure, that's cruel and evil. Tricking the prisoner into thinking you'll spare his life if he talks and then killing him, that's dishonourable. But that isn't what happened in the situation as described.




No, but the paladin _did_ just decide to run said orc down, instead of feering a merciful death as would be in keeping with the lawful and good alignments.



> I'm suprised though, that no one considered the possibilty of this poor wittle helpless Orc bandit joining back up with his Ogre bosses and telling them about the party. Could well be a safer bet than just hiding somewhere and hoping he doesn't get killed as a deserter or traitor by the other bandits in the area.
> 
> Incidently, I'm kind of a softie as a player and may well have let the orc go. I just don't see why people find the Paladins actions outrageous.




Hi, could you cut the snark, please?  Most of us are having an entirely civil conversation on the topic without resorting to cheap _ad hominem_.  Thanks.


----------



## Numion (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Conducting such a trial, however brief, satisfies both the lawful and good axis of alignment.  Doing the equivalent of running over a fleeing opponent with your car (or mount) does neither.  Read the definition.




There's nothing more to understand than that the Paladins Code says: "Punish those who harm innocents". In this scenario that was apparent; the orc was a bandit. The Paladin knew exactly what to do - kill the orc. That was a just punishment.

What's your point it was a fleeing opponent? Is fleeing an excuse for avoiding execution? It's just inconvenient to the executor, not in any way related to the justification of the punishment. Or would you say that fleeing from death row is enough to commute the sentence?


----------



## Mad Mac (Sep 23, 2006)

> No, but the paladin did just decide to run said orc down, instead of feering a merciful death as would be in keeping with the lawful and good alignments.




 Sorry, but I'm just not getting this. Was the Paladin supposed to lasso the and hogtie the fleeing Orc, hold a "court" session, and then cut his head off? It's not the Paladin's fault that his party didn't secure the prisoner. At which point the Paladin can either ride the Orc down or let him get away. I don't consider either choice out of line for a Paladin. 

   And the whole court idea just seems out of place to where it would be hurting my suspension of disbelief. How would this work exactly? Do party members serve as jury? Does the Orc get a lawyer? I just don't see it. At most, the Paladin decides to either grant the Orc a quick death, or let him go. There would probably be some discussion with the party, but nothing as formal as some sort of hearing.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 23, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 1) The question of "old school" LG (absolutely no mercy towards evil) or "new school" LG (mercy is among the most highly valued virtues) should have been decided during the Paladin's creation so that both player and GM would have a solid and mutual understanding of the system by which the Paladin would be judged.  This is a question that is absolutely central to the particular PC's core conception.
> 
> 2)  There is no evidence that I've seen that the Paladin assented to the conditions of the surrender other than the cessation of slaying.  Silence is not endorsement of the surrender.  The Paladin could have already judged the Orc irredemably guilty and given him a death sentence in his head, and the surrender and subseqent questioning was merely a chance for the Orc to get a couple of points in its favor (by confessing) for when it finally judged in the afterlife...which the Paladin saw as an immanent proceeding.
> 
> ...




This is exactly where I was coming from, when I played a paladin, there was no new school, only the old school. Also, QFT.

And raises another good question...how *did* the DM rule regarding this issue? I'd be interested to know.

Hats off to Danny, who explained it better then I could on my best day.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Play-By-Play (x2)*



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> The paladin was likely "psychotic" because you kept an orc bandit alive during the battle so you could release it later into the world, after you pumped it for information.



I had no intention of deceiving the paladin in any way shape or form. However, I was operating under the assumption that killing a useful snitch (and a mook at that) is bad form ... and I never expected her to attack an unarmed prisoner.

I did not know that she had a problem with our Q&A strategy until she flipped out on us.

Furthermore, I did not release a great "evil" into the world. I released a pathetic coward who had given us good intel ... information we later used to assault a genuine threat.

Let's face it, killing an orc in the Thar is like spitting in the ocean. Taking out the ogre citadel was our real concern. To me, the paladin's bloodlust seemed pointless, stupid, and dishonorable.

My criticisms of the paladin were both moral and pragmatic:

01. The orc was pathetic and weak (our DM did an amazing job of portraying this, by the way). I actually pitied the poor swine, and so did Mival.

02. If we earn a reputation for _summary executions_, few opponents will ever surrender to us or talk without serious coercion.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You knew the paladin would have a problem with this, so you tried to exclude her from your scheming, but you were not subtle enough.



I honestly had no idea that the paladin was opposed to showing mercy, and I never attempted to trick her into allowing the orc to live.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> It looks to me like you caused the problem.  Your PC should have explained to the orc immediately that the paladin may execute it following the interrogation.  Your PC was cruel and conniving to exploit the orc, knowing it's fate depended entirely upon the paladin.



I did not know that she would attempt to execute him. She had never executed anyone before (that I'm aware of). Furthermore, our party had already established a benchmark of releasing useful mooks if they cooperated with us.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> A paladin is an expert in justice; their decisions should me respected by the whole party.  A wizard makes decisions about magic, a rogue about traps, and always the party defers to their expertise.  Likewise, your evil-nurturing, conflict-causing CN Wizard/Wild Mage should have asked for and respected the paladin's judgment on the fate of the orc.



Your opinion is noted. However ... my mage speaks Orc, has 5 ranks in Bluff, and also has 5 ranks in Knowledge (Moonsea). He's also a native Thentian.

Our paladin is an Aasimar from the Dalelands with absolutely no ranks in Knowledge (Law) or Knowledge (Moonsea). She's a foreign rube, with very little knowledge of the area.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You ran your character as if there wasn't an *Expert in Justice* in the party...and that was a mistake.



I humbly beg your forgiveness, but please ....



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> PS: Well...you did say "throw rocks" in the thread title!



Right back at you, brother.





-Samir Asad is Nigel Yarrow (CN)


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Conspiracy?*



			
				painandgreed said:
			
		

> Notice how it was the only non-good person in the party that wanted to let the evil creature go and tried to thwart justice? I smell conspiracy. ;-)



By the way, Nigel's half-orc friend Mival "Ogrebane" (CG) also wanted to release the orc. 

[Mival was orphaned and abandoned when he was very young. Fortunately, he was adopted by a kind-hearted human ranger.]

Bogg (CG) and Wade (CG) had not cast their vote yet, but they seemed fairly surprised (as were the rest of us) when Wyndess unexpectedly demanded the orc's death.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Truth ....*



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> And raises another good question...how *did* the DM rule regarding this issue? I'd be interested to know.



The paladin received no consequences, that I'm aware of

Also, to reiterate ... I did not start this thread to prove the paladin's "guilt" and/or see her penalized. I simply want to gain discernment on a hazy issue, and figure out a way for Nigel to logically cope without disrupting the game.

The advice so far has been great. Thank you again for the discourse, folks. Feel free to keep going!  

-Samir


----------



## Numion (Sep 23, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Let's face it, killing an orc in the Thar is like spitting in the ocean. Taking out the ogre citadel was our real concern. To me, the paladin's bloodlust seemed pointless, stupid, and dishonorable.




Nevertheless, she was required to punish the orc. The PHB Code says a Paladin must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." The fact that the orc was pitiful etc.. is of no consequence.



> 02. If we earn a reputation for _summary executions_, few opponents will ever surrender to us or talk without serious coercion.




Wasn't this orc put to sleep / knocked out ? It's not like your group needed someone to wave white flags - you'll get prisoners anyway.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Talk AND Die!*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Wasn't this orc put to sleep / knocked out ? It's not like your group needed someone to wave white flags - you'll get prisoners anyway.



No doubt, but they might be reluctant to talk once they awaken ... if they assume we'll simply kill them afterward.

-Samir


----------



## Numion (Sep 23, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> No doubt, but they might be reluctant to talk once they awaken ... if they assume we'll simply kill them afterward.




That _is_ inconvenient. However, being a Paladin is not supposed to be easy. The Code requires punishment, and quite often with folks the PCs encounter in froentier areas the punishment is death. A Paladin cannot break his / her code just for convenience (i.e. getting information).

I, as a Paladin player, would be upfront to the orc that death penalty is coming - give us the information and we'll at least give you a proper burial. Or then just _Speak With Dead_ after the fact


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*A Dark Place ....*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, she was required to punish the orc. The PHB Code says a Paladin must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents."



Does that really justify murdering an unarmed orc prisoner during parley ... and acting only on circumstantial evidence (at best)?

This sort of two-dimensional (LG) zealotry seems impractical as well as immoral.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Oh Well ....*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> I, as a Paladin player, would be upfront to the orc that death penalty is coming - give us the information and we'll at least give you a proper burial. Or then just _Speak With Dead_ after the fact.



We're probably going to settle for something like this in the future, which is a real shame ... and not very heroic. Still, I suppose it's better than party fratricide.

Too bad I didn't know about Wyndess' penchant for summary executions beforehand ... then perhaps our conflict could have been avoided.

Then again, she also could have been more forthright about her moral duty to execute all bandits before simply going ballistic on us.

-Samir


----------



## Numion (Sep 23, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Does that really justify murdering an unarmed orc prisoner during parley ... and acting only on circumstantial evidence (at best)?
> 
> This sort of two-dimensional (LG) zealotry seems impractical as well as immoral.




I'm just going by the information you gave. You identified the orc as a bandit. A Tyrran Paladin is by the FR books a judge, jury and executioner in lawless areas. Most likely in the nearest civilized area the punishment for banditry is death.

So, you had a criminal, judge, jury and an executioner in the same place. A punishment was dealt. Why do you call execution a murder?


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Hang That Judge!*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> I'm just going by the information you gave. You identified the orc as a bandit. A Tyrran Paladin is by the FR books a judge, jury and executioner in lawless areas. Most likely in the nearest civilized area the punishment for banditry is death.
> 
> So, you had a criminal, judge, jury and an executioner in the same place. A punishment was dealt. Why do you call execution a murder?



Although the orc did attack us (i.e., armed adventurers who ambushed him) ... we never saw him threaten an innocent or see any evidence that he had killed anyone.

The ogre citadel where he came from contained the wreckage of wagons, but we never saw anything that resembled human remains ... or any evidence of slaughtered caravaneers; no bones, blood, bodies, graves, and/or pyres ... nothing ....

In the end, the paladin slaughtered an unarmed dirtbag for theft and protecting himself from our assault.

Oh wait, he was _evil_ ... I guess that makes it okay.

-Samir


----------



## Numion (Sep 23, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Although the orc did attack us (i.e., armed adventurers who ambushed him) ... we never saw him threaten an innocent or see any evidence that he had killed anyone.




Waittasecond. Are you now saying that you attacked the orcs for no reason? I mean, if there was a justification for you (and the Paladin) to attack (try to kill) the orcs in the first place, surely there was a justification for executing that last one too. Namely, whatever reason that made you try to kill them in the first place.



> Oh wait, he was _evil_ ... I guess that makes it okay.




It certainly don't make it worse.


----------



## delericho (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> It's murder - the taking of a life.  The question is, is it _justifiable_ murder?  I say no.  I won't go into the concepts of social justice and murder-by-the-state here, since it's against the rules, but it's still murder by the most basic definition.




It's a shame you're ducking the real question here, because it's a very key issue. If killing == murder == evil, then under no circumstances can the paladin work for any agency that supports the death penalty and, in fact, is bound to see to it that any state that employs said penalty is either brought down or reformed to remove said penalty, and further to ensure that all those involved in the imposition or execution of said penalty themselves face punishment for their evil.

Which, I'm sorry to say, I consider utter nonsense.



> Adventurers murder in battle because it's (typically) a survival issue.




That's moral relativism. If killing == murder == evil, then the paladin cannot kill opponents in battle, and must use only non-lethal means. Furthermore, she can associate only with those who use non-lethal means.

Or, just possibly, your definition of murder is incorrect.



> Running down an unarmed and fleeing opponent is a whole 'nother matter entirely, and has little to do with justice; you can't even justify it as revenge.  It's simply murder.




If justice assigns the death penalty to his crimes, then killing him while fleeing that justice is not murder, it's just a poor and inefficient way to carry out the sentence. In my next post I'll be discussing your comments on 'field trials', where I will expand on this further. (I bet you can't wait )



> That's your opinion, which is hardly the objective measure here.  Just because you disagree hardly qualifies it as 'stupid'.




Yes, it is my opinion. I shall now proceed to back it up:

Scenario: For months, the civilised world has been being terrorised by a vile and terrible menace. He has inflicted untold harm on hundreds of innocents. Eventually, he is run to ground by the forces of good. He pleads for mercy, and receives it, yet remains unrepentant. He is taken before the rightful authorities, and sentenced to death.

However, before his execution is carried out he escapes. He then proceeds to kill one of the close friends of the paladin who brought him to justice, before engaging in another spree of destruction and violence. Eventually, the paladin catches him again, and again he pleads for mercy. Again, he gets it. He still remains unrepentant. He is taken before the rightful authorities, who re-affirm the outstanding sentence of death.

And again, before execution is performed, he escapes. Another of the paladin's friends dies. More innocents suffer. Again, the paladin catches him. Again, he pleads for mercy. Again he remains unrepentant.

And so it goes on. According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the paladin can never simply refuse mercy and perform the rightfully ordered sentence of death.

Of course, the paladin is also bound by his code to protect the innocent, and by not carrying out the sentence, he's failing in that duty when he could succeed. So, the paladin will eventually fall from grace.

So, yes, the example in the Book of Exalted Deeds is just stupid. My opinion, and not the objective measure. It just happens to be right.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 23, 2006)

Klling =/= Evil. Purposefully making someone suffer before killing = Evil (a paladin would carry on a death sentence in the most expedient and painless way possible, such as beheading... See Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones for how I view a paladin's opinion on death sentences).

The paladin from the OP's example is only in question (for me) when it comes to the "Must Act With Honor"  clause of the Paladin Code. If she, by remaining silent, allowed the party speaker to give the impression that she agreed with letting the prisoner go in return for information, she'd be guilty of 'Dishonor', which could entail, say, 24 hours without paladin powers.


----------



## delericho (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> We're not arguing the orc here, we're arguing the paladin.  Running down an unarmed and therefore helpless opponent from the back of a horse isn't mandated punishment, it's slaughter.  See above for the weakness of the 'because he's eeeeeeevil' argument; the paladin must adhere to a higher standard.




No, the mandated punishment assigned by the paladin was death. The orc fled that justice, which necessitated other action be taken.



> An LG character would either a)administer a field trial according to the Harpers' edicts, likely resulting in the orc's execution for banditry...
> 
> No due process (a component of the Lawful axis), however in the field, no mercy (part of the Good axis), therefore an alignment violation.  Had the paladin held a field trial and proceeded to a judgement, the case'd be different.




You cannot have due process in a field trial. There is no impartial judge, and no-one to speak for the accused. There is no opportunity for any evidence to be gathered to defend the accused. Furthermore, the orc was not informed of his right to counsel before questioning, and neither was he informed of a right to remain silent or to not incriminate himself. Everyone present was convinced of the orc's guilt. Quite simply, any trial that could be conducted would be a sham, and a mockery of the justice that the paladin claims to uphold.

And it's meaningless anyway. The orc is guilty. The paladin knows the orc is guilty. And, in fact, the orc has confessed: he's admitted to being a part of the ogres band, and to being a part of raiding parties. Justice therefore empowers the paladin to proceed to sentencing, and then to carry out the sentence. Which, oddly enough, is what the paladin in question did. Only the actions of her fellow party member resulted in the orc fleeing that justice, which in turn led to the paladin chasing the orc down and cutting him down.



> Context is everything if the orc was slated to be executed (and there's no indication that he was), then there's a number of ways the paladin could have carried out the sentence.  Forcing a living, thinking creature, evil or not, to die in misery and terror is hardly justice, nor is quite literally stabbing them in the back.  there were lawful and good option available, and the paladin chose to just walk the path of slaughter and expediency.  such an act may be suitable for Conan, but not Charlegmane.




The alternative was for the paladin to ride down the orc, recapture him, and then, once he'd woken up from being knocked out again proceeding to kill an unarmed and bound prisoner. The orc still dies, helpless and in terror. The terror is just prolonged. Hurrah for mercy!



> Again, not going into social justice or (effectively) murder by the state, had the paladin carried out the execution after due process (however brioef and appropriate), this wouldn't be an issue.




The paladin cannot provide due process in the field. It simply cannot be done in a fair and impartial manner. See above.



> Had a lawful field trial been carried out, then the orc wouldn't have run, negating the issue.




Because no-one ever flees a sentence imposed after a full trial.



> Had a lawful field trial been carried out, then the orc wouldn't have run, negating the issue.  As it stands, the paladin would have been in alignment if they re-captured the orc _then_ proceeded onward, fulfilling the obligations of the lawful and good axis.




I see. So, provided the party put their heads together and collectively agree that they all think the orc is guilty, they're in the clear? But if they don't conduct a sham of a trial and mockery of justice then they paladin is violating her code and her alignment?

Or is there some way that they can conduct an impartial trial for this orc?


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Clarifications:*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Are you now saying that you attacked the orcs for no reason?



Not quite ... we were told that the ogre citadel was preying on caravans and probably contained magical treasure from the hoard of Vorbyx. Harpers tipped us off, and in exchange we agreed to end the citadel's banditry on the Glister Road.

For the record ... I was the one who suggested ambushing the orc's search party before attacking the citadel, in order to thin out their forces.

I used a _sleep_ spell during the combat and we ended up with a prisoner. After gaining his full cooperation, I was prepared to let him go because:

01. He told us vital information.
02. He was pitiful, and I was feeling merciful.
03. He was not a significant threat.
04. The ogres had press-ganged him into service.
05. We planned on slaying the ogre leaders (i.e., the real threat) anyway.
06. He could have spread tales of our military prowess and/or honor.

Now ... I did not have the illusion that our ogre and orc opponents were "good" creatures. However, I also did not see them as evil incarnate. Killing them in battle was just mercenary business. 

However, executing a pathetic orc mook in cold blood was excessive.

Was he a killer of caravaneers who had invaded his territory? Who knows? However ... at the time of questioning, he really seemed no worse than us.

-Samir


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 23, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I had no intention of deceiving the paladin in any way shape or form. However, I was operating under the assumption that killing a useful snitch (and a mook at that) is bad form ... and I never expected her to attack an unarmed prisoner.



During your interrogation of the orc did you suggest to it you may let it go?
If you did, was it in a language that the paladin understood?



> I did not know that she had a problem with our Q&A strategy until she flipped out on us.



What level are your characters and how long have they been adventuring together? How often have they taken prisoners and let them go? Has the group faced orcs before, taken prisoners and let them go?



> Furthermore, I did not release a great "evil" into the world. I released a pathetic coward who had given us good intel ... information we later used to assault a genuine threat.



However, you wouldn't really know it was good intel until after the assault. When you and another player made the decision to let the orc go how sure were you that it wasn't going to go warn the ogres before you got there?



> Let's face it, killing an orc in the Thar is like spitting in the ocean. Taking out the ogre citadel was our real concern. To me, the paladin's bloodlust seemed pointless, stupid, and dishonorable.



This sounds like a player conflict - its possible the paladins player thought that releasing the orc was stupid, posed a pointless risk if it warned the ogres, and was in fact Duty bound to kill the orc. I'm curious, have you talked to the paladins player to find out what he was thinking?



> My criticisms of the paladin were both moral and pragmatic:
> 
> 01. The orc was pathetic and weak (our DM did an amazing job of portraying this, by the way). I actually pitied the poor swine, and so did Mival.
> 
> 02. If we earn a reputation for summary executions, few opponents will ever surrender to us or talk without serious coercion.



Did you sense motive to determine if the orc was possibly just putting on an act?
How will you earn that reputation? Someone would have to know it was your group that took out the orc bandits anbd then know that after getting any useful information from prisoners - you kill them. By the way, how many of the creatures at the ogre stronghold did the party take prisoner?



			
				The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Bogg (CG) and Wade (CG) had not cast their vote yet, but they seemed fairly surprised (as were the rest of us) when Wyndess unexpectedly demanded the orc's death.
> 
> and
> 
> The paladin received no consequences, that I'm aware of



Was the DM also surprised by the players decision for the paladin? If not, there may be somethings that the player and DM have worked out that you just don't know about.



> Although the orc did attack us (i.e., armed adventurers who ambushed him) ... we never saw him threaten an innocent or see any evidence that he had killed anyone.
> 
> The ogre citadel where he came from contained the wreckage of wagons, but we never saw anything that resembled human remains ... or any evidence of slaughtered caravaneers; no bones, blood, bodies, graves, and/or pyres ... nothing ....
> 
> ...



Do you actually believe that this orc just fell in with a bad crowd, really wanted to be good, and avoided killing anyone while being forced to be a bandit because of circumstances?  
Seriously though, had the characters run into people who said their wagons were stolen by orc bandits, but no one was killed. Had thay investigated the sites where the wagons were taken?

And last, would you have your character give the psion character grief about killing helpless orcs if he would have used an area effect power that caught and killed the sleeping orc before you could have interrogated it (or just grief about losing a possible information source).


You and the other players should talk and find out where everybody stands on this stuff - and it might be a good idea to think about how youu are determining what and what isn't honorable/heroic - beacuase that seems to be where the conflict is coming from.

Good gaming


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Discernment:*

I'll admit ... although the orc mook's summary execution did not sit well with me at the time, I'm not as sore about it now. Also, I realize that there are many ways to look at this matter ... and still fall within the guidelines of ethical behavior.

I'm taking the following steps:

01. I'm allowing the paladin to take responsibility for ALL interrogations; if necessary, I can translate ... or play good/bad cop.

02. I'm learning more divinatory magicks to compensate for fewer willing informants.
03. I'm encouraging the paladin's PC to learn _speak with dead_.

04. I'm starting a metagame discussion on PC expertise, so we can work out party duties without stepping on each other's toes.

Once again, I NEVER intended to compromise the paladin's code. Now that I have a better idea of what sets her off, then perhaps this unpleasantness can be avoided in the future.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Play-By-Play (x3)*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> During your interrogation of the orc did you suggest to it you may let it go?
> If you did, was it in a language that the paladin understood?



Yes (but not explicitly), near the end of our Q&A. Yes.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> What level are your characters and how long have they been adventuring together? How often have they taken prisoners and let them go? Has the group faced orcs before, taken prisoners and let them go?



We're 6th level. We have only adventured as a complete party twice. We've released human mercenaries (who surrendered to us) once before ... and they were guarding slaves.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> However, you wouldn't really know it was good intel until after the assault. When you and another player made the decision to let the orc go how sure were you that it wasn't going to go warn the ogres before you got there?



True, however we didn't think one squealing orc would make much difference. He also took off in the opposite direction of the citadel.

I was under the impression that his masters would kill him for incompetence, so he was trying to put as much distance between him and them as possible ... in case our assault would fail.

Still ... I'll admit, I was never 100% sure of this.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> This sounds like a player conflict - its possible the paladins player thought that releasing the orc was stupid, posed a pointless risk if it warned the ogres, and was in fact Duty bound to kill the orc. I'm curious, have you talked to the paladins player to find out what he was thinking?



It's not a genuine player conflict, but I will work something out with him soon.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Did you sense motive to determine if the orc was possibly just putting on an act?



Yes, and either I failed ... or he was telling the truth.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> How will you earn that reputation?



One day at a time.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Was the DM also surprised by the players decision for the paladin? If not, there may be somethings that the player and DM have worked out that you just don't know about.



You may be on to something here; still ... I'm not sure of this.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Do you actually believe that this orc just fell in with a bad crowd, really wanted to be good, and avoided killing anyone while being forced to be a bandit because of circumstances?



No ... I just thought he was a pathetic merc.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Seriously though, had the characters run into people who said their wagons were stolen by orc bandits, but no one was killed. Had thay investigated the sites where the wagons were taken?



Good points, and no on both counts.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> And last, would you have your character give the psion character grief about killing helpless orcs if he would have used an area effect power that caught and killed the sleeping orc before you could have interrogated it (or just grief about losing a possible information source).



Nope, but it's not quite the same as running down a fleeing (and highly cooperative) coward who's begging for mercy.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> You and the other players should talk and find out where everybody stands on this stuff - and it might be a good idea to think about how youu are determining what and what isn't honorable/heroic - beacuase that seems to be where the conflict is coming from.



True dat, Dog ... true dat ....     

-Samir


----------



## grimslade (Sep 23, 2006)

*Not a pally problem but a player respect problem*

THis is starting to become clearer.
The paladin is just ducky. The player of the paladin is just ducky.
Some things that stick out to me:
 1)The altercation between the OP and Pally over speaking unknown languages. THe OP   
    encourages the pally to take a swing if he/she has the stones.
 2) There was no surrender. No plan. No spoken consensus. There was the OP apparently 
    deciding unilateraly and getting upset when an unconsulted PC takes a different tack.
 3) The party is commissioned to wipe out the bandit threat by the local authority. They have
     been given the rights of High Justice. 
 4) The OP feels bad about the Pally killing one orc alone but has no compunction about ambush  
     killing a group of orcs. 

The paladin of tyr did her job. Hoorah. This party needs to get some consensus on how they will act in the future and respect each member of the party. 
  Do not taunt party members for objecting when they feel disrespected. 
  Do not unilateraly decide things with out a clear plan of action.

I get the sense that the paladin was feeling marginalized from the get-go and saw her duty as clear. Everything I pick up from the OPs posts are negative about the character, i.e. the altercation over languages, calling her a 'foreign rube'. The paladin did what paladins do without being swayed by bully.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 23, 2006)

Sounds like things will work out. Let us know if you find out there was something in the paladins background that makes this event less surprising.

IME when there is a paladin in the party the other players have to cut that player some slack in his character decisions - if for no other reason than that the character can actually lose abilitites if played in a way that the DM doesn't agree with. It usually isn't the player just being difficult, its the player trying to play his character and follow some perceived (right or wrong) unwritten rules of behavior that are controlled by another person (the DM).

Good Gaming


----------



## Once a Fool (Sep 23, 2006)

A paladin without mercy is a future blackguard.  _Mercy_ is the chief characteristic of a good alignment.  Any character who has not yet learned that, only _wants_ to be good, at best.

Alhandra, the PHB example, is on track to fall, unless she learns better.

Why?  Because GOOD does not want to vanquish EVIL, it wants to CONVERT it.  If GOOD does not convert EVIL, because it has vanquished it, GOOD has FAILED.

For my current campaign, I lifted the paladin code from the NIV Bible







			
				1 Corinthians 13: 4-8 said:
			
		

> Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
> 
> Love never fails.




Replace "Love" with "A paladin" (because, I think, even in the midevial French Romances, a paladin was, in fact, a lover) and we have a very interesting code.

_"...it keeps no record of wrongs...always trusts...always hopes...Love never fails."_

Now, the last line is the crux of it, of course.  Love never fails to convert, if the paladin perseveres.  The code does not allow for failure in that.

...But, I also believe that a paladin's code exists to give a paladin guidelines, until they can figure out on their own what it's supposed to mean.  In my campaign, a paladin showing no mercy to a helpless prisoner of war would have major ramifications, though they might not be recognizable as such for quite some time.  At the very least, the darker powers that be would _certainly_ mark the paladin as a potential candidate for the blackguard class.  Then they would take care to be persuasive.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Additional Clarification:*



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> There was the OP apparently deciding unilateraly and getting upset when an unconsulted PC takes a different tack.



To be accurate: _both_ Nigel and Mival openly defended the orc, Bogg and Wade were undecided ... but receptive to his release, and Wyndess was the one who just wanted to kill him.

We conducted the interrogation openly; no party member attempted to hide anything from one another.

Furthermore ... we had released cooperative mercs before, I did not assume that she would want to execute this one. I had no idea that any in-depth consultation was necessary (i.e., until _after_ she began making threats).

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*More:*



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> Sounds like things will work out. Let us know if you find out there was something in the paladins background that makes this event less surprising.



Guaranteed. Also, if you're curious about her background ... feel free to pick up a copy of it HERE.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> IME when there is a paladin in the party the other players have to cut that player some slack in his character decisions - if for no other reason than that the character can actually lose abilitites if played in a way that the DM doesn't agree with. It usually isn't the player just being difficult, its the player trying to play his character and follow some perceived (right or wrong) unwritten rules of behavior that are controlled by another person (the DM).



True enough, and I'll admit ... I've adventured with very few paladins. I did play one once, but he leaned more towards the Good side of his Alignment axis than his Lawful side (which is the way I tend to play ALL my LG characters).



> Good Gaming



You know it. Thanks for the feedback.   

-Samir


----------



## Numion (Sep 23, 2006)

Once a Fool said:
			
		

> _"...always trusts..."_




A Paladin who always trusts is not going to live very long in D&D-land. The Code you propose would lead into an unplayable character. "Yes siree, I'll be a good demon from now on, oh yes".

It seems quite common on RPG boards to see DMs who for whatever reason set the Paladin up for a fall from the start, so you're certainly not alone.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*The OP Responds:*



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> The altercation between the OP and Pally over speaking unknown languages. THe OP encourages the pally to take a swing if he/she has the stones.



I responded with harsh words, after she verbally threatened me in front of my associates.



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> The OP feels bad about the Pally killing one orc alone but has no compunction about ambush killing a group of orcs.



I have no issue with ambushing an armed mercenary patrol. I do have an issue with killing a fleeing (unarmed) prisoner in cold blood.



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> I get the sense that the paladin was feeling marginalized from the get-go and saw her duty as clear. Everything I pick up from the OPs posts are negative about the character, i.e. the altercation over languages, calling her a 'foreign rube'. The paladin did what paladins do without being swayed by bully.



01. We conducted our interrogation openly.
02. My character really does know the area and how to deal with locals.
03. The paladin has maintained her distance from the party since starting this campaign.
04. The paladin is not subtle and/or slick.
05. Who's the bully? The wizard who's low on spells or an armored Aasimar paladin with a drawn weapon (esp. in melee range)?

I will readily admit that I personally don't like Dewey's character (Wyndess). However, I do like Dewey as a person and a player; I'm willing to work with him (metagame) to ensure party cohesion.

Also, I know that Nigel (CN) does not need to like someone to work with them. He's a professional.

We'll reach an understanding before next game ... I'm certain of it.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Harper Justice:*



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> The party is commissioned to wipe out the bandit threat by the local authority. They have been given the rights of High Justice.



This is the Moonsea. The Harpers are a secret society of non-Evil vigilantes ... not High Justice, and most certainly not the local authorities (although that's probably a good thing).

-Samir


----------



## Once a Fool (Sep 23, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> A Paladin who always trusts is not going to live very long in D&D-land. The Code you propose would lead into an unplayable character. "Yes siree, I'll be a good demon from now on, oh yes".
> 
> It seems quite common on RPG boards to see DMs who for whatever reason set the Paladin up for a fall from the start, so you're certainly not alone.




The paladin who is attempting to understand and live by this code _is_ being played.  But, you must take "trust" in context.  It is not a stupid, blind trust, but a trust that mercy _is_, in fact, the right choice, even though it may not seem like it.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Truth ....*



			
				Once a Fool said:
			
		

> It is not a stupid, blind trust, but a trust that mercy _is_, in fact, the right choice, even though it may not seem like it.



Agreed. Nigel is (CN) with (CG) tendencies; in his heart ... he really wants to do right, but often finds himself taking a pragmatic and/or mercenary approach.

What burned me about the paladin confrontation was very simple: Nigel actually did something noble and good ... and she destroyed it.

At the time, I really wanted to frag her for doing that.

-Samir


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 23, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Agreed. Nigel is (CN) with (CG) tendencies; in his heart ... he really wants to do right, but often finds himself taking a pragmatic and/or mercenary approach.
> 
> What burned me about the paladin confrontation was very simple: Nigel actually did something noble and good ... and she destroyed it.
> 
> ...




The problem is, your idea of good and noble is likely not quite like her idea of good and noble.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 23, 2006)

Once a Fool said:
			
		

> A paladin without mercy is a future blackguard.  _Mercy_ is the chief characteristic of a good alignment.  Any character who has not yet learned that, only _wants_ to be good, at best.
> 
> Alhandra, the PHB example, is on track to fall, unless she learns better.




Fights evil without mercy, it doesn't say she doesn't have mercy.



> Why?  Because GOOD does not want to vanquish EVIL, it wants to CONVERT it.  If GOOD does not convert EVIL, because it has vanquished it, GOOD has FAILED.




Er, maybe in yoru campaign worlds, but I am pretty sure that in D&D, its about good vanquishing evil, not converting it. In D&D not all evil can realistically be converted and I agree...when good tries it fails.



> For my current campaign, I lifted the paladin code from the NIV Bible
> 
> Replace "Love" with "A paladin" (because, I think, even in the midevial French Romances, a paladin was, in fact, a lover) and we have a very interesting code.
> 
> ...




Thats definitely setting up a paladin for failure. I don't see how that could even be remotely played in D&D.



> ...But, I also believe that a paladin's code exists to give a paladin guidelines, until they can figure out on their own what it's supposed to mean.  In my campaign, a paladin showing no mercy to a helpless prisoner of war would have major ramifications, though they might not be recognizable as such for quite some time.  At the very least, the darker powers that be would _certainly_ mark the paladin as a potential candidate for the blackguard class.  Then they would take care to be persuasive.




Again, setting a paladin up for failure -- if the paladin is straying, they should be warned by the DM, which means the DM should know what the guidelines of the code are for the paladin to follow. Paladins are called to service, so its not unlikely they would get some kind of heads up by the DM before doing things that could be potentially harmful to their class. 

Also, this orc was not a prisoner of war, it was an escaping bandit that had been judged by the paladin.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 23, 2006)

*Yup ....*



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> The problem is, your idea of good and noble is likely not quite like her idea of good and noble.



Definitely ... thus a metagame discussion begins (on our group ProBoard and/or the telephone) to find common ground.

-Samir


----------



## Once a Fool (Sep 23, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Fights evil without mercy, it doesn't say she doesn't have mercy.




Mercy is valueless when it is given to those who don't need it.



> Er, maybe in yoru campaign worlds, but I am pretty sure that in D&D, its about good vanquishing evil, not converting it. In D&D not all evil can realistically be converted and I agree...when good tries it fails.



  No, no!  I said good fails when it vanquishes evil instead of converting it.  Evil vanquishes itself, it only needs to be thwarted and taught the error of its ways.  That is a paladin's job, though most people give preference to the thwarting part.





> Thats definitely setting up a paladin for failure. I don't see how that could even be remotely played in D&D.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, setting a paladin up for failure -- if the paladin is straying, they should be warned by the DM, which means the DM should know what the guidelines of the code are for the paladin to follow. Paladins are called to service, so its not unlikely they would get some kind of heads up by the DM before doing things that could be potentially harmful to their class.




Hmmm.  My assumption in running games is that paladins must often choose between moral and military victories. 



> Also, this orc was not a prisoner of war, it was an escaping bandit that had been judged by the paladin.




A difference of semantics.  But why did the paladin assume the right to judge?  That is NOT a class feature.  If it were, they would be Neutral!

My point is, the paladin class is all about learning what is right _for the paladin!_


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 23, 2006)

Once a Fool said:
			
		

> Mercy is valueless when it is given to those who don't need it.




Mercy is valueless when you give it to a foe that uses it to slit your throat a day later when your guard is down as well. Mercy is not valueless to innocents in need though nor to a foe that is misguided, but not evil.




> No, no!  I said good fails when it vanquishes evil instead of converting it.  Evil vanquishes itself, it only needs to be thwarted and taught the error of its ways.  That is a paladin's job, though most people give preference to the thwarting part.




No, good triumphs when it vanquishes evil. Conversion is neither always possible or realistic. Some evil simply cannot be converted and trying to do so only causes good to fail (such as trying to convert and devil or red dragon - its just not going to happen unless the DM decides it is). I disagree that evil vanquishes itself on a whole, it can, but its not always true. A Paladins job is to punish evil according to the code..thwarting & teaching it the error of its ways isn't in the wording anywhere that I am aware of...but thwarting evil is easily doable by killing it.



> Hmmm.  My assumption in running games is that paladins must often choose between moral and military victories.




I don't see how one has to precude the other.



> A difference of semantics.  But why did the paladin assume the right to judge?  That is NOT a class feature.  If it were, they would be Neutral!
> 
> My point is, the paladin class is all about learning what is right _for the paladin!_




Paladins of Tyr would pretty much be the perfect ones to judge according to campaign material. Other then that, their god called them to service to do a multitude of things, including "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" -- which implies a certain level of divine right in accordance with their class and its ability to mete out justice.

To assume that only those who are neutral can judge is a false assumption and doesn't really jive with how aligntment mechanics work or how the paladin is presented.

As long as its within the precepts of its alignment, faith and code, then yes...but the paladin should really already reasonably understand or know whats right for it. But thats also what the DM is for, helping to clarify when you aren't sure or giving you a heads up when you are moving beyond what his vision is as well.


----------



## Numion (Sep 24, 2006)

Once a Fool said:
			
		

> But why did the paladin assume the right to judge?  That is NOT a class feature.  If it were, they would be Neutral!




The Forgotten Realms sources quite clearly state that Tyrran paladins act as judge, jury and executioners in lawless areas.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Sep 24, 2006)

*Quoth the DM...*



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> And raises another good question...how *did* the DM rule regarding this issue? I'd be interested to know.




I haven't made a ruling, and I don't plan to. This is the first instance of questionable behavior by the paladin, and I consider it a pretty minor infraction, more LN than anything else. 

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the paladin and the group had prior knowledge that the orc bandits had been slaughtering merchant caravans, i.e. slaughtering innocents, which was the reason for the paladin's lack of mercy. I will certainly keep an eye on our paladin, and if her actions continue to be more in line with the Lawful axis of her alignment rather than the good axis, I will talk with the player. But, honestly, knowing the player, I don't see this becoming an issue.

BD


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 24, 2006)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> I haven't made a ruling, and I don't plan to. This is the first instance of questionable behavior by the paladin, and I consider it a pretty minor infraction, more LN than anything else.
> 
> I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the paladin and the group had prior knowledge that the orc bandits had been slaughtering merchant caravans, i.e. slaughtering innocents, which was the reason for the paladin's lack of mercy. I will certainly keep an eye on our paladin, and if her actions continue to be more in line with the Lawful axis of her alignment rather than the good axis, I will talk with the player. But, honestly, knowing the player, I don't see this becoming an issue.
> 
> BD




Ahh so you are the DM in question.

I don't know...as a DM I would think you should mention any infraction done so the character knows you consider her actions inappropriate, however minor.

I still disagree it was a lack of mercy on her part, but, it is your campaign 

Hopefully it will all work out okay.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2006)

Once again dipping into the RW, the chivalric code, inspiriation for the paladin's code, had a strong clause regarding mercy.  It was one of the higher virtues and was, in some sense, the quintessential knightly quality.

HOWEVER, the requirement for mercy was usually interpreted to mean that mercy need be extended _to Christians only._  A pagan, a Muslim, atheist, lapsed Christian or other non-Christian could be dealt with as the mood struck- mercy to those persons was optional.  It is quite unlikely that most knights would see anything wrong with slaying a known satanist, regardless of conditions.

And, once again, other similar codes can be found in other religious fighting orders of the RW, and once again, those codes limit _required_ mercy to the true believers.  Non-believers gambled with their lives when relying on the mercy of such holy knights.

There were limits, however, even to this "open season" on evildoers.  There is a concept called the "City of Refuge" in which a city may grant refuge to a person who has comitted an evil act- even murder- and that person could not be brought to justice by those outside the city.  Essentially, the criminal's life was spared, but he was doomed to live within the boundaries of the city the rest of his days.  And if he comitted a crime within his City of Refuge, all bets were off.  While it was a law that was religious in origin, it was commonly adopted as a traditional "law" in many European countries.

Similarly, some faiths could also offer "Sanctuary" to those who sought it.  Again, this was conditional, and usually only extended to members of the same faith.

The analogue to this concept in D&D would be found in that phrase in the PHB on p105:



> Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.




As long as that paladin considers you evil, your life is in her hands.  Such a one might require a concrete act of good (or in this case, genuine repentance)- and remember, they can _tell_- to suspend a judgement of death.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 24, 2006)

*Clarification:*



			
				BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the paladin and the group had prior knowledge that the orc bandits had been slaughtering merchant caravans, i.e. slaughtering innocents, which was the reason for the paladin's lack of mercy.



I'm not saying that you are wrong, however I am saying that I do not remember ANY specific references to dead merchants.

Granted, bandits are certainly capable of killing ... but all I remember was references to banditry, not slaughter of innocents.

-Samir


----------



## Halivar (Sep 24, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> I don't know...as a DM I would think you should mention any infraction done so the character knows you consider her actions inappropriate, however minor.



I think the DM was implying that there was no infraction, in their eyes.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 25, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> What burned me about the paladin confrontation was very simple: Nigel actually did something noble and good ... and she destroyed it.
> 
> At the time, I really wanted to frag her for doing that.





This is the important bit here.  

I'd seriously reccomend talkign about this instead of trying to establish rules for things like "Who gets to quesiton prisoners". All setting up hard rules to avoid the situation will accomplilsh is some hard feelings about being boxed in unfairly. It won't even solve the issue, which is that your awesome moment got stepped on. It'll just stop you from ever participating in an interrogation again. 

Would it have been easier to say "Hey, I'm having a cool moment here, I just did something noble and good. Could you let it go?"


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 25, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Does that really justify murdering an unarmed orc prisoner during parley ... and acting only on circumstantial evidence (at best)?
> 
> This sort of two-dimensional (LG) zealotry seems impractical as well as immoral.
> 
> -Samir




The only bearing a creature being unarmed to a paladin is that you have it under control or under your power. Among many things it means that as a traditional paladin you don't torture it and if it deserves death then you do it cleanly. 

As far as evidence goes, that where detect evil comes in. However in this case even simple logic tell us that the Orc is one of the Ogre's brigands. Letting the Orc loose means a return back to either banditry or at the very least his tribe both of which have a great possibility of causing future evil.

Zealotry is not automatically immoral either. The problem with zealotry it is a strong passion capable of clouding judgement. Doesn't mean it always clouds judgement but a person needs to be aware of this.

And I don't consider the paladin's actions to be one of a zealot. She let the party have it way with little arguement (not none mine you) until something occur that violated her code and then she took action.

Rob Conley


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 25, 2006)

*Disclaimer:  I have not read through the entire thread as of typing this post*

The paladin was not wrong IMO.  Assuming that you are playing a "standard" D&D game, evil means evil, and there's no gray area (this is something I disagree with but it's how D&D works by default).  Orcs are "often Chaotic Evil".  Paladins destroy evil without mercy wherever it's found.  Thus, paladins destroy evil Orcs without mercy.

YOUR character said that he'd let the Orc live; in my book if I was playing a paladin that means that my companion is letting his good heart get the better of him by allowing this evil filth to live, and it's my duty as a warrior of good to eliminate evil.  If that was my paladin, I would have slaughtered the orc and then give your character a sermon about the road to hell being paved with good intentions (i.e. if you let evil go they'll return later).  If this was a lawless area, then a paladin is allowed to dispense justice as he or she deems fit.


----------



## Rpjunkie (Sep 25, 2006)

If the DM says no infraction, isn't this thread really done?


RPJ


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 25, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> I think the DM was implying that there was no infraction, in their eyes.




Doesn't seem that way to me:



> Originally Posted by BLACKDIRGE
> This is the first instance of questionable behavior by the paladin, and I consider it a pretty minor infraction, more LN than anything else.




So, how exactly do you get he was implying there was no infraction?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 25, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Once again dipping into the RW, the chivalric code, inspiriation for the paladin's code, had a strong clause regarding mercy.  It was one of the higher virtues and was, in some sense, the quintessential knightly quality.
> 
> HOWEVER, the requirement for mercy was usually interpreted to mean that mercy need be extended _to Christians only._  A pagan, a Muslim, atheist, lapsed Christian or other non-Christian could be dealt with as the mood struck- mercy to those persons was optional.  It is quite unlikely that most knights would see anything wrong with slaying a known satanist, regardless of conditions.




Not only restricted Christians, but in practice mercy in martial conflict was only very inconsistently extended to those who were not of noble blood, i.e. someone who could recompense mercy with lucre or future political considerations.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 25, 2006)

I wonder....if the father of the slain orc is a high level neutral npc in the orc camp and the paladin just shifted his opinion against the party.

or a child of the orc was of good alignment until the paladin killed his dad.  The child now vows revenge.


----------



## tonym (Sep 25, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I'll admit ... although the orc mook's summary execution did not sit well with me at the time, I'm not as sore about it now. Also, I realize that there are many ways to look at this matter ... and still fall within the guidelines of ethical behavior.
> 
> I'm taking the following steps:
> 
> ...




In my opinion, one of the best reasons to run a paladin is to get a healthy measure of respect from the other PCs.  A paladin, after all, is a legitimate authority figure who commands respect even at 1st level.

Your list of steps is awesome and shows respect for the paladin's role in the party.  I admire the logic and generosity of your list.  I hope you have fun implementing it.

May your party prosper and kill many wicked monsters who deserve it!

Tony M


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Sep 25, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I wonder....if the father of the slain orc is a high level neutral npc in the orc camp and the paladin just shifted his opinion against the party.
> 
> or a child of the orc was of good alignment until the paladin killed his dad.  The child now vows revenge.




Heh...  Just stumbled on a comic that illustrates this pretty nicely:

http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050917.html


----------



## Numion (Sep 25, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I wonder....if the father of the slain orc is a high level neutral npc in the orc camp and the paladin just shifted his opinion against the party.




The father of the slain orc would have had his alignment _opinion_ shifted the instant the PCs attack the camp - which was their mission in the first place.



> or a child of the orc was of good alignment until the paladin killed his dad.  The child now vows revenge.




The child was most likely growing up to be eeevil. 

Besides either the child or the dad would've been feeling ashamed instead of angry since their dad / son was a) a coward and b) a traitor.


----------



## Slife (Sep 25, 2006)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Heh...  Just stumbled on a comic that illustrates this pretty nicely:
> 
> http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050917.html




Been waiting for this to come up.

Canned response:
The author has explained that this isn't actually a paladin, but a CE guy who _thinks_ he's a paladin.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 25, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> In my opinion, one of the best reasons to run a paladin is to get a healthy measure of respect from the other PCs.  A paladin, after all, is a legitimate authority figure who commands respect even at 1st level.




<sigh>  How come these sort of threads never (or rarely) start with the LG cleric?



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> The father of the slain orc would have had his alignment shifted the instant the PCs attack the camp - which was their mission in the first place.




I was thinking more similar to SG1 episode in season 3 called _Point of View_, an alternative universe episode, where Teal'c doesn't switch sides to fight for O'Neill because O'Neill sent a nuke through the stargate to his home world, killing Teal'c's son. 



			
				DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Heh... Just stumbled on a comic that illustrates this pretty nicely:
> http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050917.html




 Couldn't we instead send the kids to Orc Boarding Schools? 
_Surely_ that is a better way to handle it


----------



## Marchen (Sep 26, 2006)

Orcs with wives and loving children are ridiculously lame. Orcs are brutish CE monsters. They rape, pillage, and burn. I don't imagine an orc warrior coming back to his camp and playing with the orclings...

The paladin does good by killing the orc.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 26, 2006)

*Intolerance is ....*



			
				Marchen said:
			
		

> Orcs with wives and loving children are ridiculously lame. Orcs are brutish CE monsters. They rape, pillage, and burn. I don't imagine an orc warrior coming back to his camp and playing with the orclings...
> 
> The paladin does good by killing the orc.



Replace the word "orc" with the name of any good fantasy race, and read your statement again. Better yet, replace "orc" with the name of any FRCS ethnic group.

Sure, D&D is just a game ... but this line of thought can lead to a very dark place.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 26, 2006)

*Putting the Tyr Back in Tyranny!*



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> In my opinion, one of the best reasons to run a paladin is to get a healthy measure of respect from the other PCs.



I must respectfully disagree that paladins deserve automatic respect, especially in the Moonsea (where Law is typically associated with Despotism).

I know it's a cliché, but true respect is earned ... not given.

-Samir


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 26, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I must respectfully disagree that paladins deserve automatic respect, especially in the Moonsea (where Law is typically associated with Despotism).
> 
> I know it's a cliché, but true respect is earned ... not given.
> 
> -Samir



 In fact, I not only agree--I would go so far as to claim that any player who does specifically as tonym suggests and plays a paladin to require respect from the other players and their characters is actually a _problem player_.  They are the 'attention whore' type of player that is trying to find a railroading way to force other characters listen to follow their way or the highway.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 26, 2006)

> Orcs with wives and loving children are ridiculously lame. Orcs are brutish CE monsters. They rape, pillage, and burn. I don't imagine an orc warrior coming back to his camp and playing with the orclings...




Well, of course he is. Wouldn't you be, if, routinely, groups of so called adventurers came into your lands, burnt down your villages and slaughtered them to the last man, woman and child?


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

Marchen said:
			
		

> Orcs with wives and loving children are ridiculously lame. Orcs are brutish CE monsters. They rape, pillage, and burn. I don't imagine an orc warrior coming back to his camp and playing with the orclings...
> 
> The paladin does good by killing the orc.



Yep, they deserve nothing more than being marched off to death camps...no, wait... :\

I guess D&D's comic book like approach to morality (aka alignment) breeds this kind of thinking, sadly.

In my own campaign world, no sentient being is irredemably evil, except for lower planar types and most undead...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> In my own campaign world, no sentient being is irredemably evil, except for lower planar types and most undead...




Not too dissimilar to the Often/Usually/Always alignment breakdown in the MM, at a guess 

-Hyp.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 26, 2006)

*This Party's Not Over ... Yet!*



			
				Rpjunkie said:
			
		

> If the DM says no infraction, isn't this thread really done?



Maybe for you. However, I'm cool with additional discourse.

Please keep in mind, I started this thread to gain discernment ... not to punish the paladin.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 26, 2006)

*Crusader Sermons & Wild Magic*



			
				wayne62682 said:
			
		

> *Disclaimer:  I have not read through the entire thread as of typing this post*



I appreciate your honesty. Please take my light-hearted responses with a grain of salt.  



			
				wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Orcs are "often Chaotic Evil".  Paladins destroy evil without mercy wherever it's found. Thus, paladins destroy evil Orcs without mercy.



First, orcs are not always evil. Second, killing a creature strictly because its race is _often_ evil is questionable ... at best. Finally, although many paladins fight evil without pause, they are not required to "destroy" every evil creature they detect.



			
				wayne62682 said:
			
		

> YOUR character said that he'd let the Orc live; in my book if I was playing a paladin that means that my companion is letting his good heart get the better of him by allowing this evil filth to live, and it's my duty as a warrior of good to eliminate evil.



I beg your pardon, but executing an unarmed orc in the Thar is roughly on par with dusting a crippled quasit in the Abyss (i.e., I would hardly consider either act to be truly noble or effective).

We destroyed the ogre citadel; the ogres were the real threat.



			
				wayne62682 said:
			
		

> If that was my paladin, I would have slaughtered the orc and then give your character a sermon about the road to hell being paved with good intentions (i.e. if you let evil go they'll return later).



Although the road to the Nine Hells may be paved with good intentions, I'll wager that lack of mercy is a first-class flight (esp. if Nigel frags you).





-Samir Asad is Nigel Yarrow (CN)


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

Methinks too many Paladins thesedays are graduates of the Dirty Harry finishing school...


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

Not to hammer a dead horse, but was wondering if the OP might like to describe how the points I raised apply to this particular incident?



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> 1. Will letting the prisoner live and/or flee ultimately endager the lives of more innocents?
> 
> 2. What are the chances for the prisoner to be rehabilitated? Are they genuinely remorseful for their misdeeds, or only interested in saving their own skin?
> 
> ...


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 26, 2006)

*Responses to Thurbane:*



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> 1. Will letting the prisoner live and/or flee ultimately endager the lives of more innocents?



Anything is possible, especially in the FRCS. However, the Thar is a blasted heath full of savage humanoids. Killing one orc mook makes very little difference, especially when his ogre bosses are the real scourge.



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> 2. What are the chances for the prisoner to be rehabilitated? Are they genuinely remorseful for their misdeeds, or only interested in saving their own skin?



Who knows? I wasn't really expecting rehabilitation. I was expecting to him run away like a cowardly pariah, so we could move on with the plot.



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> 3. What emphasis does the Paladin and/or his church/deity place on revenge as opposed to rehabilitation? A Paladin of St Cuthbert might have a very different viewpoint than a Paladin of Pelor.



She's a Tyrran and they are pretty straight-edge ... however, they are not completely devoid of mercy.



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> 4. Will having to guard/transport the prisoner impede on the Paladin's abilities to protect other innocents? Is there an effective means of incarceration at hand?



Yes, and no.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 26, 2006)

*True Dat!*



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> Methinks too many Paladins thesedays are graduates of the Dirty Harry finishing school ...



... with advanced degrees from Judge Dredd University.    

-Samir


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

Given those answers I might be a little more sympathetic to the Paladin's actions, but it would still earn him an official caution if it were in my game. However, comparing different campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges - there are few universal truths or absolutes; even the strict code of the Paladin is open for some interpretation.


----------



## Numion (Sep 26, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Although the road to the Nine Hells may be paved with good intentions, I'll wager that lack of mercy is a first-class flight (esp. if Nigel frags you).




There _is_ that famous quote from PHB: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy, is lawful good", or something to that effect. Can't fault paladin players for lack of mercy since the PHB is so clear on the subject.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2006)

I don't have the linkie handy, but Fargoth has a bloody fantastic essay on paladin's and alignment.  Very good read.


----------



## sckeener (Sep 26, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> There _is_ that famous quote from PHB: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy, is lawful good", or something to that effect. Can't fault paladin players for lack of mercy since the PHB is so clear on the subject.




Yes.  Yes I can.  Ignoring mercy is falling on the lawful side of the LG.  I can still fault the paladin for not being good. Doing it once might not be enough to switch the LG to LN, but I'd say a paladin that ignores mercy would eventually not be a paladin.

The full quote is
Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.​
There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy.  Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault.  What we have here is one sided murder.


----------



## Halivar (Sep 26, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy.  Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault.  What we have here is one sided murder.



If we're going to have an argument on semantics, I'll have to point out that the orc, itself, is not the embodiment of evil itself, and thus not what she is "fighting." If the evil she is fighting is the orcish-raiding-thingy as a whole, she should do it mercilessly, such as by running down fleeing, unarmed orcs that register on her _detect evil_.


----------



## Numion (Sep 26, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy.  Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault.  What we have here is one sided murder.




The 'innocent' part refers to those the Orc would've murdered _after_ let loose - a Paladin also has responsibility to protect those innocents that happen to be outside his current field of vision.

And how do you figure mercy could enter into the equation _during_ combat? By definition you can't grant mercy unless the other side is at your .. mercy. I'd say the _only_ time you can grant mercy is when the other side is already defeated / surrendered in combat and under your power.


----------



## grimslade (Sep 26, 2006)

*Due Process, Miranda and the Medieval Knight*

It looks like the OP has talked with his DM to try and create an immersive game with a great deal of buy in from the players. Ground rules will be brought up and each character will be able to know where the boundaries are. So excellent job to the OP on fostering a good gaming group.

Of course there is the side argument of paladin opinion that is swarming. 
If we play the D&D paladin by the RAW, the orc dying is no problemo. This is provided that the paladin Detected Evil or ensured that the orc in question had participated in the caravan raids. The Judge Dredd appellation is appropriate. Paladins Smite Evil.  Whether the orc faces Gruumsh with a sword thrust through his back or from the front is up to the orc. There is no stipulation in the Paladin Code to not smite cowardly evil. D&D is based on there being absolutes. There is good. There is evil. Paladins can detect the presence of evil, so as to destroy it. EVIL is evil, not a shopkeeper who overcharges. Evil is palpable and definite
  If you are playing in a campaign that is made of shades of grey and downplays alignment, then all of this needs to be reworked. A paladin is a class that works in a black/white world. It needs serious modification to work in a less defined morality.

 Also, the assertion that there were no innocents to be protected is bunk. The orc was a member of a bandit gang that had been razing caravans. The innocents are future caravans. This not a case of using minimal force to diffuse a situation. The party is going to wipe out the bandit ogres. They are not going to simply walk into the camp and ask them to disperse. I don't understand how we are making the distinction between ambushing orc bandits with extreme predjudice and executing orc bandits? The real discussion between the the OP and the paladin is that the paladin's smiting the orc diminished the OP's merciful gesture. That is roleplaying gold and I wish them the best with it.


----------



## tonym (Sep 26, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> ...I know it's a cliché, but true respect is earned ... not given.
> -Samir




I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.

A paladin has earned automatic respect the day they became a paladin, not when you say they do.  Paladins get this respect at 0 xp, right out the gate.  

To make a real-world parallel, in D&D-land a paladin is like a priest and a police officer combined.  Or a rabbi and a firefighter.  Personally, I don't need such people to "earn" my respect.  I  automatically respect them for their occupation in life. 

The paladin is a tool of her god.  She has sacrificed her Free Will to help people, even to the point of sacrificing her life if need be.  In D&D-land, that garners automatic respect from other PCs, peasants, merchants and so forth.  This is not difficult to imagine.

You chose to run a CN character who can change his behavior whenever it suits him, so naturally your PC must "earn" respect.  The paladin, however, deserves respect from everybody.

Evil people and self-centered jerks are exceptions, of course; so, yes, if you are roleplaying a self-centered jerk, then yes, you can withold your PC's respect for a paladin.  

Nonetheless, the paladin still deserves respect, up until the moment they lose their paladinhood.

Tony M


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 26, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> If we're going to have an argument on semantics, I'll have to point out that the orc, itself, is not the embodiment of evil itself, and thus not what she is "fighting." If the evil she is fighting is the orcish-raiding-thingy as a whole, she should do it mercilessly, such as by running down fleeing, unarmed orcs that register on her _detect evil_.




Yup, because running down an unarmed, fleeing opponent is honorable and righteous, right?  It's not like stabbing  an opponent in the back and...

Ah, wait, I already made these arguments, didn't I?  And we've gotten clarification that the orc a) presented no threat, b) wasn't endangering any innocents and c) was far less of a threat than the ogres behind the whole thing.  Of course, the idea of 'future innocents' has been thoroughly debunked; ever see _Minority Report_?  The idea of 'precrime' (as it's being used here) is hardly just, or even righteous; it's presumptuous.  It's trading justice for expediency, and worse, wasting time on a small evil when there's _real_ evil out that the party could have been dealing with.  

And it _is_ murder, Halivar.  Cutting down a helpless opponent qualifies, despite all the semantic wriggling to the contrary.  It's behavior far more suited to a blackguard than a paladin.  Do we need to post definitions of commonly understood words like 'murder' and 'mercy'...again?  Along with the Lawful and Good alignment definitions?  Because reading all of that, the paladin acted out of alignment, and frankly deserves an infraction.  Walking the Paladinic path is even tougher and more restrictive than LG normally is - and should be enforced as such.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.




Because, remember, folks, there's only one way to play things.    



> A paladin has earned automatic respect the day they became a paladin, not when you say they do.  Paladins get this respect at 0 xp, right out the gate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Halivar (Sep 26, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And it is murder, Halivar. Cutting down a helpless opponent qualifies, despite all the semantic wriggling to the contrary.



You and I play different paladin's with very evidently different codes of conduct. But that's cool, because, as you said, there is no one way to play a paladin. If you want to, say, play an Apostle of Peace who grants mercy to anyone who throws down and weapons and promises to be good, I'm cool with that. For me, my paladins like to run down helpless orcs and stab them in the back, because their code tells them that the innocent townspeople must be protected at all costs. My table has room for both paladins. Yours doesn't, and that's okay, too.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Logical fallacy. Again





			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You know this is a ridiculous strawman you've made, right?



This isn't a high school debate class. Nobody cares about rhetorical devices or any of that nonsense.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 26, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> You and I play different paladin's with very evidently different codes of conduct. But that's cool, because, as you said, there is no one way to play a paladin. If you want to, say, play an Apostle of Peace who grants mercy to anyone who throws down and weapons and promises to be good, I'm cool with that. For me, my paladins like to run down helpless orcs and stab them in the back, because their code tells them that the innocent townspeople must be protected at all costs. My table has room for both paladins. Yours doesn't, and that's okay, too.




Excepting that running down a helpless opponent and backstabbing them is a pretty clear violation of the Good alignment, and possibly the Lawful axis as well, depending.  Of course, you also point out that you play a paladin that _enjoys_ the simple art of murder, which is _definitely_ out of alignment.  You want to play a dishonorable, backstabbing murderer and call him a paladin, that's your table...but it ain't in alignment and it ain't RAW.

And for this argument, to remind, there are no innocent townspeople.  It's a blasted heath, a wasteland that some caravans got ambushed in.  The fortress the evildoers were striking from was destroyed, and the orc represented zero threat...and there were bigger problems to deal with.



> This isn't a high school debate class. Nobody cares about rhetorical devices or any of that nonsense.




So you don't actually have a refutation or contrary argument?  Very well.


----------



## Numion (Sep 26, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And it _is_ murder, Halivar.  Cutting down a helpless opponent qualifies, despite all the semantic wriggling to the contrary.




The fact that the target is helpless doesn't make it murder. Killing a helpless target was, in this case, justified. It is called an execution.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 26, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> The fact that the target is helpless doesn't make it murder. Killing a helpless target was, in this case, justified. It is called an execution.




Which is murder.  I quote, since it seems to be unclear:

murder[mur-der] 
–noun 
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).  
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!  
3. a group or flock of crows.  
–verb (used with object) 4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.  
*5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.*

Emphasis mine.  I do believe running down a helpless  opponent and stabbing them in the back is pretty much considered a barbaric act in civilized society - even an idealized fantasy society like the Realms.


----------



## Numion (Sep 26, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> *5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.*
> 
> Emphasis mine.  I do believe running down a helpless  opponent and stabbing them in the back is pretty much considered a barbaric act in civilized society - even an idealized fantasy society like the Realms.




Well, the Paladin would've executed the orc with one swipe to the neck, had the Orc stayed still. Considering that in this case it was the orc that messed up the clean execution, I'll say there are no grounds to call the _Paladins_ actions inhumane.

Thus there is no basis for calling it murder.


----------



## Halivar (Sep 26, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You want to play a dishonorable, backstabbing murderer and call him a paladin, that's your table...but it ain't in alignment and it ain't RAW.



Yes, it is RAW. See previous posts. Since we're playing high-school debate, I'll have to point out that your loaded terminology is a clear use of judgemental language and appeal to emotion.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And for this argument, to remind, there are no innocent townspeople.



You're right. Replace "innocent townspeople" with "innocent merchants" and we're square. Thanks for pointing that out.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So you don't actually have a refutation or contrary argument?  Very well.



_Argumentum a silentio_. You do not get to say "very well," as if you've proven your point.

BTW, an orc isn't a human, so how can you treat it inhumanely? You're real-world terms don't work in a fantasy setting.


----------



## robertsconley (Sep 26, 2006)

grimslade said:
			
		

> If you are playing in a campaign that is made of shades of grey and downplays alignment, then all of this needs to be reworked. A paladin is a class that works in a black/white world. It needs serious modification to work in a less defined morality.




I had to deal with this issue in my campaign when I switched to GURPS in the late 80's. It is easier if you remember that most important two traits of a traditional paladin is faith and being the champion of a god. From those two all else follows.

So you can have a paladin in a shades of grey campaign if you have a god that is truly good. It just happens in a shade of grey campaign. Paladins are that much more alone as they deal not only with evil but all the not so quite so evil friends of the bad guy.

In my campaign the demons were those divine powers (lesser and greater) that revolted against how the world was ordered when it was created. The remaining divine powers warred with the demons eventually imprisoning them in the abyss. The surviving divine powers became the dieties of the post war world. The problem was that some of the surviving divine powers became either obsessive, bent, or driven borderline insane by their experiences during the demon war. So while nearly every "god/goddess" hates demons some are nearly just as bad. 

One example is the story of the goddess Delaquain and goddess Sarrath. Shortly after the war was won there were still surviving mortal worshippers of demons in the southern jungles. Each picked a local tribe and created a joint nation to hunt them down. Sarrath prized order, disipline, control, and above all destruction of demon worshipper at any cost and Delaquain prized, strength, determination, compassion, and conversion of the demon worshipper to the worship of the gods rather than destruction.

Well the story ended when Sarrath followers being disgusted at the "weakness" of Delaquain followers. They attacked and made slaves out of them to aid the war effort in the way Sarrath wanted. Delaquain consider their compact broken and eventually sent a prophet to lead them to freedom in another land.

Flash forward a couple of hundred years to the main area of my campaign where the City of Eastgate was created as a colony of Delaquain's followers. A hundred years ago it was conquered by barbarians who are now the overlords of the city. For various reasons the church of Sarrath was invited into Eastgate and became allies of one of the barbarian noble factions. So Eastgate is ruled by a mix of barbarian, Sarrath's followers, and Delaquain's followers.

In my latest game one of the party members is a Lion of Delaquain, an equivalent of a D&D paladin with a similar code. The player been having a lot of fun and had fun with several situations that played up to his paladinhood. In the most recent game he and the party were returning to Eastgate escorting a lady. Along they way their caravan got hit by a orc raid. The fight was tough and but several members of the caravan were kidnapped. This being GURPS they couldn't just heal up and go after the Orcs. So they knew of a nearby keep that was run by the Overlord of Eastgate that they could use for refuge and refit. 

Now most of the players in this game are new to GURPS and my campaign so they don't really know how messy I make the cultural and social aspect of my fantasy campaign. They get to the keep and as per custom present themselves to the lord in charge. Which happens to be a Myrmidon (paladin) of Sarrath!. The look on the paladin player was priceless. The conversation went something like this.

Me: The guards waves you into the main hall as the seneshal goes into a door.
Party: <talk among themselves about how long it going to take to get everyone healed and refitted>
Me: Ok, you see a man come out of the corrider dressed in the colors of the Overlord. 
<rolling>
Me: Albrecht<the paladin>, make a roll. Notes that he makes his Sense "Evil" awareness check.
Me: Ok Albrecht you are getting a sense that this man approaching you is evil but it is not demonic in nature.
<Albrecht looking startled>
Albrecht: I am looking at him
Me: He is wearing a symbol of Sarrath
<The player looks poleaxed>
Player 2: <whispers> aren't you supposed to kill these guys or something?
Albrecht: I..I.. can't he is the lord of this place and working for the Overlord.
<The Myrmidon walks up and looks at Albrecht>
Myrmidon: So I understand that you <slight pause> lost a caravan to Orcs?

The ensuing conversation gave new meaning to the concept of strained.


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 26, 2006)

Halivar said:
			
		

> Yes, it is RAW. See previous posts. Since we're playing high-school debate, I'll have to point out that your loaded terminology is a clear use of judgemental language and appeal to emotion.




Afraid not - I posted the Lawful and Good alignment axes earlier, but since it seems we're down to pedantry, here we go again:

*SRD: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.*

*SRD: "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. *

So, let's break this down - running down an unarmed opponent isn't 'honorable' in any sense of the word.  An orc isn't a mindless monster (therefore qualifying as 'sentient'), and hacking them to bits from behind is hardly respectful of life, especially when said orc is, effectively, harmless.  Glad that's settled.  Let's move on.




> You're right. Replace "innocent townspeople" with "innocent merchants" and we're square. Thanks for pointing that out.




And has been pointed out, the orcs weren't a threat - their ogre masters were.  The fortress they'd been raiding from had been destroyed, and there was no _imminent_ threat.  the argument of 'future' crime could easily be extended to anyone - heck, that paladin _might_ fall, someday, let's kill him now!



> _Argumentum a silentio_. You do not get to say "very well," as if you've proven your point.




Since you haven't provided a counterargument that holds up, actually, I do.



> BTW, an orc isn't a human, so how can you treat it inhumanely? You're real-world terms don't work in a fantasy setting.




*yaaaaawn*  _Ad absurdum_ won't hold water either.  Sorry.


----------



## tonym (Sep 26, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> ...murder...blah blah blah




If wrongness was a weapon, you'd be the Death Star.

No matter how much you try to paint the killing of an orc bandit as murder, you are wrong wrong wrong.

The only teensy, tiny way you could have a shred of being right would be if the DM stripped the paladin of his paladinhood.  If that happened, you would be right in that DM's oddball campaign world only.

But look!  You are wrong there, too!

Face it.  The RAW not only allow that paladin to kill that fleeing orc, they also allow her to burn it at a stake, strangle it to death, or tie it to a tree and evicerate it.  

There is no rule saying a paladin can't kill monsters any way he or she feels like killing them, nor does the rules care which direction the monster faces, whether or not it carries a weapon, has children, or might reform one day and become a LG shopkeeper.  The rules don't care, so it is up to the player of the paladin and their DM how much the paladin should care.

Clearly YOU care.  But you are neither the DM nor the player of that paladin.

Summary: The paladin did nothing wrong.

Tony M


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> Face it.  The RAW not only allow that paladin to kill that fleeing orc, they also allow her to burn it at a stake, strangle it to death, or tie it to a tree and evicerate it.
> 
> There is no rule saying a paladin can't kill monsters any way he or she feels like killing them, nor does the rules care which direction the monster faces, whether or not it carries a weapon, has children, or might reform one day and become a LG shopkeeper.  The rules don't care, so it is up to the player of the paladin and their DM how much the paladin should care.




Can we stipulate though, that while the paladin's code allows such an action it does not *require* it?  That if a pladin feels it is appropriate, he/she certainly has the free will to offer mercy to a defeated opponent?

That's what's gotten to me, the notion that's appeared in this thread a few times that the paladin had no choice but to slay the orc and that mercy and forgiveness would be a violation of the code.

Neither answer is contrary to the notions of goodness.  It's just that each is weighted towards a different aspect of goodness.  One towards mercy and the other towards protecting innocents.  Paladins aren'ty supposed to all think and act alike.  There should be plenty of ethical dilemmas where two paladins will come up with two different answers.

It's also fair that the other player characters, or even the other players, may be disgusted and repulsed by the choice, even if it was within the boundries of lawful good behavior.  (Certainly other players can't be expected to check alignment rules before having an emotional reaction to in-game events.)


----------



## Halivar (Sep 26, 2006)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> *yaaaaawn*  _Ad absurdum_ won't hold water either.  Sorry.



_Reductio ad absurdum_ is a perfectly valid logical construct. But that's a moot point, because I never used it. What did you think it meant (that is, what was wrong with what I said)? What does the word "humane" mean to a murderous orc? How does one treat a murderous orc? Does a murderous orc have rights? If you meant to say that the questions are absurd, you are correct; in a fantasy world, *everything is absurd*.



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Can we stipulate though, that while the paladin's code allows such an action it does not require it? That if a paladin feels it is appropriate, he/she certainly has the free will to offer mercy to a defeated opponent?



I absolutely agree, excepting cases where the opponent has a guaranteed certainty of harming innocents in the future (i.e. vampires that live off of blood, demons who are irredeemably evil, etc.).


----------



## Jim Hague (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> If wrongness was a weapon, you'd be the Death Star.
> 
> No matter how much you try to paint the killing of an orc bandit as murder, you are wrong wrong wrong.
> 
> The only teensy, tiny way you could have a shred of being right would be if the DM stripped the paladin of his paladinhood.  If that happened, you would be right in that DM's oddball campaign world only.




Except that I've quoted the definition of murder and the RAW, and they do indeed seem to agree with me.  Of course, you're stooping to PAs at this point to prop up your argument, so let's move on...




> Face it.  The RAW not only allow that paladin to kill that fleeing orc, they also allow her to burn it at a stake, strangle it to death, or tie it to a tree and evicerate it.
> 
> There is no rule saying a paladin can't kill monsters any way he or she feels like killing them, nor does the rules care which direction the monster faces, whether or not it carries a weapon, has children, or might reform one day and become a LG shopkeeper.  The rules don't care, so it is up to the player of the paladin and their DM how much the paladin should care.




Ok, once _again_:

murder[mur-der] 
–noun 
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Evisceration, burning at the stake, etc. are all rather brutal and inhumane.  So, I'm afraid, you're mistaken.  Moving on and repeating for you:

*SRD: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

SRD: "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. *

So, by your argument, the paladin can rampantly violate the altruism and respect(eviscerating, burning at the stake and obviously taking pleasure in doing so by your implication) part of the axis, and we don't need to get into the honor portion.  I'm not sure how you run paladins in your gameworld, but they don't seem to be Lawful Good.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.
> 
> A paladin has earned automatic respect the day they became a paladin, not when you say they do.  Paladins get this respect at 0 xp, right out the gate.
> 
> ...



 I am actually somewhat frightened by this line of reasoning.  Even though my friends and acquaintances tell me that I'm a bit too 'Good' and the D&D alignment tests always give me a Good alignment, according to you _I_ am _evil_ because I don't automatically respect someone in real life for being a clergy member?  I don't think I can continue a conversation on this topic too much here, as you've very neatly edged the line on the whole religion thing, but suffice it to say that your reasoning chills me in that it reminds me of things I won't bring up.


----------



## tonym (Sep 26, 2006)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Can we stipulate though, that while the paladin's code allows such an action it does not *require* it?  That if a pladin feels it is appropriate, he/she certainly has the free will to offer mercy to a defeated opponent?




Oh yes.  Although paladins have surrendered a portion of their free will, a player often gets to make many decisions regarding mercy.  The rules are intentionally vague to encourage this.  

Although mercy is an important component of a paladin, the amount of mercy is the paladin-player's call, generally.  A paladin can be virtually mericless to monsters and still be a paladin, or a paladin can be so merciful that he becomes a major pain to the rest of the party by not killing things.

Variety is the essence of d20!

I would hope a player would be consistent, though, and not have their paladin acting both merciful and merciless, back and forth, without any logic behind their decisions.

Some DMs insist every paladin must act exactly the same--usually like Sir Galahad but with 21st-century morality.  Gamers should avoid running paladins under such DMs, IMO.  Those DMs tend to be control freaks who are always on the look-out for a chance to strip away paladin powers.  

"Ha!  You didn't give coins to the beggar child!  You lose your powers until you atone!"  

Or..."Ha!  The bandit orc was facing away from you when you killed him!  You disgust me!  You should have tried to reform him!  After all, maybe he only _watched_ the other bandits slaughter merchants, but didn't participate for some reason!  You lose your powers until you atone!"  Running a paladin under a DM like that is much like running a robot.  

A _stupid_ robot.

I think most people running paladins are people who want to run exceptionally GOOD characters, and how they run their paladins reflects that most of the time.  

I think it is mean of a person, whether a DM or player, to tell somebody who is running a paladin that he isn't running his paladin good enough.

It's like telling the player of the wizard that he is running his wizard too stupid, and that his actions do not reflect a high intelligence.  It's just mean.

People run a paladin to have fun, and people who ruin fun are jerks, IMO.

No offense to any jerks reading this, but come on, stop trying to tell other people how to roleplay their character.

Tony M


----------



## nerfherder (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> I think it is mean of a person, whether a DM or player, to tell somebody who is running a paladin that he isn't running his paladin good enough.
> 
> It's like telling the player of the wizard that he is running his wizard too stupid, and that his actions do not reflect a high intelligence.  It's just mean.
> 
> ...



Except that there is a definition of good in the rules, and the mechanics of the Paladin class require a character to follow that definition or lose its powers.  As a DM I would remind the player of the definition of Lawful and Good and their Paladin code, and what happens if they act in an evil manner or transgress their code.  Then I would let them decide what they want to do.

Cheers,
Liam

P.S. there's no need for the "no offense to any jerks" comment.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> People run a paladin to have fun, and people who ruin fun are jerks, IMO.
> 
> No offense to any jerks reading this, but come on, stop trying to tell other people how to roleplay their character.
> 
> Tony M




Except that people who run paladins like the ones you describe who are trying to force the other players to defer to them, do what they say, and give them respect are ruining the _other players'_ fun.  And as you say, people who ruin fun are jerks.  Since the paladin player is possibly ruining everyone else's fun at the table, whereas the people who try to not let the paladin dominate and rule the entire table are at most ruining the paladin's fun, by the utilitarian measurement of 'jerkness' proposed by your criterion, the paladin's player is the bad guy here.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 26, 2006)

Wow, just wow. I waded through all of this, and one thing kept occurring to me.

Everyone is slapping modern thought on the actions of a medieval situation.

Ever heard the phrase: "get medieval on their asses!"

Yeah, that's because certian things were acceptable back then that aren't now.

Here we have a bunch of people, on this board, who roleplay breaking and entering thieves who murder people _in their own homes_ for shiney stuff and to strut around the tavern later.

But when you come to a Paladin, he should wrap himself in nerf and never harm anyone, and not let any harm, even hurt feelings, come to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

The very same people who roleplay savage thugs who sneak into others homes and murder them, want to now apply modern thought to ONE class.



Here's a real quick fix, that'll shut all of you up.

Drop alignment, use alliegence, and make sure each Paladin has a code to follow. When he's about to do something, he gets a warning.

Or, just drop the paladin altogether, since it seems to offend so many people.


----------



## nerfherder (Sep 26, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Here's a real quick fix, that'll shut all of you up.
> 
> Drop alignment, use alliegence, and make sure each Paladin has a code to follow. When he's about to do something, he gets a warning.
> 
> Or, just drop the paladin altogether, since it seems to offend so many people.



That's not RAW, but it would make a fine house rule.

Cheers,
Liam


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

tonym said:
			
		

> I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.



I respectfully inform you of yours. You cannot stipulate to a (player) character who they do and no not respect, especially by vocation.

For instance, why should a CG, freedom loving Sorcerer, show insta-respect to some "jackbooted enforcer" of Lawful ideals? He would be much more likely to respect a CG Ranger who enforces the ideals of liberty and freedom.

Just because someone has chosen a calling that has a strict code, doesn't mean they are instantly worthy of respect. I'm sure there are assassin and thieves guilds that work by a strict code of conduct, it doesn't mean a character would respect them, either.

Oh, and for the record, IRL I don't auto respect cops or religious types either.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 26, 2006)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> That's not RAW, but it would make a fine house rule.
> 
> Cheers,
> Liam



Since the SRD is a constantly changing entity, why don't we petition to MAKE it RAW?


----------



## nerfherder (Sep 26, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Since the SRD is a constantly changing entity, why don't we petition to MAKE it RAW?



I don't think WotC will be very receptive to removing alignment...

Cheers,
Liam


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 26, 2006)

> Yup, because running down an unarmed, fleeing opponent is honorable and righteous, right? It's not like stabbing an opponent in the back and...




If the paladin had already judged the orc's life forfeit before surrender, its no different than tracking down and killing an escaped death-row inmate.



> > Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
> 
> 
> 
> There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy. Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault. What we have here is one sided murder.




and



> Although mercy is an important component of a paladin, the amount of mercy is the paladin-player's call, generally. A paladin can be virtually mericless to monsters and still be a paladin, or a paladin can be so merciful that he becomes a major pain to the rest of the party by not killing things.




The term "Mercy" could just as easily apply to the method of execution- in other words, a merciful and quick execution at sword-point as opposed to poisoning drawing & quartering, drowning, burning at the stake, or pressing.



> murder[mur-der]
> –noun
> 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
> 2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
> ...




Except you hinge your argument on the 5th definition of the word- one which could encompass sate-sanctioned execution (see pressing, etc., above).  Before we get to THAT point, we have to ask about how the parties involved in the killing (the orc and the paladin) are viewed in the law of that region.

If Paladins are given broad legal authority in the region- if, say, the region is a theocracy controlled by the Paladin's faith- he and his peers may be considered to be judge/jury/executioners/ without fear of reprisal- virtually incapable of "murder" in the legal sense unless they obviously violate the tenets of their faith (evidenced by losing their status as paladins).

OTOH, if Orcs are the scourge of the land, they may not have any real rights in the eyes of the law- killing them would be analogous to stepping on ants.

Further, if as I stated above, the Paladin had adjudicated the Orc's fate before the surrender, and had deemed the orc worthy of a merciful fate- execution by sword- but had to run him down and kill him because the orc ran, its not murder- he's killing an escaped prisoner fleeing a death sentence.


> Because, y'know, there's only one way to play a paladin and only one 'proper' way to react to them.




My point of a few posts ago was that there are several ways to play a paladin, and the "avenging angel" archetype (like the one we apparently have here) is one of them , as is the "merciful protector of the downtrodden."  Your refusal to accept that a paladin can be ruthless and merciless in his struggle against evil is every bit as close-minded and non-RAW as those who can't accept Paladins who let evil creatures live.

Paladins have a sliding scale of acceptible behaviors, just like other PCs (its just not as big and broad)...which is why I repeatedly suggest that the DM and would-be-Pally-player need to talk about the PC and associated issues before a single dice is rolled.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 26, 2006)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> I don't think WotC will be very receptive to removing alignment...
> 
> Cheers,
> Liam



That's because they're Lawful Evil.

They don't immediately do what everyone wants them to do, which makes them evil, didn't you know?

Perhaps we should gather up some Paladins and assualt them.

Oh, wait, all the Paladins can do is stand there and go "Tsk tsk tsk" while waving a finger. Unless it hurts someone's feelings, in which case, he looses his Paladinhood.

So I guess we're stuck.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2006)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> I don't think WotC will be very receptive to removing alignment...




But you never really know till you try


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow. I waded through all of this, and one thing kept occurring to me.
> 
> Everyone is slapping modern thought on the actions of a medieval situation.
> 
> ...



Which would be all fine and well, except we aren't talking about d20 Historical.

D&D campaign settings are inspired by real world medieval settings, but are FAR from a true reflection of medieval society. Magic, non-human sentients, interventionist Gods etc etc mean that a person in the average campaign setting is almost as far removed from a historical medieval outlook as we are in the modern world. And lets not even get into settings like Athas or Spelljammer.

On top of which I would also point out that trying to liken the D&D alignment system to real world morality is all but impossible - the two are almost mutually incompatible.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 26, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Which would be all fine and well, except we aren't talking about d20 Historical.
> 
> D&D campaign settings are inspired by real world medieval settings, but are FAR from a true reflection of medieval society. Magic, non-human sentients, interventionist Gods etc etc mean that a person in the average campaign setting is almost as far removed from a historical medieval outlook as we are in the modern world. And lets not even get into settings like Athas or Spelljammer.
> 
> *On top of which I would also point out that trying to liken the D&D alignment system to real world morality is all but impossible - the two are almost mutually incompatible.*



If we ever meet, that nice and concise summation of the problem at hand has earned you a whiskey shooter and a mug of beer. Not cheapo US domestic beer either, a nice Weissen.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> If we ever meet, that nice and concise summation of the problem at hand has earned you a whiskey shooter and a mug of beer. Not cheapo US domestic beer either, a nice Weissen.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 27, 2006)

After reading all of this, I've figured something else out. A lot of our games would be incompatible with one another, even though we're using the basic rules together.

My Paladin of Torm, armed with a writ of execution, having already recieved absolution for what he would have to do, spotted the Barking Bishop, a man who had defamed and twisted the church, who had led his congregation into demon worship and cannibalism. He was across the market square, speaking with some of the poor and destitute, laying his hands upon them. Even across the square I could feel the foullness of his "blessings" upon the poorest of the poor.

I looked around and spotted a piece of wire wrapped around a hitching post, unwound it, walked up, yanked the Bishop off of his feet by wrapping it around his neck and leaning back. While he was strangling, my Paladin told him "Torm awaits thee for judgement, suck***." and strangled a high ranking ex-member of the church, right there in the streets of Waterdeep, in few view of witnesses.

When the guard arrived, I showed them the writ of execution, the writ of absolution, and requested the both the strangled body and myself be escorted to the Church of Torm so they could ensure that it was indeed a church sanctioned killing.

I didn't lose my Paladinhood, it wasn't even brought up. The Barking Bishop could very well had used spells on me, he'd killed eight others sent after him, he engaged in vile acts most foul, and was considered "outside the realm of goodly folk." which made him a "wolf's head" who had every man's hand raised against him.

To us, that did nothing to voilate my alignment (Lawful Evil) and I did the usual after taking life: Confession, performing good acts for the lowest of the low, and attending mass.



As far as my GM is concerned, I'm still Lawful Good, but after the discussion over Saduul Cortez, I'm pretty sure our style of play is a lot more lax than everyone else's here. Many here would pull my Palidanhood, while others would shrug and go "So." about it.

Sure, we all use the same base rules, but there's a lot of room to move around, and while we may all be using the same base, the statues on top are all different from one another.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> After reading all of this, I've figured something else out. A lot of our games would be incompatible with one another, even though we're using the basic rules together.
> 
> My Paladin of Torm, armed with a writ of execution, having already recieved absolution for what he would have to do, spotted the Barking Bishop, a man who had defamed and twisted the church, who had led his congregation into demon worship and cannibalism. He was across the market square, speaking with some of the poor and destitute, laying his hands upon them. Even across the square I could feel the foullness of his "blessings" upon the poorest of the poor.
> 
> ...



 Well, I'm one of the people who did not like the Paladin's actions in the OP, but all I can say to the example of your Paladin is Rock On!  There was nothing unlawful or ungood about your act--the only thing you might _maybe_ have come close to infringing was the fight with honour thing, and I would say not really on that either.  Though you strangled him, you carried yourself honourably and stood to wait for the guards rather than running off.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Well, I'm one of the people who did not like the Paladin's actions in the OP, but all I can say to the example of your Paladin is Rock On!  There was nothing unlawful or ungood about your act--the only thing you might _maybe_ have come close to infringing was the fight with honour thing, and I would say not really on that either.  Though you strangled him, you carried yourself honourably and stood to wait for the guards rather than running off.



In my own defense, my first PC was a Paladin. I wrote him up out of our brand new player's handbook with this REALLY COOL fire demon statue and dead lizards on the cover. I played him from like 1979 to 1985 when I left for the Army. LOL I've had a LOT of practice at running Paladins. I can do the "THOU MUST OBEY!" Paladins, and the "DEATH TO THE INFEDEL!" Paladins, and the prostitute chasing, beer drinking, dice rolling killing machine Paladin.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> In my own defense, my first PC was a Paladin. I wrote him up out of our brand new player's handbook with this REALLY COOL fire demon statue and dead lizards on the cover. I played him from like 1979 to 1985 when I left for the Army. LOL I've had a LOT of practice at running Paladins. I can do the "THOU MUST OBEY!" Paladins, and the "DEATH TO THE INFEDEL!" Paladins, and the prostitute chasing, beer drinking, dice rolling killing machine Paladin.



 Right, and I think you captured the essence of the paladin exceptionally well in those actions, despite the way he had to kill that corrupt priest from an ambush by strangling.

However, I'm hoping you can see the huge difference with the OP's problem paladin.  She did not comport herself that way at all.  If she had killed the orc immediately, that's fine.  Waiting for it to be questioned and then murdering it after her group has already juiced it for all the information and it swore to repent and become good (and as far as her Sense Motive knew it was telling the truth) was not at all--it was manipulative in a "wring this lowly creature for all possible value first before I destroy it" sense as well as completely direspectful for the rest of the party and their modus operandi.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> However, I'm hoping you can see the huge difference with the OP's problem paladin.  She did not comport herself that way at all.  If she had killed the orc immediately, that's fine.  Waiting for it to be questioned and then murdering it after her group has already juiced it for all the information and it swore to repent and become good (and as far as her Sense Motive knew it was telling the truth) was not at all--it was manipulative in a "wring this lowly creature for all possible value first before I destroy it" sense as well as completely direspectful for the rest of the party and their modus operandi.



There's quite a difference, I can agree.

See, my Paladin's wouldn't do that, because of a very big thing that can happen.

That orc made a vow to become good, to repent, had been questioned, then murdered.

The Paladin's own God may raise the orc from the dead, or perhaps the orc would become undead and be indestructable unless the Paladin commits penance.

In a world of magic, those killed like that have a nasty habit of shrugging off the dirt of their shallow grave, having their eyes light up with vile fire, and having the chill of the grave strengthen thier muscles.

I ran into a Revenant once before. I don't want to repeat THAT experience.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> There's quite a difference, I can agree.
> 
> See, my Paladin's wouldn't do that, because of a very big thing that can happen.
> 
> ...



 A revenant?  Now _that_ would be awesome and fitting.  I like the way you think


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Sep 27, 2006)

Wow, eight pages of thread for an incident that covered maybe ten minutes in our game. 

Now, as the DM for the paladin in question, I didn't see the character's actions as a major infraction. In fact, I didn't even think it worthy of a discussion. But, that said, there are some points that I don't think have been brought up.

1. The paladin expressed her concern that the orc, if set free, would simply join up with another band of marauding humanoids and continue to wreak evil. Now, this is a very logical assumption, and as the DM, I can tell you that's exactly what would have happened. Since there was no time for a trial or anything formal, an execution was certainly not outside of her alignment or code. 

2. The orc was offered an honorable death. He refused and fled. The paladin saw this as an act of cowardice further demonstrating that not only was the orc evil, but that he lacked honor. Now, I agree that this is act is more LN than LG, but still I don't think its amounts to a major infraction.

3. The orc was not tortured, he was not "back-stabbed", he was, in fact, dispatched with a single blow from the back of a charging mount. I would think that this kind of death would be almost instantaneous, and if we are talking real world here, probably more merciful than an execution, which would often take 2-3 strokes to sever the head. 

Now, nothing I have said above invalidates any of your arguments regarding the paladin code, as this is a pretty subjective matter. I just wanted to give you all the skinny on what was actually said and done.

Thanks

BD


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> However, I'm hoping you can see the huge difference with the OP's problem paladin.  She did not comport herself that way at all.  If she had killed the orc immediately, that's fine.  Waiting for it to be questioned and then murdering it after her group has already juiced it for all the information and it swore to repent and become good (and as far as her Sense Motive knew it was telling the truth) was not at all--it was manipulative in a "wring this lowly creature for all possible value first before I destroy it" sense as well as completely direspectful for the rest of the party and their modus operandi.



Damn, I missed those tidbits originally. Killing a captured orc is arguably justifiable - cold bloodedly questioning said orc under the false assumption that it would be allowed to live and repent afterwards is pretty freakin far from the Paladin ideal, especially if to the best of the Paladin's knowledge it was genuine in it's desire to repent. That is poor form on both the Good and Lawful axis of alignment, not to mention the Paladin's code.

This is reminscent of the old debate about whether a Paladin should waltz into a crowded town and simply start slaughtering every inhabitant who detects as Evil.

What next - it's OK to torture Evil captives for info? It's OK to slaughter babies if you've had an Augury that it will grow up to be Evil? It's OK to poison the well of an Orcish village?

[edit]I wrote this before the DM in question above posted - my answers are not in reply to his post - edited for clarity.[/edit]


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Sep 27, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Damn, I missed those tidbits originally. Killing a captured orc is arguably justifiable - cold bloodedly questioning said orc under the false assumption that it would be allowed to live and repent afterwards is pretty freakin far from the Paladin ideal, especially if to the best of the Paladin's knowledge it was genuine in it's desire to repent.




The paladin never offered the orc its life in exchange for information. The capturing, questioning, and offer of leniency were all done by the barbarian and the mage. The paladin was against the plan from the get go.

Yes, the orc repented...under extreme duress. The plaladin expressed that she did not believe for a moment that the orc would walk the straight and narrow once he was out of sight. 

BD


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 27, 2006)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> The paladin never offered the orc its life in exchange for information. The capturing, questioning, and offer of leniency were all done by the barbarian and the mage. The paladin was against the plan from the get go.
> 
> Yes, the orc repented...under extreme duress. The plaladin expressed that she did not believe for a moment that the orc would walk the straight and narrow once he was out of sight.
> 
> BD



 The paladin allowed the others to question it under the offer of leniency though.  This is basically allowing it by omission to eke out an advantage in a very letter-of-the-law Lawful Evil adherence.  Similarly, a paladin who says 'torture is bad.  I disagree with using torture' and then stands there and lets the other PCs torture someone to get that crucial information she needs is committing a faux pas as well.

As to claiming that she didn't believe the orc--if she had no way of proving this via beating it with Sense Motive or using a divination, then she must acknowledge that she could have easily been wrong--she had no in-game evidence, not even the Sense Motive 'inkling'.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Sep 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The paladin allowed the others to question it under the offer of leniency though.  This is basically allowing it by omission to eke out an advantage in a very letter-of-the-law Lawful Evil adherence.  Similarly, a paladin who says 'torture is bad.  I disagree with using torture' and then stands there and lets the other PCs torture someone to get that crucial information she needs is committing a faux pas as well.




Agreed. That point had escaped me during the game, but it's a very valid argument.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> As to claiming that she didn't believe the orc--if she had no way of proving this via beating it with Sense Motive or using a divination, then she must acknowledge that she could have easily been wrong--she had no in-game evidence, not even the Sense Motive 'inkling'.




I have to disagree with you here. The player made a judgment call, and I think the right one. Orcs have a well deserved reputation for evil, cruelty, and dishonesty, and to believe an orc claiming that he will suddenly make a monumental change in ethos and outlook, is foolish. Call it racial profiling, but in my opinion, the orc did very little to "prove" his sudden change of heart.

BD


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 27, 2006)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> The paladin never offered the orc its life in exchange for information. The capturing, questioning, and offer of leniency were all done by the barbarian and the mage. The paladin was against the plan from the get go.
> 
> Yes, the orc repented...under extreme duress. The plaladin expressed that she did not believe for a moment that the orc would walk the straight and narrow once he was out of sight.
> 
> BD



I see. Sorry if I had some facts mixed up.

The way you present the incident make the Paladin's actions seem much more reasonable.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 27, 2006)

*Good Times!*



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> The real discussion between the the OP and the paladin is that the paladin's smiting the orc diminished the OP's merciful gesture. That is roleplaying gold and I wish them the best with it.



I talked to Dewey (Wyndess) the other night, and we're definitely going to run with the "tension" ... without getting murderous. It should be fun.

-Samir


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 27, 2006)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> Agreed. That point had escaped me during the game, but it's a very valid argument.




As long as you agree with me on that, I think we see eye to eye on the big issue.  For the record, as I stated above, the Paladin would not have violated her code or strayed from Lawful Good had she killed it immediately and coup de graced it while unconscious and helpless.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 27, 2006)

Just have her do penance at the next church you come across.

"I've dreamt of you, and that your soul was in danger. Dress thee only in sackcloth and go out to help the Widow McKlarick gather in her wheat. Eat thee only blessed bread and drink thee only blessed wine. Attend mass each evening, and take thee to confession."

Done deal.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 27, 2006)

*Authority Without Question = Tyranny*



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.



I too respecfully agree to disagree with you.

A word of advice, friend. Stay out of Melvaunt ....






-Samir Asad is Nigel Yarrow (CN)


----------



## Halivar (Sep 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Just have her do penance at the next church you come across.



I can get behind this. Even my most killing-est, orc-smashing-est, unmerciful-est paladin has to go to the confessional when he steps on a bug. Or looks too long at an unmarried maiden. Or makes out with said unmarried maiden. Etc., etc.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 27, 2006)

*Okay ....*



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> To make a real-world parallel, in D&D-land a paladin is like a priest and a police officer combined.



Is this combination similar to a hybrid of Jimmy Swaggart and Daryl Gates, by any chance?



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You chose to run a CN character who can change his behavior whenever it suits him, so naturally your PC must "earn" respect.



The Yarrowstaff is an individualist who is true to his friends and companions. He is indeed a selfish person with failings, but he genuinely tries to do the right thing when he can (incl. making sacrifices to protect others).

He's CN with CG tendencies.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> Evil people and self-centered jerks are exceptions, of course; so, yes, if you are roleplaying a self-centered jerk, then yes, you can withold your PC's respect for a paladin.



Your wisdom is astounding. So, Nigel's simply a self-centered jerk? It's all so clear to me now ....

The next time I have an issue with party cohesion, I'll make sure to PM you.   

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 27, 2006)

*True Dat (x1000)*



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Neither answer is contrary to the notions of goodness.  It's just that each is weighted towards a different aspect of goodness.  One towards mercy and the other towards protecting innocents.  Paladins aren'ty supposed to all think and act alike.  There should be plenty of ethical dilemmas where two paladins will come up with two different answers.
> 
> It's also fair that the other player characters, or even the other players, may be disgusted and repulsed by the choice, even if it was within the boundries of lawful good behavior.  (Certainly other players can't be expected to check alignment rules before having an emotional reaction to in-game events.)



I wholeheartedly agree.  

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 27, 2006)

*Whatever ....*



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> Variety is the essence of d20!



I agree.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> People run a paladin to have fun, and people who ruin fun are jerks, IMO.



What if gamers have different views on what roleplaying "fun" is? Wouldn't it be better for them to reach a mutually-acceptable understanding than to simply call each other names?



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> No offense to any jerks reading this, but come on, stop trying to tell other people how to roleplay their character.



No offense taken. Please insult us further.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Sep 27, 2006)

*Blessed are the Executioners ....*

For the record, BD is a supercool DM ... and I have already squared things with Dewey (Wyndess).

Those things being said:



			
				BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> 1. The paladin expressed her concern that the orc, if set free, would simply join up with another band of marauding humanoids and continue to wreak evil. Now, this is a very logical assumption, and as the DM, I can tell you that's exactly what would have happened.



You mean he would actually return to his family in the Thar (a blasted heath filled with savage humanoids) and continue to harass foreign trespassers? What a bastard!



			
				BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> 2. The orc was offered an honorable death.



Yup ... after we questioned him, she whipped out her blade and told him that he would die for his crimes. I also remember her calling him a "babykiller".

It was all very heroic.



			
				BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> 3. The orc was not tortured, he was not "back-stabbed", he was, in fact, dispatched with a single blow from the back of a charging mount.



The orc probably thought he was going to see his wives and children at least one more time. Instead, his hopes were dashed ... and he spent his last moments in utter terror before being beheaded.

Now, that's justice ....

-Samir


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 27, 2006)

*Misunderstood something, my bad.*

What is it about every paladin thread that some people have to come in and tear them down? Is it just something about the paladin that they hate? Is it something that tjey have to pick at every little thing that Paladin players do?

So, in thier eyes, she should have given the orc new boots and 30 silver for the walk home, escorted him and made sure nobody molested him, and apologized to his clan for killing the other members.

This is a member of a race who have sworn genocide on all demihuman races. One who probably just finished wiping his butt with the scalp of a murdered newborn. Who probably still had drying blood on his weapon. Whose God's holy tenants include throwing elves on sharpened stakes ala Vlad Tepes and burning the civilizations of man to the ground. These aren't misunderstood neadrathals, these are a murderous creature who follow an evil god who has sworn their lives to evil, misery, chaos, and murder. He wasn't Joan of Arc in drag, he was an orc, who'd laugh while feeding infants to dingos or kobolds, who believe in the rule of might, and who would gladly burn halflings on a spit and eating the remains.

ORC! Not "Misunderstood Underpriveldged Victim of Fauren"

O.R.C.

She offered execution, he ran, she chased him down and killed him.

It's called: "Shot while trying to escape."

Or should the paladin be torn in twain by Pit Fiends and her soul shredded and strewn on a parade of murderers and single mothers?



DEATH TO THE FOLLOWERS OF GRUUMSH! DEATH TO THE LOVERS OF THE ONE EYED GOD! DEATH TO THOSE CAST IN THE IMAGE OF GRUUMSH! DEATH TO THE ORCS!



(EDIT--Misunderstood what someone was saying and made a jackass out of myself. EEH-HAW EEH-HAW!)


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 27, 2006)

Wow, this thread is a mess--what on earth possessed some of you to think you could violate the civility rule to such an extent?

Clunk.
Daniel


----------

