Good afternoon all. I have a player that's going to start moving up as a Paladin for Sarenrae. I've decided to create a code to help with expectations, and add to the roleplay experience for him. I'd like to hear what you think of the below and please offer any other items you can think of or why you think one's I've chosen might not work. I'm trying to get close to 10 items. Appreciate the input in advance.
The flowery text is not really mine, but pieces I've taken from the various sources I could find on Sarenrae.
"Be as a caring father or brother to all in need. Help heal the sick and lift the fallen. Be a guiding light into the darkest hearts and lands"
1. Must heal those that ask for it regardless of if they can pay.
2. Mercy must be granted to those that ask for it or request asylum
3. Help those that can't help themselves. Basically tithe 15% (money earned only. Gear not counted)
"Only respond to violence in kind with swift metal and scorching light"
4. Don't initiate combat if another path seems open
5. Actively seek out and destroy any cult of Rovagug.
6. Destroy any mindless undead or beasts as well as anything related to Rovagug as they are beyond redemption.
"Each new day brings hope and renewed opportunity. One must not let darkness into your life"
7. Can't knowingly tell a lie
8. Can't knowingly use poison
9. Must never own a slave, and must do your best to free those in bondage.
'Don't initiative combat" ...unless it's agaisnt something to do with Rovagug :-)
The destroying "beasts" because they are beyond redemption seems a bit off... Did you mean Aberrations? Because Natural Creatures may well have it within their nature to kill, but there's nothing wrong with that, that's Nature's way. Why woudn't a paladin rather take a lion that's causing trouble further out to the mountains where it won't cause trouble with peasants? (etc)
The Poison Use = Evil thing I think has run it's course. What is so evil about killing someone (say, a Rovagug cultist) after they are effected with a CON poison, than achieving the same effect but taking some more damage yourself because they lasted longer?
Honestly, I think there is a huge distinction between using Poison IN COMBAT (i.e. adding to normal melee combat) and SECRETLY POISONING SOMEBODY without them able to confront you or whatever. The latter is a sneaky, cowardly act, while the other isn't much different than activating yoru Divine Bond to crate a Flaming Burst weapon. And being mindful of this distinction reminds you that it isnt' really about the Poison per se, because woudln't building Traps that dissolved people in Acid, or sending Summoned, Hired, or Created Construct Assassins after a target ALSO cowardly and sneaky? Isn't secretly switching the targets' weapon to one that is booby-trapped/contingencied to damage THEM when they try to use it equally Evil?
If you're able to paralyze somebody in combat (with poision), it would be reaonable to allow them a chance to surrender - not much different than disarming them or something. IF you KNOW they WON'T actually surrender/submit, or they are "mindless evil" aberrations, etc utterly incapable of it, then I don't see a problem with just pressing the advantage at that point. How is Poison-Paralyzing different than Stunning somebody in combat?
The destroying "beasts" because they are beyond redemption seems a bit off... Did you mean Aberrations? Because Natural Creatures may well have it within their nature to kill, but there's nothing wrong with that, that's Nature's way. Why woudn't a paladin rather take a lion that's causing trouble further out to the mountains where it won't cause trouble with peasants? (etc)
The research does specifically use Aberrations as something that should be destroyed, but also mentions the mindless beasts. My reasoning for not using Aberrations specifically is that often times in the Pathfinder AP's, you can get some help from some unlikely sources, and didn't want them to use this code as a way to smash everything in his path.
The Poison Use = Evil thing I think has run it's course. What is so evil about killing someone (say, a Rovagug cultist) after they are effected with a CON poison, than achieving the same effect but taking some more damage yourself because they lasted longer?
I wasn't thinking of using poison as an evil act, more of it conforming into not bringing darkness into your life. Thinking of it as you have Sarenrae to call upon and shouldn't need to use such tactics regardless of whom you are fighting, as you are a shining example to the faith. Your "other" abilities should allow you to bring down those that are beyond redemption. Although your point of using paralytic poison does bring up an interesting way of subduing evil doers.
I think the big thing with poisons is that they are seen as cowardly, not evil. Cowards are associated with not having honor. I personally agree with this sentament and would not let a Paladin use poison.
Edit: I like your code BTW, but for the beast part you may want to clarify it a little. Do they have to hunt down the wolf pack, or is this intended for things like wyverns and dragons?
I just don't see how you can bar in-combat poison use without also barring Stunning or Status-Effects from other means, say, the Critical Feats or Stat-Damage Spells, since they do practically the same thing. So if this is the approach, it seems like it needs to be dealt with much more broadly, I mean, would Disarming or Tripping also count? Would casting Slow against your Enemies count? Would benefiting from Haste count if your Enemies do not have Haste themselves? (etc) Likewise, what if the opponent themself IS using Poison or other 'debuffing' tactics like these? Would it still be necessary to bar all of these tactics from the Paladin?
Yeah, exterminating 'troublesome' animals MAY well be within their code, but you probably want a little bit more clear on WHAT beasts qualify, I would think based on their actual deeds, or else every Paladin with this code is going to be on a mission to exterminate EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL (or at least carnivorous ones or ones that aren't pets).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, I'm glad for what Caineach said. It is often forgotten that the reason for avoiding poison is because Paladins have always been assosciated with chivalrous behavior, and poison is a cowardly and underhanded tool because it is ignores the contest of martial prowess between opponents. It's like doping in sports - it shames you. Even if you won, it wasn't because you were good enough on your own ability - you had a dirty trick. It says that you lack the ability to tackle your opponent head on, with the might of your sword arm and the courage of your heart, and in doing so, fail to live up to the chivalrous nature of the Paladin.
I think there's a few too many 'must' lines, to be completely honest. The difficulty with 'must' lines is that if you have too many of them it can create some pretty huge group gameplay problems.
For example, let's take the first one. Must heal all those who ask for it. There's some good intent here, but also some potential for abuse by you as the DM. A wicked creature who has learned of the Paladin's code may use it against them to preserve themselves. A completely irredeemable creature, the very essence of wickedness and suffereing, and to whome the Paladin should respond with all the vigour of attacking a cancer, can say 'Mercy! Heal me!'. What situation does this place the Paladin in now?
Perhaps you never use this as a DM, but it may well weigh on your player's mind in the background anyways, and take the fun out of things. A Paladin is, after all, a warrior. We can never ignore the fact that the class represents great martial training and dedication, unlike a Cleric which can go either way. There must be an avenue which allows the viewing of wicked things as cancerous, having no place in the world, and deserving of destruction, no matter what tools such a being might use in the Paladin's own code against them.
I think if you are still going to use the word 'must' a lot you should be much more specific with it, or else find another term that is not quite so strong.
On the positive note, I think you did still manage to capture an excellent flavour with your code. I think it just needs some really deep thought on the exact wording you choose to use.
edit: post edited to correct a typo, add a missing phrase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see how you can bar in-combat poison use without also barring Stunning or Status-Effects from other means, say, the Critical Feats or Stat-Damage Spells, since they do practically the same thing. So if this is the approach, it seems like it needs to be dealt with much more broadly, I mean, would Disarming or Tripping also count? Would casting Slow against your Enemies count? Would benefiting from Haste count if your Enemies do not have Haste themselves? (etc) Likewise, what if the opponent themself IS using Poison or other 'debuffing' tactics like these? Would it still be necessary to bar all of these tactics from the Paladin?
Yeah, exterminating 'troublesome' animals MAY well be within their code, but you probably want a little bit more clear on WHAT beasts qualify, I would think based on their actual deeds, or else every Paladin with this code is going to be on a mission to exterminate EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL (or at least carnivorous ones or ones that aren't pets).
The difference between status effects or tripping and poison use is that they are tests of your own skill, not external sources of power. I would say that accepting Haste or a similar effect when in a personal battle is dishonorable (unless you were able to generate the effect yourself), but in a group combat it would not be. In the end, I think you need to ask yourself how the people in the world would react to someone using the tactics. If they feel it is dishonorable, underhanded, or decietful, it is against the Paladin's code. The Paladin is a paragon of justice and righteousness. If he does not uphold this, where do the people turn?
The difference between status effects or tripping and poison use is that they are tests of your own skill, not external sources of power. I would say that accepting Haste or a similar effect when in a personal battle is dishonorable (unless you were able to generate the effect yourself), but in a group combat it would not be. In the end, I think you need to ask yourself how the people in the world would react to someone using the tactics. If they feel it is dishonorable, underhanded, or decietful, it is against the Paladin's code. The Paladin is a paragon of justice and righteousness. If he does not uphold this, where do the people turn?
Cool. I feel like this subject coming up has actually clarified to me what the deal with Poison is: It's not about EVIL, but about LAWFULNESS. (Not that any Lawful character needs act like this, but Lawful taken to the extreme of the Paladin Code)
Anyhow, it seems like the entire "Number 8" that you have as banning Poision should just directly proscribe against 'dishonourable, underhanded, deceitful, and un-fair' actions (or 'may not lie or deceive' and 'must fight fair'), and probably list some other examples IN ADDITION to poison. I mean, if you have a spell-storing weapon, having your wizard ally cast ray of enfeeblement into it, would be just about as un-fair right? (to pick an example equivalent to STR-drain poison)
Then again, if the idea is all about having a fair-fight and test of skills, if the Paladin is facing a foe who they COULD NOT defeat just by mundane skills, and this foe would otherwise go around doing big-E Evil, it's seems reasonable to accept an ally's offer of hand-crafted poison to help defeat this foe (i.e. level the playing field), right? In other-words, where it would be unfair to NOT fight with any advantage they could gain.
O.o
That is one of the coolest codes of conduct I has seen.
-Likes very much-
Can I lick it?
Using poison isn't evil, but it is somewhat chaotic. You're bending the rules to give yourself an unfair advantage. A spell storing weapon doesn't classify towards this as you can still identify it and know about it in advance. You don't know about poison until it's already in your veins.
Edit: I like your code BTW, but for the beast part you may want to clarify it a little. Do they have to hunt down the wolf pack, or is this intended for things like wyverns and dragons?
Agreed. I pulled that description from the article of Sarenrae. My thinking was for example your wyvern or wolf pack. It's not like you can reason with them to avoid combat, and if they are terrorizing the local populace it is your job to put them down. I'm leaning on removing the beasts part however as it does seem vague.
For example, let's take the first one. Must heal all those who ask for it. There's some good intent here, but also some potential for abuse by you as the DM. A wicked creature who has learned of the Paladin's code may use it against them to preserve themselves. A completely irredeemable creature, the very essence of wickedness and suffereing, and to whome the Paladin should respond with all the vigour of attacking a cancer, can say 'Mercy! Heal me!'. What situation does this place the Paladin in now?
You have a valid point. Dropping the "must" part should make it work. Then its the Paladin's choice on when it should apply, and not something he HAS to do.
That said, what's the priority? Do cultists of Rovagug deserve mercy? Is telling a lie or using poison to avoid the initiation of combat acceptable? What about initiating combat against cultists of Rovagug, or against slaveowners? Initiating combat to save asylum seekers?
Excellent questions. No priority, but more of an outline of how he should behave. But it's definately something we will discuss to make sure he has the same views as I do or what his take on this is. I'm just giving this to him as a rough outline we will work together to make this work.
Do cultists of Rovagug deserve mercy? That's going to be for him to decide ;). Although I probably wouldn't count that as a strike against his code if he chooses either way. If he thinks they might be redeemable, after doing time for their crimes...perhaps, if not and he kills them that is acceptable as well under his code.
Is telling a lie or using poison to avoid the initiation of combat acceptable? In this case I'd say No. As I read about Sarenrae they seem to want to avoid combat via words, but if those words fail then action is necessary. So I'm going with IF he can talk someone down then great, but not at the expense of telling a lie, or using poison to do so.
What about initiating combat against cultists of Rovagug? There he has free reign. As described a cultist of Rovagug is all about destruction, and probably has almost no chance at redemption and thus doesn't need to worry about that here.
What about slave owners? Well here is the problem....we are in Katapesh where slavery is legal. He's going to have to walk a fine line here as in this part of the world slavery is legal, so he can't break the law, but must do his best to help, which may mean turning his back when slaves escape and not offering to help any local authorities to bring them back in. Again a tough line (but not one that plays much of a part in the current campagin).
Initiating combat to save asylum seekers. Again another tough line. This one may depend on circumstances. Within the party...yes he may have to "protect" the ones that have requested asylum. Sometimes this may be out of his hands...but as long as he does his best to uphold his end, via diplomacy, intimidate, everything at his disposal and isn't successful, then I feel he has upheld his end in this.
Thanks to everyone that has responded thus far and I'll work on editing this further
On the poison topic, I played a knight once who refused to accept buffs because they were "unfair". I agree that there are plenty of unchivalrous ways to go about having a fight in D&D, and it goes far beyond simple poison use. The question is where your player wants to draw the line between maintaining an "honour" concept and remaining effective in combat.
First, I ALWAYS made a character EARN paladin. A character had to truly exemplify what a paladin is. I made an exception for one player.
Second, I think you could let the player decide what the tenth tenet is. Personalize the experience. I think of the old RuneQuest Humacti geases, like eat no meat on a certian day or not eat at all.
Third, I do NOT give full paladin powers all at once. Paladins should learn to use what they have.
Probably not what you want to hear . . . .
|
About the poison: I think the nature of the poison matters too. I think there is an important difference betwen poison that merely puts one asleep, and poison that inflicts a painful nasty death. And I would add the question of intent comes up as well.
What kind of poison? Why poison and not another means?
If such questions can be addressed, then there might be particular circumstances a paladin can use poison to accomplish a good deed. But he/she probably has to wade into this topic more carefully than most other characters do.
This is not a simple issue, is it? But then, I believe, a paladin isn't meant to be easy to roleplay :-)
@Segallion: I really like your CoC. Will you post an update to share? :-D
|
On the matter of poison, it's seen as dishonorable for a variety of reasons.
1) The poisoner's art is an herbal art. Herbalism has more often than not been a woman's art (hearth labor = cooking = healing, etc.) so poison was womanly and and thus "weak". D&D society is much more egalitarian on this matter, but if you're looking for a classical interpretation, there you go.
2) Poison is lingering. Two men fight, one dies - and the other dies hours or days later. If you live in society where might decides right, this is a horrible way to settle matters. Poisoners become the poor losers of tough guy society.
3) The most potent poisons are ingested, not stabby. If you're serving someone poison, you're likely doing it under the pretense of hospitality, which makes you an a$$hole. The dining table is often sacred even (or especially) among enemies.
4) Poison is unreliable and often painful. You're subjecting your opponent to an unusual amount of pain, whereas a competent man would insure a quick, clean death.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about slave owners? Well here is the problem....we are in Katapesh where slavery is legal. He's going to have to walk a fine line here as in this part of the world slavery is legal, so he can't break the law, but must do his best to help, which may mean turning his back when slaves escape and not offering to help any local authorities to bring them back in. Again a tough line (but not one that plays much of a part in the current campagin).
In the Qadira regional book, it's mentioned that the church of Sarenrae tattoos freed slaves with a mark that makes it illegal(in Qadira) for them to be taken as slaves again. Apparently they do work the system where they have to. Then again, Katapesh's lawas are perhaps a bit less rigid than Qadira's, and it might be more difficult for a paladin to work with the system to gain freedom for slaves.
It's been an ongoing internal debate for me concerning my Legacy of Fire Sarenrae worshipping ex-slave fighter. I want to do all I can to free slaes in Katapesh and Osirion, but I keep waffling on which way to go and which would be most helpful to my goals: fighter/barbarian with Leadership or fighter/paladin with Leadership.
If I do go paladin though, I'm definitely borrowing from this.
(now to make one for Shelynite paladins...)
Interesting that you say that he can't break the law. I don't see any part of his vows that says that.
That is probably just an assumption on being Lawful, or at least my take on it. Lawful to me would mean one that typically obeys the laws, and doesn't need to be described in the code of conduct as to me it's implied by the alignment.
On the topic of poison, since it got more of a look that I originally thought. I'm not saying that ALL Paladins can't use poison, just that one of Sarenrae wouldn't. At least based upon what I have read of her, it just doesn't seem to play into her porfolio or style. (if someone could come up with something in a released book,fluff or crunch, I might rethink it. Selk in particular brings up good points for why it shouldn't)
Now there may be some that I could see this being Ok for. Say a God of Art, since this could be construed as an art form, or perhaps Justice, where you have to bring someone in at all costs.
As for the 10th item I still am drawing a blank. I thought of maybe not allowing the use of "frost" items since she is typically using fire related effects, but just doesn't seem like a good way to go.
Once I'm done with this and have agreement or updates from the Player I'll post the final draft here for those that would want to see it.
As always I appreciate all the feedback on this so far.
That said, what's the priority? Do cultists of Rovagug deserve mercy? Is telling a lie or using poison to avoid the initiation of combat acceptable? What about initiating combat against cultists of Rovagug, or against slaveowners? Initiating combat to save asylum seekers?Excellent questions. No priority, but more of an outline of how he should behave. But it's definately something we will discuss to make sure he has the same views as I do or what his take on this is. I'm just giving this to him as a rough outline we will work together to make this work.
I wouldn't include any levels of priority unless they are specifically omitted in the code itself (like the three laws of robotics for example).
Lying is to a verbal argument what poison is to a combat; not an honourable thing to do even if the goal is honourable. The end doesn't justify the means kind of idea...
As for mercy, every sentient being should be deserving mercy, even the most depraved one. Note that "mercy" doe not mean "letting go with a warning". Interpreted at its extreme, quick death can be a mercy (as opposed to a long and torturous one).
As for initiating combat, again I would not lift that ban for any situation. Although, the paladin may be ready when combat breaks. If the life of innocents are at stakes, it is very possible that the combat may already be started, so to speak, and has not (yet) degenerated into a physical brawl. Alternatively, declaring that someone is under arrest isn't initiating a combat per say, although in many cases, this might trigger a combat.
There is always a way to things right, even if the solution isn't obvious. The challenge of the paladin (and therefore of playing a paladin) is to *not* fall into the "priorities of good" trap.
'findel
I think the thing about lying is that it's never truly neccessary - unless the DM is very purposefully putting you in a situation where you have to lie - and I can't think of what that would be - and if he does that, he's just being a massive jerk.
Paladins have diplomacy for a reason.
Change the subject subtly. Be careful about what you say and, more importantly, do not say. Act coy. And if everything else fails, simply shut your mouth.
In L5R, seduction, blackmail, and lying were considered highly dishonorable, and yet many clans, first and foremost the Crane, were masters of the court without ever having to resort to any of those.
I think the thing about lying is that it's never truly neccessary - unless the DM is very purposefully putting you in a situation where you have to lie - and I can't think of what that would be - and if he does that, he's just being a massive jerk.
Paladins have diplomacy for a reason.
Change the subject subtly. Be careful about what you say and, more importantly, do not say. Act coy. And if everything else fails, simply shut your mouth.
In L5R, seduction, blackmail, and lying were considered highly dishonorable, and yet many clans, first and foremost the Crane, were masters of the court without ever having to resort to any of those.
It makes me think of Fae. In many versions, they cannot tell a lie. This just makes them all the more powerful because you know they aren't lieing to you, even though they are twisting the truth to such a point that it will defeat you.
I'm not saying Paladins should behave like fae, just that you can get by without lieing.
|
|
About the poison: I think the nature of the poison matters too. I think there is an important difference betwen poison that merely puts one asleep, and poison that inflicts a painful nasty death. And I would add the question of intent comes up as well.
Indeed; since 'poisons' that put their targets to sleep are used in hospitals and surgeries, around the globe, every single day.
Intent is what separates the doctor (preparing to administer life-saving treatment), from the assassin (who intends to smash his target's skull in, once his head hits the pillow).
If a paladin come on a man raping a woman, the paladin should be allowed to immediately kill the man. As a dishonourable opponent he need not be treated honourably, and stopping the evil act is a good act.
I would have a problem with a paladin who killed/murdered a rapist. The punishment would not be just, would not fit the crime.
"Be as a caring father or brother to all in need. Help heal the sick and lift the fallen. Be a guiding light into the darkest hearts and lands"
1. Should heal those that ask for it regardless of if they can pay.
2. Mercy should be granted to those that ask for it or request asylum
3. Help those that can't help themselves. Basically tithe 15% (money earned only. Gear not counted)"Only respond to violence in kind with swift metal and scorching light"
4. Don't initiate combat if another path seems open
5. Actively seek out and destroy any cult of Rovagug.
6. Destroy any mindless undead, as well as anything related to Rovagug as they are beyond redemption."Each new day brings hope and renewed opportunity. One must not let darkness into your life"
7. Can't knowingly tell a lie
8. Can't knowingly use poison
9. Should free any owned slaves, and should do your best to free those in bondage.
I adjusted you code based on the feedback and your own comments.
It looks good.I would change number 8, from can't to shouldn't. It would allow the paladin a few more less lethal options. Ex: If the paladin knew that they would be facing several dominated good beings, then using a sleep or disabling poison would be a merciful option that would also support number 3.
If a paladin come on a man raping a woman, the paladin should be allowed to immediately kill the man. As a dishonourable opponent he need not be treated honourably, and stopping the evil act is a good act.I would have a problem with a paladin who killed/murdered a rapist. The punishment would not be just, would not fit the crime.
Why?
In the last century or so the death penalty in the UK included:Arson in a Naval Dockyard (repealed in the 70s)
Bestality
Impersonating a Chealsea Pensioner
Stealing a silk hankerchief
Piracy with violence (this may still be on the books)
Don't get today's moral attitude mixed up with that of historical or fantasy worlds. In Greyhawk it was illeagal to "fondle a duck" if my memory is correct.
I would suspect that the laws of many lands (in a fantasy setting) rape would be a capital offence. The OP decides what constitutes a capital crime for his game.
I would suggest that the code of conduct is made with the paladin player as well to get imput on how they see a paladin being played so there aren't any surprises later.
Why?
Don't get today's moral attitude mixed up with that of historical or fantasy worlds. In Greyhawk it was illeagal to "fondle a duck" if my memory is correct.[/QUOTE
I don't believe that I was getting today's morals mixed up that of historical or fantasy worlds. I am not aware of any place or time where rape was/is a capital offense. I do know that it was considered as part and parcel with war, hence expressions like "rape, pillage and burn", and if memory doesn't fail me, happened a fair bit in WW2 on all sides.
Was fondling a duck in every part of Greyhawk illegal? And was it a capital offense?
|
|
9. Must never own a slave, and must do your best to free those in bondage.
So a evil person could screw with the paladin by leaving a slave to the paladin in his will, and the paladin could never buy a slave with the intent to free him?
Replace the 'must's by 'should' and the code might be workable. They only must should be as in the 3.5 code - 'never commit an evil act'.
I think those two objections can be got around fairly easily.
He's under no obligation to accept any gift from an evildoer, whether it be a slave, or a collection of unholy swords.Secondly, if he did accept a slave as a gift, or pay to have one handed over by a slaver, with the intention of abdicating his rights over them, it hardly counts as 'ownership'.
If you're worried about sullying yourself, in the period between gaining ownership and release (let's say you want to make it to the border, so the slave doesn't get captured again), you can always write up a contract to that effect prior to taking possession of the slave.
Why?
Don't get today's moral attitude mixed up with that of historical or fantasy worlds. In Greyhawk it was illeagal to "fondle a duck" if my memory is correct.[/QUOTE
I don't believe that I was getting today's morals mixed up that of historical or fantasy worlds. I am not aware of any place or time where rape was/is a capital offense. I do know that it was considered as part and parcel with war, hence expressions like "rape, pillage and burn", and if memory doesn't fail me, happened a fair bit in WW2 on all sides.
Was fondling a duck in every part of Greyhawk illegal? And was it a capital offense?
From your friend wikipedia
"Execution of criminals and political opponents has been used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment it is reserved for murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy in Islamic nations (the formal renunciation of the State religion). In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny."It was only illeagal in the walls of Greyhawk City (duck fondeling) and the punishment wasn't fitting for the crime. Blame Gygax.
|
For example, let's take the first one. Must heal all those who ask for it. There's some good intent here, but also some potential for abuse by you as the DM. A wicked creature who has learned of the Paladin's code may use it against them to preserve themselves. A completely irredeemable creature, the very essence of wickedness and suffereing, and to whome the Paladin should respond with all the vigour of attacking a cancer, can say 'Mercy! Heal me!'. What situation does this place the Paladin in now?
Perhaps you never use this as a DM, but it may well weigh on your player's mind in the background anyways, and take the fun out of things. A Paladin is, after all, a warrior. We can never ignore the fact that the class represents great martial training and dedication, unlike a Cleric which can go either way. There must be an avenue which allows the viewing of wicked things as cancerous, having no place in the world, and deserving of destruction, no matter what tools such a being might use in the Paladin's own code against them.
Easy solution for Paladin PC
"Surrender then and be subject to my mercy, my honor ask me to heal you... but that same honor doesn't bind my alies, nor I am a fool. surrender, be repentant and I will save your live"then when the vile enemy has surrendered and is in chains... then the paladin heals him... paladin doesn't equal stupid :P in the middle of a combat if the evil one ask for mercy.. I concede it, but he MUST surrender TO ME, so I can protect him :P
otherwise... tsk tks :P
|
|
Doesnt this, along with everything else, depend not on the class but on the paladin's patron deity? I might see this being true for many paladins, but for example, in -my- version of Golarion (and YMMV), a Paladin of Erastil wouldn't look twice at such things. Its simply a virile male doing what virile males do, its how the natural world works, and its the just order of nature's laws. Erastil is an old school **** like that in my campaign. Just dont steal someone's cow.
If a paladin come on a man raping a woman, the paladin should be allowed to immediately kill the man. As a dishonourable opponent he need not be treated honourably, and stopping the evil act is a good act.
not true...
Erastil is a family man...a man raping a woman its just abusing her
that is not an act of a good man, nor a good father, nor a good husband...
Erastil's paladin will take him by the hair and with his knuckles show with what a man is made of...
and NO a Paladin would not kill a raper found in the act... that doesn't mean he wont strike him, maim him (remebering Hardigan "I took his weapon, I took his other weapon too") and then give him to the authorities... making sure he is judged fairly and hanged as he should, acting as witness and making sure the beast receives the full payments for his crime.
being a Paladin doesn't equal to being the law of a place... so murdering a rapist in the streets, even when its theebst for the world... is in the end a crime in itself.
Certainly granting mercy is a Good act, and paladins should be inclined to do it, but the "Must" is far too strong. What if a demon were to ask for mercy? A paladin should be free to refuse to grant mercy in such a case. There would need to a justification for it, and the creature asking being evil would not be sufficient. A paldin might reasonably refuse mercy to Evil outsiders and undead, but a honorable evil opponent probably should be granted it. E.g. a cleric of Asmodeus culd be trusted to abide by the conventions of having surrendered, since it would be a form of contract.
2. Mercy must be granted to those that ask for it or request asylum
I'd have to consult my etymological dictionary, but mercy comes from the french 'merci' which in a medieval context, is more synonymous of 'delivering grace' or 'delivering from sufferance'. In this regard, a quick and painless death can be 'merciful' (as opposed to a slow and painful one).
Remember the end of Braveheart when the populace is crying 'mercy' for the torturer to simply behead William Wallace rather than slowly torturing him to death.
The game even has a deadly attack named 'coup de grace', which would translate into English by 'merciful blow' or 'blow of mercy'.
In this regard, I support the 'Must be Merciful' part of the code which can be interpreted as 'never cause unnecessary suffering'. A devil crying for mercy should receive a swift execution or banishment paired with a promise never to enter this world again or whatever...
Similarly, a samurai-type society would grant mercy by swift beheading. Letting your enemy live with his shame would be the un-merciful thing to do.
'findel
From your friend wikipedia
"Execution of criminals and political opponents has been used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment it is reserved for murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy in Islamic nations (the formal renunciation of the State religion). In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny."
Ah, but can you list any countries that have the death penalty for rape? Either current or a repealed law? Wikepedia is fine but is not always 100% accurate.
Was fondling a duck in every part of Greyhawk illegal? And was it a capital offense?I think it was part of the anti-pollution laws, governing nuclear waste, and got garbled in translation. Specifically, the original law forbade 'handling quarks'.
Ah, that makes much more sense. I was wondering at the origin of the law, but was too lazy to go and look it up.
@ Mistwalker
yes I can. America.
The Court's proportionality jurisprudence is informed by objective evidence. This objective evidence comes from the laws enacted by state legislatures and the behavior of sentencing juries. In 1925, only 18 states authorized the death penalty for rape. In 1971, on the eve of the Court's Furman decision, only 16 states authorized the death penalty for rape. But when Furman forced the states to rewrite their capital sentencing laws, only three states—Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana—retained the death penalty for rape. In 1976, the capital sentencing laws of North Carolina and Louisiana were struck down for a different reason. In response to those reversals, the legislatures of North Carolina and Louisiana did not retain the death penalty for rape. Thus, at the time of the Coker decision, only Georgia retained the death penalty for the crime of rape of an adult woman.
And they are now thinking of reintroducing it for child rape.
@ Mistwalker
yes I can. America.
:)
Pardon me Spacelard, but that sounds an awful lot like you are allowing "today's moral attitude mixed up with that of historical or fantasy worlds". 1925 is very recent for historical purposes, especially when most compare medieval times and fantasy settings.Also, America has been known to be ultra-conservative at times (prohibition..), where as most of Europe is a little more liberal.
Can you come up with any other countries?
|
|
@ Mistwalker
yes I can. America.
:)
Pardon me Spacelard, but that sounds an awful lot like you are allowing "today's moral attitude mixed up with that of historical or fantasy worlds". 1925 is very recent for historical purposes, especially when most compare medieval times and fantasy settings.Also, America has been known to be ultra-conservative at times (prohibition..), where as most of Europe is a little more liberal.
Can you come up with any other countries?
well Mistwalker, considering you asked specifically:
Ah, but can you list any countries that have the death penalty for rape? Either current or a repealed law? Wikepedia is fine but is not always 100% accurate.
Spacelard's answer is 100% correct... you didn't asked for historial countries laws :P
Besides Iomedae would support dead penalty 100% for rapist, or in considering its an unfair law, she will consider taking away the tool used for such vile crime.For gods and goddess that would condone raping please visit Gorum, Lamashtu, Urgothoa, Zon-kuthon (provided there is some bondage or torturing included) and possibly Gozreh (he/she is a true god of nature)
Cayden Caydean would look down on any male that depends on suck vile acts... not for being vile.. but because a true hero (using greek concept of hero, who is not who do goodthings, but great things) wouldn't need suck acts tobed the wench he prefers.
Again Erastil as LG and patron of the family would look down in the man who did that kind of thing... man is not an animal who lives in pure incstint... and man as family man does need to avail and respect the roots of family... rape goes well beyond that...
and the follower of Asmodeous who requires to rape someone is no true tricksters, same goes for followers of Calistria.
for mythical referencies its varied...
for example Zeuz (chief rapist) went free because he was the father of the gods and no one would oppose him.. still his wife will torture Zeuz's victims and progenie...
While Adonis who said was abetter hunter than Artemisa and found her once naked and took advantage of her, was murdered latter by her using either her hunting dogs or a wild boar as a venguance for such threatment.
|
|
ok 2 societies that had the oenalty of death for rapists... Sunni's, who did not ascribed any sin for the victim nor any punishment... and Hebrew who have legislature deppending where did it happened... if inside a city, then both of them were stonned to death (supposedly if in the city the woman would have run or cried for help), if outside the city the rapist will have to pay the girl's full price (a yes, old society and the custom of selling their daughters for money... well established in the Bible if i remember well) and will marry her... if the victim was promised to another man, then the rapist was stonned to death... if SHE was married.. well then both were stonned to death... somehow it was considered adultery and gthe victim was considered broken goods.
fortunately this days we are more civiliced than that...