if you gm says--that would be evil--it is evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing dishonourable about killing an opponent in battle.
Murdering a helpless person is not killing an opponent in battle. I don't think that anyone is arguing that if you kill a foe outright in combat there is anything evil about it. The problem is after you clobber the bastard into unconsciousness it's not generally honorable to slit his throat.
There is nothing dishonourable about finishing off a wounded opponent before they have the chance to again become a threat (remember that in Golarion, healing magic is widely available).
Did you miss the whole part where to take the dirty brigand to the authorities? It seems like you're setting up a false dichotomy where the only options are to commit murder or let an evil criminal run free. If you capture Balton the Bandit King who has been terrorizing the village of Neth for the last few months, you haul his butt back to Neth and let them hold trial and execute/imprison him.
Sure, occasionally killing your helpless opponent may be necessary, but in general this should be the exception rather than the rule. Again, some deities (Torag I guess, I never saw the relevant passage Winter_Born mentioned) might have different views. But for Paladins of, for example, Iomedae, that's not good behavior.
There is certainly nothing dishonourable about executing a captured foe.
It can be, plus it could also be breaking the law depending on where you are.
Using word arguments--nothing is evil and breaks their code. A LN cleric converting people?---kill him--since he is corrupting from the true religion. If we go down this road--Paladins basically have no code--they have lawyered it to death.
One of the problems I tend to see with people who play paladins, they tend to spend a lot of their time either bludgeoning everyone with their code or doing a lot of rhetorical and mental gymnastics to circumvent their code. That always irritated me, I like the paladin, the difficulties of their code are part of what makes them interesting. It's not everything about them (which makes me irritated with the first group of people), but it's important enough that the paladin shouldn't be trying to find ways around it unless it's a matter of grave import. Sure, maybe the paladin would struggle with their code when they have Hathog the Butcher who killed his parents years ago at their absolute mercy, but he shouldn't even consider circumventing his oaths for Skug the Goblin Crossbowman.
Another example? The bandit king falls to his knees, begging for mercy. Are you required to spare him? Abadar protect us, no! Either tell him to pick up his sword or take him prisoner and execute him with all the righteous justification you possess.
Does bear mentioning that a Paladin is under obligation to accept an opponent's surrender. Especially if the opponent is known to be low character (such as a bandit king) and unlikely to honorably abide by the terms of surrender.
basically means that a paladin can do anything and justify it. Using word arguments--nothing is evil and breaks their code. A LN cleric converting people?---kill him--since he is corrupting from the true religion. If we go down this road--Paladins basically have no code--they have lawyered it to death.If I understand you correctly, and I may not, your stance is that if an action is not specifically and explicityly called out in the alignment sections as an evil act or good act, it isn't?
Since it is not explicityly called out under evil that killing a helpless or unconcious foe is evil, it isn't? And in fact you can do absolutely anything and as long as it is not specifically listed under the evil alignments, it is not an evil action?
And as a supplementary question, what is the games definition of 'innocent'?
Strawmanning won't get you anywhere. That I do not accept an absurd stance (it leads to absurd conclusions) because it is not explicitly in the rules does not mean I will only accept anything literally in the rules. It is basic logic, use it.
Gilfalas' argument is particularly absurd. I have just advocated that the killing of innocents cannot be 'rules-lawyered' away, because that is explicitly stated in the alignments section.
If you require a straight definition of innocent, YOU are the rules lawyer. If you are incapable of using common sense in this matter I will not bother convincing you.
I think the alignments are clear enough, at least in their intent. I don't know where the whole moral relativism comes from where the army of good cannot kill their opponents without turning corrupt, but I do not accept it and it is not supported by the rules, read Grick's post again if you are capable of it. Also, a harsh world calls for harsh measures.
My suggestion:
The original player should have killed the enemy. If that knocks his powers out than so be it. After the action, the paladin should confer with a member of his clergy for advice as to what to do in future situations. Sometimes, making the wrong decision in the heat of the moment is a good tool for learning and growth both for player and character. It is also better to do this things toward the end of the play session as opposed to derailing the story in the middle of the module. Besides, you may be a paladin, but you also play a mortal. Paladin's aren't perfect, they only strive toward the highest standards.
In our games we rarely deal with 'negative hp' for bad guys... Either too much book work or too tedious. If you don't SPECIFICALLY say you are going for the knockout, then they just die from those multiple sword wounds...
so this situation doesn't come up in our games.
However, I DO agree with your point of the Player being willing to make a wrong decison and learn from it.
I'm starting up in a kingmaker soon as a paladin... and one of my immediate plans, is to take the leadership feat... that cohort is going to be an NPC priest of his god (sarenrae)... tasked with starting a temple in the new kingdom.
This cohort is going to be VERY useful if my Paladin is confused on which path he should take... or atonement should he choose poorly.DM advice to Paladin player... all in character!!
I'm really looking forward to it.
I DO think people take 'innocent' and 'helpless' to extremes. An unconcious 'but stable' villain is definitely helpless. However, I've seen some people argue that a 'disarmed' character is a 'dishonarble' kill...
I don't buy THAT one... I certainly don't consider MY character 'helpless' if he gets disarmed. Having to use a move action to grab another weapon... is NOT the same as being 'beaten and helpless'.. ;)
Until he verbally yields.. I treat my opponents as the worthwhile enemies I beleive the to be. In a world with hidden weapons, magic and multiclassing... I don't know what he can and can not do.
Should someone yield... I'll back off, but if I don't hear the words, next round initiative is the same as this one! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree. If you have to search in the core book to see if an action es evil, then probably that action is not Lawful good.
One of the problems I tend to see with people who play paladins, they tend to spend a lot of their time either bludgeoning everyone with their code or doing a lot of rhetorical and mental gymnastics to circumvent their code.
Additionally, if the thought line, "it'd be easier/more convenient just to..." then it probably isn't good for a paladin.
Paladins dont do 'convenient' or 'easy', they do what's right, even if it's difficult or risky to do so.
A paladin should never have to rationalize or justify his actions.
Apparently they do, with all the guys screaming they can't perform lawful executions.
Apparently they do, with all the guys screaming they can't perform lawful executions.
How many cultures have a witness, judge, and executioner all be the same person?
Thats some fairly wild west stuff for most settings, and most of the time, paladins aren't the local sheriff... They're independent wanderers with a self-given mission.
|
I have to agree. If you have to search in the core book to see if an action es evil, then probably that action is not Lawful good.
One of the problems I tend to see with people who play paladins, they tend to spend a lot of their time either bludgeoning everyone with their code or doing a lot of rhetorical and mental gymnastics to circumvent their code.
Additionally, if the thought line, "it'd be easier/more convenient just to..." then it probably isn't good for a paladin.
Paladins dont do 'convenient' or 'easy', they do what's right, even if it's difficult or risky to do so.
A paladin should never have to rationalize or justify his actions.
Thought I was done in here but I can't help myself.
I really just don't buy that Paladins should never have to rationalize or justify his actions. It leaves no room for good role play. Sure there are Paladins who are shining beacons of perfection, but the world is a dirty place and there are a dirty people which means there will be a lot of dirty paladins.
The Paladin's Code demands he not perform an evil act, that he act with Honor, help the needy, and seek punishment against those who harm the innocent. The Lawful Good Alignment demands much the same and ads that he fight evil relentlessly. Not Big "E" but little "e". There is, and should be, a lot of grey area in that for different kinds of paladins. From the unforgiving of evil to those who refuse to kill at all. Every Paladin will perform actions that are not lawful good. They will do things in the grey for the sake of those which they protect.
If I fight a murderer and defeat him and then tie him up rather than kill him, if he escapes and kills again, part of that is on me. I knew the risks and choose to err on the side of mercy. But if I kill him instead to protect the town he has tormented then that is on me too. Are either evil? I don't think so but neither do I think either are good.
Remember, the Paladin is Lawful Good but it is Evil actions that can strip him of power and he smites evil. Law is important but secondary to good. It is this balance that is so wonderful to role play. A Paladin should always having to be justifying his actions and he will often have to rationalize them as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many cultures have a witness, judge, and executioner all be the same person?
In utterly unclaimed wilderness? Most of them.
Thats some fairly wild west stuff for most settings, and most of the time, paladins aren't the local sheriff... They're independent wanderers with a self-given mission.
Anywhere where there's a sherriff, a Paladin shouldn't be performing executions. Anywhere where there isn't (or any other law), they've got as much right to do so as anyone.
What I find irritating about Paladins facing opponents who offer surrender is the Dungeon Master.
I mean, I wear a cross around my neck, every day. One might even say religiously ;-P Does that make me a cleric? Or a paladin? In no way.
So how do all of these enemies, who all of sudden start offering their surrender to the paladin, but never the fighter or cleric, know that the paladin is one? They all have the full plate on and could be sporting the holy symbol (even the fighter). So what is it? Not everyone can see that aura.
Does every single monster have the unwritten ability Detect Paladin which functions infallibly, all the time?
DM's love to mess with with paladins because of the code. This meme goes back to first addition when their ability prerequisites were 1:10,000 or had to be fudged. Somehow, even though the prereq's have been nerfed beyond recognition, DMs still seem to be holding a grudge against the paladin's abilities. And they're going to get those pally's for it.
It's like DMs know that the game is about heroes, but paladins are a little too heroic, ya know.
What I find irritating about Paladins facing opponents who offer surrender is the Dungeon Master.
Probably a group thing. Most of the people I game with will generally offer to let foes surrender (few do, but the offer is generally out there), and any clearly outmatched for in games I run will ask for mercy if escape appears unlikely.
And believe me, even without paladins, prisoners can be a pain. But I mean... That's realistic right? Prisoners are a mess to deal with, but the alternative seems pretty barbaric.
Probably where a lot of my contention on this issue draws from; if non-paladins worry about the rights of prisoners and the proper way to deal with them, then paladins should definately be pursuing the most honourable/merciful course of action.
How many cultures have a witness, judge, and executioner all be the same person?
Thats some fairly wild west stuff for most settings, and most of the time, paladins aren't the local sheriff... They're independent wanderers with a self-given mission.
I'd think that in most settings with ravaging orcs, goblins, monsters and to add to that bandits on the prowl those are the same. Frontier stuff you know.
I'm however a little taken aback by the supposition that we are required to give every monster, bandit and evildoer a fair trial. As if this is modern time justice with established courts of law. This isn't the modern world.
.
I'm however a little taken aback by the supposition that we are required to give every monster, bandit and evildoer a fair trial. As if this is modern time justice with established courts of law. This isn't the modern world.
Most people aren't required to provide rights in these creatures, right.
Paladins aren't most people. They're explicitly held to a higher standard. The easy path? Thats not for you... Which is why you get to do things like manifest divine powers, and ignore the limits of mortal men.
.
I agree that a paladin has higher standard. I just disagree that the lawful execution by the paladin, the highest authority in the absence of established courts of law (not deemed evil by said paladin), is deemed an evil act, and part of the 'higher standard'.
The higher standard is the responsibility the paladin has to make these sort of decisions. (Again without established court of law yadda yadda) It is the paladin's responsibility to slay evil where, if let alive, it would rampage the countryside. It is a Lawful Good sacrifice to decide it is You, not anyone else, guided by the hands of the divine, that has to exact punishment upon the guilty.
That last line is part of the LG alignment as explicitly stated before btw, hence I feel secure about my position. So far no reason has been brought forward why a paladin, as given in the provided code, should not be able to exact divine justice under those circumstances.
I agree that a paladin has higher standard. I just disagree that the lawful execution by the paladin, the highest authority in the absence of established courts of law (not deemed evil by said paladin), is deemed an evil act, and part of the 'higher standard'..
I actually don't totally disagree with this. But it's still a matter that deserves significant consideration, and paladin should probably still hear the other parties plea and at least seriously consider whether or not they can possibly be redeemed.
Executing them without that consideration, or while they're still unconscious... That's darker, and while I dont know if it's grounds to Fall the first time it happens, I think it could be. And it depends.
The hired sword, defending an evil bastard because he was paid to? Probably deserves a chance to plead his case. The demon who to this point has been a major threat and shown no potential for redemption? Best be done with it before it has a chance to recover.
Well I agree with that, because that exactly is the paladin's responsibility. He needs to make that choice because it is required of him, but he must bear the consequences. But sometimes the rightful choice is lawful execution, and I disagreed with those who deny that.
Re the hired sword: He has shown that he's willing to work for downright evil bastards for money. That is pretty much justification for lawful execution already. If you let him go you run the risk of him working for another evil bastard. Such a person better convince me (as paladin) of his sincere redemption. On the other hand, if he is part of a bunch of desperate fools making money not to starve, or bullied into service, or tricked into service and manages to convince me of his new perspective, there might be an opening. But the paladin has to keep the consequences of letting such a person go in mind. (Or the consequence of them languishing in some torturous dungeon, for which a quick death is the lesser evil.)
Whether executing the defeated opponent is EVIL is entirely dependent on far too many factors we simply DON'T have. This IS a case where the wronged parties should determine the punishment since there is no court. If there are no wronged parties then the opponent clearly isn't subject to the ultimate penalty and it would then definitely violate the code to slay her. For all we know this opponent was simply defending her home. The person may even be good. Did the paladin even bother finding any of this out... NO. This is a perfect example of execution because it is expedient (which is an example of evil behavior).
That's the kind of skepticism I don't buy. It would mean that courts couldn't make a decision without being evil either. It is the kind of skepticism that leaves open the existence of invisible fairies n such. Most often the case is clear enough, such as the bandit accosting us on the road, the orc bands raiding villages, the evil wizard torturing virgins. None of these are merely 'defending their home'. It is absolute nonsense that we never have enough of the 'factors'.
That's why I think the modern-world-court-justice stance you and others like you seem to take doesn't have a place in the fantasy roleplaying game. Imagine if mobsters and gangsters run amok across the entire country, and it is a completely lawless place. Imagine half your family is murdered without law enforcement acting, that's when you take up a sword and protect the innocent yourself. That's where you need the paladins expending divine justice without courts running interference. The difference between the paladin and the normal folk is not that he cannot defend the innocent and slay the evildoers, but that he needs to be careful of his motivations. He cannot avenge his family in bloodlust! He can slay those who threaten the innocent.
If you are of the position that the paladin should refrain each and every time in this position, that's when you force the fall upon that class as it cannot do anything without performing a possible evil. It is literally impossible for a paladin to not fall if he should withhold judgement because he doesn't know all factors. Either he falls because he failed to act when evil is afoot, or he falls because he unknowingly slays non-evils.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
JrK: I agree with you, but you're not going to convince some of these posters.
Pathfinder is not, in my opinion, meant to be played with a 21st century morality. To say that some of the things proposed are too wild west is odd to me, because a lot of Pathfinder adventures are wild west in the amount of law going around. I didn't put alignment infractions on my Kingmaker group (this is before they're in charge) when they executed bandits, and I wouldn't make a paladin fall because he kills someone in battle.
There is nothing inherently evil about the double tap in combat. It's just not as lawful stupid as some people want the paladin to be.
JrK? What skepticism? What invisible fairies? Leaping to the crazy conclusion that courts CAN'T make any decisions without being evil is every bit as much a straw man as the argument used against you earlier. Apparently you should answer that persons post as serious since you seem to think straw men arguments are fair game.
A paladin may very well BE the transgressor.
Let me craft just such an example: The party wants to head to the ruins of Raven's Eerie (a fallen stronghold of evil). There are three possible routes to get there. The very long overland trade route, the sea route through pirate waters, or across the land of the Hobgoblin Kingdom. Lets say whatever evil was defeated in Raven's Eerie long ago used the hobgoblins as slaves and since its defeat the Hobgoblins built their own kingdom. The hobgoblins don't like humans but are not at war with them either. The party decides to sneak across hobgoblin lands because it is the fastest path to the loot they want. While traveling a Hobgoblin boarder patrol squad encounters the PCs and immediately draws steel to attack what they perceive to be a human raiding party. The party defends itself and three party members are wounded, one severely. The last Hobgoblin surrenders but there are still three unconscious hobgoblins as well. These hobgoblins are certainly not good, but they were acting justly against human trespassers. They have committed no crime. Now your paladin wants to execute the surviving hobgoblins. Does he fall? I say yes. Killing them at this point is NO LONGER self defense. Now it is murder. They have committed no crime. They are evil but acting justly. If the paladin goes through with the executions I would strip him of his powers.
Being evil isn't a crime. Does your paladin walk through town slaughtering any who ping evil? I would hope not. So why let them get away with it outside of town?
|
|
Most battles throughout history have resulted in the victors going through the dead and dying and putting the dying enemy out of their misery, not rushing stretchers and nurses over to try and save them. Most of these people weren't even evil, just struck down while doing their job. Are you saying that if there was a paladin around during those battles, he'd be honour bound to try and save as many of the dying enemy as he could?
Examples of grey areas won't defeat the by now established point that sometimes a lawful execution is warranted. However in defence of the paladin: if the hobgoblins attack without parley they are most definitely transgressors that deserve punishment, because the paladin has the right to defend himself if the hobgoblins do not respond to communication that the paladin is not meaning harm (something which the paladin should attempt btw).
If however it is established that the hobgoblins are inherently evil, they are fair game for execution. Not doing so would mean they live to harm innocents another day, which would surely cause a fall for the paladin. LG explicitly states that they should punish those who threaten innocents.
The skepticism is aimed at the implied presupposition that all cases are like the example you posted. The comparison is between paladins and courts. You seemed to imply that all cases are like your example, which would mean that courts are not capable of making decisions without making an evil decision every once and a while. I think it is reasonable to assume that in absence of established courts with rule of law (which the paladin accepts as good), the paladin should be regarded as the highest authority on moral issues. It is the mandate he receives from his deity after all. With great power comes great responsibility.
The discussion got interesting surely, but I'd prefer it if you would stop personally attacking me. Attempting to show a logical fallacy is acceptable, but assuming foul play on my part is another thing. This does not aid discussion.
Here's a clue, people. The target of your violence (whether physical or not) does not define the good/evil nature of your behavior. Your behavior does.
Another example of a patently absurd statement. This would imply that attacking creatures like demons and devils is evil sometimes! It is a core element of the game that the target of violence DOES sometimes determine the moral nature of your act.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This, BTW, is EXACTLY how I read the above conversation thread. There are a group of players who are demanding that they are required to slaughter the helpless, unarmed goblin children fleeing the death trap the humans created for them, so it is impossible for doing so to be an act of evil.
Here's a clue, people. The target of your violence (whether physical or not) does not define the good/evil nature of your behavior. Your behavior does.
I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting a great deal.
|
|
Here's a clue, people. The target of your violence (whether physical or not) does not define the good/evil nature of your behavior. Your behavior does.
I agree with this more or less entirely.
I also think that it's very off-topic indeed. This argument isn't about "Is the Paladin justified in killing anything and everything evil?"
It's the very different question of "Must a Paladin always show mercy to enemy combatants when they fall?"
Now those are on opposite ends of a continuum of behavior...but there's plenty of room in the middle for people (like myself) who believe that a Paladin can easily consider himself a valid authority and thus do anything a LG court can do...but cannot do anything a LG court can't (such as sentencing large groups of children to death, even if they are Goblins).
So asking the question you're asking is meaningless to the actual subject of the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I agree with that, because that exactly is the paladin's responsibility. He needs to make that choice because it is required of him, but he must bear the consequences. But sometimes the rightful choice is lawful execution, and I disagreed with those who deny that.
Re the hired sword: He has shown that he's willing to work for downright evil bastards for money. That is pretty much justification for lawful execution already. If you let him go you run the risk of him working for another evil bastard. Such a person better convince me (as paladin) of his sincere redemption. On the other hand, if he is part of a bunch of desperate fools making money not to starve, or bullied into service, or tricked into service and manages to convince me of his new perspective, there might be an opening. But the paladin has to keep the consequences of letting such a person go in mind. (Or the consequence of them languishing in some torturous dungeon, for which a quick death is the lesser evil.)
so my LG paladin looks at Absalom. They allow slavery and support slavery buying and selling. So I find a way to call a meteor down on the town and destroy the whole town. As a few scattered survivors crawl out, I start executing them---Little children and old women. Because after all they were supporting the slavery in Absalom and therefore it is my duty to be their judge, jury and executioner. If I allow them to live they will go to another city and pay taxes there and probably support slavery again.
funny how you can word lawyer anything to justify any actions your paladin wants. Once again--once your Gm says--that is evil--you do it, you should lose your powers. No word lawyering.
|
|
Someone has mentioned Nazis. Godwin's Law demands that this thread is over.
Ok, total tangent, but I've never gotten a straight answer about this even though I ask every time it comes up. When did Godwin's Law change from a (faux) mathematical postulate to a (faux) Internet statute? Godwin's Law originally stated that the longer an Internet discussion progresses, the likelihood of someone invoking Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. It said nothing about ending threads, and there is no way to "break Godwin's Law" as I often hear people say.
Examples of grey areas won't defeat the by now established point that sometimes a lawful execution is warranted. However in defence of the paladin: if the hobgoblins attack without parley they are most definitely transgressors that deserve punishment, because the paladin has the right to defend himself if the hobgoblins do not respond to communication that the paladin is not meaning harm (something which the paladin should attempt btw).
If however it is established that the hobgoblins are inherently evil, they are fair game for execution. Not doing so would mean they live to harm innocents another day, which would surely cause a fall for the paladin. LG explicitly states that they should punish those who threaten innocents.
The skepticism is aimed at the implied presupposition that all cases are like the example you posted. The comparison is between paladins and courts. You seemed to imply that all cases are like your example, which would mean that courts are not capable of making decisions without making an evil decision every once and a while. I think it is reasonable to assume that in absence of established courts with rule of law (which the paladin accepts as good), the paladin should be regarded as the highest authority on moral issues. It is the mandate he receives from his deity after all. With great power comes great responsibility.
The discussion got interesting surely, but I'd prefer it if you would stop personally attacking me. Attempting to show a logical fallacy is acceptable, but assuming foul play on my part is another thing. This does not aid discussion.
Here's a clue, people. The target of your violence (whether physical or not) does not define the good/evil nature of your behavior. Your behavior does.Another example of a patently absurd statement. This would imply that attacking creatures like demons and devils is evil sometimes! It is a core element of the game that the target of violence DOES sometimes determine the moral nature of your act.
so if a hobgoblin party is travelling across the human lands, you would try to talk to them first before attacking? otherwise you are the aggressor and would deserve to be put to death?
and as for "LG explicitly states that they should punish those who threaten innocents" once again---that means you are duty bound to destroy Absalom--after all they are making slaves of innocent people. As are the qadirans.
|
|
Someone has mentioned Nazis. Godwin's Law demands that this thread is over.Ok, total tangent, but I've never gotten a straight answer about this even though I ask every time it comes up. When did Godwin's Law change from a (faux) mathematical postulate to a (faux) Internet statute? Godwin's Law originally stated that the longer an Internet discussion progresses, the likelihood of someone invoking Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. It said nothing about ending threads, and there is no way to "break Godwin's Law" as I often hear people say.
Godwin demands you cease your Nazi posting!
|
|
Godwin demands you cease your Nazi posting!Someone has mentioned Nazis. Godwin's Law demands that this thread is over.Ok, total tangent, but I've never gotten a straight answer about this even though I ask every time it comes up. When did Godwin's Law change from a (faux) mathematical postulate to a (faux) Internet statute? Godwin's Law originally stated that the longer an Internet discussion progresses, the likelihood of someone invoking Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. It said nothing about ending threads, and there is no way to "break Godwin's Law" as I often hear people say.
I would stop, but I have a deep-seeded fear that by obeying the memetically mutated version of Godwin's Law, we're actually contributing to a secret conspiracy that will eventually unleash an army of rocket-powered Hitlers. And I, for one, refuse to be the instrument of Jetpack Hitler's ascendancy.
I agree that a paladin has higher standard. I just disagree that the lawful execution by the paladin, the highest authority in the absence of established courts of law (not deemed evil by said paladin), is deemed an evil act, and part of the 'higher standard'.
Question... Who says that the PALADIn is the highest authority?!?
Are there no clerics in the group? Don't Paladin's answer to their church?
In the majority of games... The paladin should be no higher authority 'legally speaking' then the monk, cleric, wizard or rogue... well, maybe not the rogue ;)
The game group should be treated as a group of equals to start with. THERE'S your Jury...
If I have a paladin from... I don't know golarion that well yet... lets say, Brevoy... who in his wanderings gets attacked by bandits on the road in VARISIA... he has ZERO Legal standing there REGARDLESS of what his Alignment says....
He can kill them in battle, He can finish them cleanly if they're dying and they don't/can't heal them... but i don't see how he can 'Lawfully Execute' someone in a place he has no more legal standing then any other class.
The "Destroy Absalom" hypothetical is a blatant straw-man. Clearly, not everyone supports slavery in Absalom. The Silver Crusade has offices there.
You say the people support slavery with taxes, but in a quasi-iron-age society, people can't move around very freely, they cant just go to another city (also, how many cities don't support slavery). The ethical thing to do, in any case, is to fix your city.
So no. A paladin can't destroy Absalom. If a paladin had a spell to kill all slavers in Absalom, then we could talk.
If I were your GM, if you are going to be cheesy enough to insist that your protect innnocents by killing anyone hurting them would allow you to slit the throat of a prisoner who surrendered? Then I am going to make you carry through with that protection in absalom. Don't protect the innocents there on slave row--suffer the consequences. You won't get to choose when to apply your cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strawmanning won't get you anywhere. That I do not accept an absurd stance (it leads to absurd conclusions) because it is not explicitly in the rules does not mean I will only accept anything literally in the rules. It is basic logic, use it.
I asked a question in a civil and respectful manner. I would ask a return answer of the same. There is a difference to be engaged in a reasonable argument and being argumentative.
Gilfalas' argument is particularly absurd. I have just advocated that the killing of innocents cannot be 'rules-lawyered' away, because that is explicitly stated in the alignments section.
I asked a question and asked for a clarification. I even cited that I may not have understood your intent. I did not insult you I asked a question and asked for an answer which I point out you did not provide.
If you require a straight definition of innocent, YOU are the rules lawyer. If you are incapable of using common sense in this matter I will not bother convincing you.
If I am or not a rules lawyer has no bearing whatever on the question. And again, I did not insult you in the question. I expect the same in the response. You kept quoting innocents and RAW, I thought you expected asnwers in kind. Since there is no RAW definition of innocents I was asking you since you are using it.
I think the alignments are clear enough, at least in their intent.I wish it were so. But I see post after post on RP message boards about alignment and alignment interpretation and almost universally they are the most acrimonious and hotly debated posts on the boards. What is clear cut to your opinion is not to anothers. If it was then these kind of posts would not be so frequent, lengthy, argumentative or hotly debated. I can see that as undeniable fact and even point this this very thread in support of my statement. I will also give this:
Alignment is easily one of the most debated topics in roleplaying, and straddles the line between descriptive element and rules element. How it is treated varies wildly; for some GMs it’s merely a two-letter description, while for others it’s a web of permissions and restrictions. Sorting out how this system works is important; it determines how players portray their characters, and how you as GM adjudicate certain aspects of the game.
That would seem to indicate to me that Alignment is not the cut and dried concept some say it is and is not just a simple matter of RAW or not.
I don't know where the whole moral relativism comes from where the army of good cannot kill their opponents without turning corrupt, but I do not accept it and it is not supported by the rules...
If the game rules are your only source of information on the topic I can see why you don't know. The classes concept dates back 30+ years in gaming and is based on some idealised interpretations of ancient feudal/chivalric concepts and codes to try to embody a character that was supposed to represent all that was best to be. An honorable, noble, just, brave, merciful, enlightened, valorous and righteous warrior who strove at all time, even when it was a major pain in the ass, to not take the easy path, not take the rationalized way out but to do the morally correct thing at all times, even if it was sometimes unreasonably difficult to do so. They were to be a bastion of goodness wherever they were and an example to those around them to follow and be inspired by. The proverbial 'light in the darkness' that would show the abused and downtrodden the way and give them hope.
Also, a harsh world calls for harsh measures.
Such a line should never even enter a Paladins head.
All that said, the Paladin is not an idiot. He is not a fool to have his code used to shackle him or to see the unrighteous dance around him using his own ethics to make him impotent.
And THAT is the challenge of playing a paladin to start with. To walk that difficult line of making sure to always do the morally correct thing, while tempering your wrath with justice and mercy WHERE APPROPRIATE and doing your best not to kill in haste until you sure there is no other option.
Yes lawful good characters hate to see evil go unpunished as listed RAW. But where does it say the punishment is always death? The punishment should fit the crime and while that is now an accepted 20th century concept, it started ages ago and was a small part of the chivalric ideal that inspired the creation of the paladin class to start with. And it also states Lawful Good
combines honor with compassion.
When in your view does this compassion happen?
But I bet the vast majority of responses to this will try to tell me I am an idiot. Sad that so many equate 'honor' with 'kill them while they are down because otherwise it is annoying to deal with them'.
Hey there Seriphim! I played a paladin of Pelor for over 2 years in one of my favorite and longest running 3.5 games, so the concepts of paladin justice and honor were often on my mind. :)
Does this bind a Paladin to spare enemies whose alignment doesn't happen to be evil?
No. Individuals can commit murder, treason, and other crimes and not instantly switch alignment. That does not mean that they escape Justice. Whether or not you spare them depends on the crime and its recognized punishment. In many campaigns, the punishment for many crimes is death. If you are authorized to mete it out (my paladin was a recognized Warden of the area and therefore authorized to do so) then carry out the sentence. If you aren't, then take them to whomever is.
I am playing my first society Paladin and when I went to finish off a enemy my GM/Venture Captain told me I would loose my powers if I did because they where helpless and not evil.
Well, here is where it gets tricky. The DM is the final arbiter of what goes on in his game. If he's adamant on that interpretation (much as I'd disagree with it,) you are bound by his ruling. My advice? Get yourself killed asap and roll up a different class, because his interpretation is going to make playing a paladin unpleasant at every turn.
As my character is low level (and all the bad guys are as well), unless I am fighting a cleric or monster I can't tell if they are evil or not.
Again...how's about a nice, furry druid?
My character is a Oath of Vengeance Paladin but I want to know for all Paladins:
If a enemy combatant is helpless and not evil do I have a duty as a Paladin to spare/give to guards this person? What about in a lawless city where the person will go free?
The problem with this question is that it is entirely up to the DM. It's highly recommended that before playing a paladin, player and DM hash out these questions, so there are no surprises like this.
In my game, my duty was to punish Evil and see Justice done. I did not Detect Evil every foe I encountered. It wasn't necessary. If you're a bandit raiding traders along the highway and foolishly attack my party, it doesn't matter if you've done enough evil to actually detect as Evil. You're assaulting people on the King's Highway, and have murdered for profit. The penalty for such is death, and as a Soldier of God, it is my duty to carry out said sentence.
And killing someone tied up is not one iota more evil than killing them standing up with a sword in their hand. Unfair? Sure. But if you are of the belief that the killing itself isn't evil, then the helpless part is meaningless.
But again, my DM and I agreed on this interpretation before I ever played a session as Lord Marshal Nathan Silverhome, Chosen of Pelor. :)
Gilfalas,
Your post does raise an interesting point for me. In the entire campaign i played as a paladin, I do not think I was ever asked to adjudicate a situation where the appropriate punishment wasn't death.
I mean, I'm trying to decide what that might be. Petty theft, perhaps? My PC would hardly have attempted to kill someone for that.
But most (all in my case) of the situations we encounter in D&D aren't minor crimes. We're talking about murder, almost all the time. And unless your campaign is very modern in its sensibilities, that pretty much always means a penalty of death.
But I bet the vast majority of responses to this will try to tell me I am an idiot. Sad that so many equate 'honor' with 'kill them while they are down because otherwise it is annoying to deal with them'.
Don't be so presumptuous. In the first lines you attempt to show you sincere attitude, in the last you presume ad hominem on the opponent.
As for the tone in my post: I call out an obvious logical fallacy, and I am genuinely concerned that some resort to them in this discussion. I posted that killing is not always evil as in the rules, and immediately I get the counter that I must think that if it is not explicitly in the rules I do not accept it. I stated nothing of the sort! This kills a debate quicker than anything. I expect everyone to be able to think on a decent enough level that they can avoid that obvious mistake. I will call you out on it if it happens. This is why you have not the answer you want: it is baiting pure and simple, whether intended or not.
There is a difference in being civil and calling out absurdities and fallacies.
The rest of my response is partly aimed at Hakken who throughout this thread has been particularly hostile. I appreciate your honest reply though, and the sincerity with which you address my perceived tone.
RE: the intent. I think most people have a hard time interpreting the written word because of a general lack of ability. That's where the confusion comes from. This is what I see in this debate when I get attacked with repeated fallacies. I accept the statement in the gamemastery guide for company PR: they purposely avoid a statement because they want to avoid alienating those who disagree with any standpoint in such a discussion. I still think the intent is clear if we keep in mind the type of world the game is supposed to be set in. It has a different standard of living than our world and calls for different morals.
To wit: I have thus far been the target of several straw-man, a godwin law and one or two ad-hominems, in addition to pointing out the fallacy that people assume all to much on what is written about alignments. Unless it is clearly stated or implied that killing is in all cases evil, I will not accept it. My point throughout has been that no such implication even is found, and worse yet that the opposite implication is found in 'must punish the guilty'. I have posted this numeral times and every opponent has avoided this point.
The rest of your post is an attempt at genuine debate and I welcome it. Let us proceed:
Re. the chivalrous code: I don't think there were any medieval knights who did not accept lawful execution. I think even a knight wouldn't hesitate execution the most vile of wizards, demons and even bandit leaders etc. They cannot show hope to the downtrodden if they let live those who will tread om them. This has been my point since the beginning of the debate.
Compassion happens where the paladin has compassion for those who deserve it: the innocent. If an opponent has been sincere in repenting, he may receive mercy. But if an opponent has shown vile intent, the paladin has to assume that person is capable of doing so if let go. In absence of an established court of law (as accepted by the paladin), the sentence can very well be death.
The point is that the paladin has to do this responsibly. He is the arbiter of good as mandated by the gods, but with that power comes responsibility. If he uses it for his own good, and executes for fun, revenge, blind righteousness or other motives, that is the route to a fall. But to let go those who will or might harm innocents actually violates that responsibility, so executions are warranted more often that I think you and the others who share your view allow.
That said, I have said all these things before and am just parroting myself.
The rest of my response is partly aimed at Hakken who throughout this thread has been particularly hostile.
LMAO
really?
my posts have not been near as hostile as yours have. I have not personally attacked anyone. I have basically said--"if I were the GM, I would do this" If you believe in this code--than this would also apply?
"basically means that a paladin can do anything and justify it. Using word arguments--nothing is evil and breaks their code. A LN cleric converting people?---kill him--since he is corrupting from the true religion. If we go down this road--Paladins basically have no code--they have lawyered it to death." not even aimed at anyone
vs
"If you require a straight definition of innocent, YOU are the rules lawyer. If you are incapable of using common sense in this matter I will not bother convincing you.
I think the alignments are clear enough, at least in their intent. I don't know where the whole moral relativism comes from where the army of good cannot kill their opponents without turning corrupt, but I do not accept it and it is not supported by the rules, read Grick's post again if you are capable of it. Also, a harsh world calls for harsh measures."
about same
then we talked about a party going across hobgoblin lands (making the party the invaders) and the hobgoblins attacking them. Like I said--on their lands--you were the invader. How would that justify killing them? Did they commit an evil act by defending their own lands? If so--then a hobgoblin war party crossing humans lands that beheaded the human patrol that attacked them would not be evil either?
if someone says--I always kill the evil and always protect the innocent--than what do they do when they walk down the slave row of absalom and see kids up for sale as slaves? what about in qadira? or the many other countries which trade slaves? Do they conveniently forget their vow to protect the innocent?
I am not one to hammer a paladin over the head with a vow. killing a running enemy--oh well. coup d grace a bleeding out enemy as you continue on-oh well. but to take the time to tie a prisoner up--and then execute them vs taking them to authorities? kind of pushes the line. and yes there is RAW To back some of that up. read the faiths of purity book---some of the gods say kill them--but others say to grant mercy and even show patience while waiting for that redemption.
by the way--I am not the one who personally called you a liar or any personal attack--if you think that was me.
I said rules lawyering--which yes--I do think if you say you defend all innocents and that lets you slit the throat of a brigand because he may harm an innocent in the future---and then ignore child slaves in a large town where there is definitly innocents being hurt right now(you are rules lawyering)
I would ask your character--why are you not rescuing the children? becaues it is legal to own slaves? if law takes precedence over good--then those brigands you slit the throats of should have been brought back to stand trial (unless you are specifically legally by the country you are in allowed to administer your justice) Most characters are not deputized as law enforcement. (yes I know some are)
common sense is--while battle is going on kill the enemy, enemy tries to run ride him down. enemy bleeding out and you have to ride on--coup de grace. but to tie an enemy up--and then slit his throat after battle? hmmmm--why did you bother to tie him up? so he didn't squirm while you cut his throat?
your own words "must punish the guilty" so in the case of the hobgoblin patrol who is defending their own land when you trespass--who is guilty? in the case of children being sold as slaves in absalom--is there not a guilty party?
please tell me where those two arguements are strawmen?
to me the slave owners of the children are much more guilty (and evil) than hobgoblins who are protecting their land under a legal system. So how do you apply cutting the throat of one and not the other? How do you ignore the suffering children? It is an honest question? What does your god think as you ride by child slaves?
three other scenarios I thought of--one modern--two in roleplay fashion
Osama bin ladin---if we had captured him and say five of his lts---would it have been ok for our seal team to tie his hands behind his back and slit his throat? and all of his men? what would the rest of the world have done? and we are not LG
back to fantasy
you are leading a patrol for your nation. You encounter a patrol of LE hobgoblins at the border who are a patrol for their nation. Your nations are not at war--in fact you trade. Are you honor bound to kill them?
next---your nation is at a tense stand off with another nation. Both nations have paladins (could happen--imagine the dwarve/elf war--both would have had paladins. or the crusades--both had holy warriors)
you are sent with a team of soldiers you are leading to reinforce a disputed area which neither side has clear title to. When you get closer your scouts are involved in a skirmish with scouts from their side--one dead on each side. You and the enemy commander both calm things down. You ride up--both sides claim the other started it and you cant prove either way--you both detect evil and lo and behold the only two evil are on your side. Do you kill them?
there is a lot of gray. the always defend innocents or always kill evil is a hard vow. use it sparingly and most wont care and beat you up on your oath---do something shocking like slitting a prisoner's throat who has surrendered to you and is tied up?----I will start looking at how you apply that oath.
And killing someone tied up is not one iota more evil than killing them standing up with a sword in their hand. Unfair? Sure. But if you are of the belief that the killing itself isn't evil, then the helpless part is meaningless.
Except that you are not just supposed to be good or lawful, but to be honorable as well. As someone else mentioned, that seems to have been overlooked in most alignment threads.
Is it honorable to kill bound/unconscious prisoners? I think your acknowledgement that it is unfair is fairly telling, there.
In the entire campaign i played as a paladin, I do not think I was ever asked to adjudicate a situation where the appropriate punishment wasn't death.
Sorry to hear that. I have played about 5 paladins over my years, some were non human, some were in super low magic campaigns and some were in games with no alignment so instead of being harbingers of good they were warriors of their respective faiths (WHATEVER that faith was good or bad).
In those years I had many occasions where I was beset by petty theives, bullying thugs, road bandits or shady and unscrupulous shopkeepers, smugglers, mercenaries of various ethos and species and many other creatures great and small and killing them was not always the just way to deal with them or even a rational way.
I think it heavily depends on the tone and setting of the game and campaign. Most of the GM's I have played with are serious recreationists who did homebrew settings. The laws of the lands and countries were well laid out as were the societies and expected moral values from place to place, which makes running an Paladin appropriate for the setting easier.
Then again it could very well have been that all of the people your ran into did deserve death. It really depends on the campaign, circumstances and setting of the world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My rule of thumb when playing or GMing for a paladin:
Kill evil clerics/antipaladins, evil outsiders, evil dragons and undead on sight. Your job is to punish evil, and these are the truly corrupt, who only exist to further evil, or indeed ARE evil incarnate. This covers pretty much anything that will ever ping in the "Overwhelming" and "Strong" categories of detect evil.
Do NOT kill people who clearly have been set up/bullied/blackmailed to stand against the paladin. Doubly so if they do not detect as evil (after removing rings and checked for deceptive magic).
People who detect as faint evil (normal evil people) should be given a chance if they are repentant, and truly wish to seek redemption. (Sense Motive/Discern Lies/Zone of Truth are good tools here)
