Laeknir's page

That's wonderfully bureaucratic. It seems to me like the paladin would get a lot more done if he took matters into his own hands. I mean, if everyone has to report to someone else, ultimately, no one can really do everything. If the PC paladin turns Filge into the garrison, the garrison is subservient to the City of Greyhawk so they shouldn't technically be able to do anything about it either.

Law is often bureaucratic. Being a paladin does not give a PC a license to be like "Judge Dredd".

There's a reason a paladin is given these supernatural powers, it is because the paladin's god, or some other force, has authorized the paladin as a divine agent for their will. Allowing the paladin to carry out his divine patron's will sometimes is what makes the class an interesting option. It isn't any fun for a player if the DM makes him turn the bad guys in to someone else all the time. Sometimes, the DM needs to force the paladin to make the decision whether to punish or have mercy. That's part of the challenge.

The paladin, however, must act within the bounds of both law and good while they are "carrying out the will" of their divine patron. Otherwise all of those special powers are lost. Getting back to the original question of the thread, no paladin (who is, of course, both lawful and good) should accept Filge's surrender and then summarily execute him after questioning. Yes, paladins must often work with the bureaucracy at hand, or they must seek to right injustices they see within that bureaucracy.

There are certain situations in which I'd allow a paladin to execute a prisoner. For instance the paladin could say "You are evil and you deserve execution for your crimes. I shall mete out the punishment, but before you die, I offer you the chance to atone by admitting all you have done and providing me with the information I need to find your accomplices. Then perhaps your soul will find rest."

Not in my book, I'm afraid. How are executions ever heroic? It's true that a Paladin hates to see the guilty go unpunished, but that's a far cry from carrying out someone's execution. Paladins are supposed to have all of their special divine powers because there is something special about their view of being Lawful Good. As you've said before, there's play in every alignment and no one can ever act consistently 100% of the time. But a Paladin executing a prisoner? Not in my games, I'm afraid. Leave the executions to someone Lawful Neutral.

This paladin is very straightforward and makes his intentions plain. Now this would still be unbecoming of a paladin because there is a legitimate authority in Diamond Lake that should dispense justice. But suppose the paladin believes the authority to be not so legitimate. Suppose the paladin has evidence Lanod Neff has only maintained power by strong-arming his competitors and nay-sayers out of the picture and that the garrison is essentially powerless to act against him. In this case, the paladin knows true justice would not be done by turning over Filge to the "authorities" and I would rule execution is perfectly allowable, perhaps not preferable, but allowable.

The Paladin's duty here isn't to execute a prisoner because they're the most "noble and just" in town. Their duty is to slap the others in the Church out of their complacency (particularly the Paladin Melinde... isn't that her name?) and right the injustices s/he sees in the town. In fact, this would make nice side quest with lots of roleplaying opportunities for a Paladin PC. But *not* taking executions and "justice" into their own hand. That's Conan-like, not Paladin-like.

Filge: B-b-b-but I don't want to die!

LG: Then you should not have killed. *hack*

A CG character would not consider any of that as reasons for or against killing Filge. What the CG character promises is immaterial. All that matters is what Filge has done, and for that he deserves to die. If lying is necessary to coax sensitive information out of him, the ends justify the means.

Filge: B-b-b-but you promised you'd let me live if I told you all I know!
CG: I lied. *hack*

No no... I'll again have to disagree with all of the above. LG characters simply don't take this approach to lying about killing. It's an allowable stretch to say that they'd lie about setting the person free, but not about killing them.

Nor does the end justify the means for "chaotic good" characters. Where is the kindness, benevolence, and general respect for sentient life that's part of being "Good"? IMO, you don't seem to be considering how the "goodness" of an action, particularly with respect to life-and-death matters, will always attenuate the law-vs-chaos axis.

You're essentially saying that dishonesty is evil. While honesty certainly makes things more fair, I don't think it has anything to do with right and wrong.

While I will readily agree that complete honesty is not always a good thing, and sometimes can in fact lead to evil, it most certainly has "something to do" with right and wrong. Truth does have more to do with the "lawful" axis, most of the time, but it is also strongly mediated by the good-vs-evil axis. The lie here - the broken agreement - is not a simple matter of not returning an item or not setting someone free. The lie is about intentionally killing someone after you've agreed not to... a life-and-death issue that certainly falls in the good-vs-evil debate.

Even if you disagree with me, the PH clearly states that " 'Good' imples altruism, a respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Also, that " 'Evil' implies hurting hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

When people concentrate too much on telling the truth "no matter what", they are being naive (and perhaps even juvenile) in their thinking.

...Are you telling me if a good-aligned character promised to aid the thieves guild if they released him that you would call the character evil for running away as soon as he'd escaped their clutches because he didn't follow through with his promise? What if the thieves guild had wanted him to assassinate a good ruler?

No, I'm not telling you anything of the sort. You're right when you say that lies have more to do with the law-vs-chaos axis. But what I am saying is that the good-vs-evil axis cannot be ignored whenever killing or harming others is involved. To ignore that is to ignore half of the question. Probably the more important part.

This clearly belongs in the realm of law vs. chaos. I think the reason this issue gets convoluted so much is because the paladin code does not allow them to lie, but that's because they are supposed to fight with honor, and bluffing is a dishonorable tactic. It's not because telling the truth is always the morally right thing to do. In fact, it usually gets paladins in trouble, which certainly hampers their progression in the fight against evil.

This question does not *solely* belong in the realm of law-vs-chaos for this very reason. Paladins must tell the truth most of the time primarily because they are dedicated to both law and good. But I would not cause a Paladin to alignment-shift if they told a little white lie in order to protect someone... unless they started lying all the time (but in doing so, I would question of their dedication to "law", not goodness). Lawful characters *should not* lie, but Good characters *must not* murder (not "not kill", but "not murder"). No paladin can tell the truth all the time, or keep their word all the time, or (as someone else said a long time ago) they're "Lawful Stupid" not "Lawful Good".

In one campaign I play a CG elf warpriest of Corellon. He will viciously slaughter almost any orc he meets. In his mind, and particularly according to his culture, there is no redemption for such creatures. He has executed numerous orc prisoners after extracting information from them. He views it as the execution of a war criminal, not backing out of a deal. He's going to kill them whether they tell him something or not. If lying to an orc about sparing his life will get him to tell my character what he wants to know, it results in information that is useful for the cause of good and a dead orc (also a good thing). He also once cut off the fingers of a spellcaster who had tried to rob him. The way he sees it, the other guy forfeited his right to his fingers when he decided to use them...

I think I'll have to disagree with you here... and you might call this splitting hairs, but what would Corellon do? ;-) You have called your character vicious, and as someone who engages in slaughter. This doesn't seem very Corellon-like, nor particularly "elvish" IMO. You didn't call it "defending against and killing an attacker" but rather "vicious slaughter" against anyone of a specific race. This is certainly morally different (enjoying the killing because the race of the foe "justifies" it for you). You also say above that he has taken the fingers of a mage who tried to rob him. While I'll agree that these acts appear to be Chaotic in the sense that they are applying a personal code of justice, I honestly have a hard time seeing how executing war criminals, viciously slaughtering orcs (concentrate on the "vicious slaughter" part, not the "orc" part), and having an "hand-for-a-loaf-of-bread" approach to justice can be defended as "Good".

Again, from the PH (p. 104 in 3.5), being "Good" is about having compassion, being altruistic, having a respect for life, and "being kind and benevolent" (p. 105). Just because the orcs are largely "not a Good-aligned race" doesn't give one a reason to "viciously slaughter" them; viciousness implies the enjoyment of another's suffering, which according to the PH would be... Evil. Given this, I can't help but view "being Good" as having not only good final actions but also good feelings and intentions toward other sentient beings. Please help me try to see the "Good" in your CG character as you've described above. If anything, to me, your character seems more Chaotic Neutral as described.