|
If the crossguard and pommel are both flat discs, those are what Ewart Oakshott and I-can't- remember-his-name Mckenzie both called a rondel dagger in their seminal works on bladed weapons in European history. Both books were stolen from my car about 12 years ago, so I no longer have them to double check for certainty, but that sounds like them. Were they the same? I don't recall either referring to rondel daggers as miserichordes, but even an eidetic memory can spring leaks after that much time. What museum did you see them in? Do they have a website so I can look at a picture? That would be way cool!In the real world history (is there such a thing actually?), the knights had a thin dagger called "Misericorde" which was used to... well... give the coup de grace to their opponent.That's the one with a stabbing blade about 1 foot long, and an odd hilt with a crossguard and pommel typically of similar shape
(forming a capital I), right?Sorry, I was just at the museum. ;)
Ah, yes! I do believe they might have referred to it as a "rondelle" - it has been almost a week now. Royal Ontario Museum, unfortunately they don't seem to have it catalogued online. I do remember that it was featured in a display with other knightly equipment (spurs through the centuries, plate mail, sword, and dagger).
I hated that picture and its proposed message from the moment I saw it. Inccubi and succubi are demons, creatures birthed of pure chaos and evil (which, in D&D land, are objective forces just like gravity). They are incarnations of corrupted, vile, impure lust. The notion that such beings are even capable of love strikes me as nonsensical. Show me a paladin who sees one of those beings copulating and thinks "Oh, it must be in love," and I'll show you a paladin who used Wisdom as a dump stat.
But then we would have to view celestial creatures in a similar fashion. That these creatures are not capable of vile deeds or thoughts. And yet how common is the idea of the "fallen angel"? I say if angels can fall than fiends should be able to rise.
I seem to recall hearing this (several times) before. The argument assumes that fiends are not the reincarnated souls of hideous and vile people. The Fiendish Codices indicated that at least a sizeable percentage of the fiendish population is just this (a notable case is Orcus himself, who was once a mortal spellcaster). Then they actually did arrive at their current situation by actions.
But the question then is are they the same person they were when mortal? Yes the soul/essessence is the same, but are they the same person? If not, then this is akin to judging someone based on what their parents did.
|
I hated that picture and its proposed message from the moment I saw it. Inccubi and succubi are demons, creatures birthed of pure chaos and evil (which, in D&D land, are objective forces just like gravity). They are incarnations of corrupted, vile, impure lust. The notion that such beings are even capable of love strikes me as nonsensical. Show me a paladin who sees one of those beings copulating and thinks "Oh, it must be in love," and I'll show you a paladin who used Wisdom as a dump stat.But then we would have to view celestial creatures in a similar fashion. That these creatures are not capable of vile deeds or thoughts. And yet how common is the idea of the "fallen angel"? I say if angels can fall than fiends should be able to rise.
I seem to recall hearing this (several times) before. The argument assumes that fiends are not the reincarnated souls of hideous and vile people. The Fiendish Codices indicated that at least a sizeable percentage of the fiendish population is just this (a notable case is Orcus himself, who was once a mortal spellcaster). Then they actually did arrive at their current situation by actions.But the question then is are they the same person they were when mortal? Yes the soul/essessence is the same, but are they the same person? If not, then this is akin to judging someone based on what their parents did.
Gets even murkier when you consider the existence of not only redeemed fiends(canonical examples of them as well!), but the fact that some fiends were born of souls unjustly taken by the Lower Planes(canonical examples here too, TSR Jam's Planescape adventure actually revolved around this).
That's why I could never get behind an absolute "kill 'em all" policy towards fiends. Yes 99.9%% of the time that's the best, smartest, and most righteous policy to have. But the fact that even the Always X beings aren't always X means you can't opt out of making hard choices when the exceptions pop up and take an absolutist stance on how to handle them and still be considered exalted.
Disclaimer - My homebrew features an angel the became the ultimate god of evil and a marilith that became the goddess of redemption, so I'm a bit biased in that regard.
|
|
But then we would have to view celestial creatures in a similar fashion. That these creatures are not capable of vile deeds or thoughts. And yet how common is the idea of the "fallen angel"? I say if angels can fall than fiends should be able to rise.
The Western concept of good is usually that it is much harder to be good than it is to be evil, and that all good creatures must be vigilant lest they lapse into evil. It is much harder for an evil person to become good than it is for a good person to become evil.
In D&D terms, there are so many forces of evil that it doesn't bother me that good creatures might be a little bit special.
The Western concept of good is usually that it is much harder to be good than it is to be evil, and that all good creatures must be vigilant lest they lapse into evil. It is much harder for an evil person to become good than it is for a good person to become evil.
Yes, but that is usually due to an idea that people are inherently "sinful"/"evil". That we must fight against our baser instincts. A celestial creature would have no such instincts so should be "tempted" by evil.
On the other hand some cultures/religions actually believe the reverse. That people are inherently good and that it is by not following our "baser" instincts that we fall into evil.
|
|
Yes, but that is usually due to an idea that people are inherently "sinful"/"evil". That we must fight against our baser instincts. A celestial creature would have no such instincts so should be "tempted" by evil.On the other hand some cultures/religions actually believe the reverse. That people are inherently good and that it is by not following our "baser" instincts that we fall into evil.
I agree, but it gives Evil some power in your game if you make it actively capable of tempting pure Good. In other words, the temptation does not come from within but from without - but they are just as vulnerable.
Going back to the BoED picture, my line of thinking is that as creatures of pure evil, neither is capable of the pure emotion of love. Granted, evil-aligned creatures CAN feel love. But a being of pure evil will inevitably corrupt such a feeling with lust, jealousy, etc. So, the quandry the Paladin is in is resolved - if the pure evil creatures are Evil, they are not in love. If they do not detect as evil, perhaps they have risen above their heritage and are capable of such feelings.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Going back to the BoED picture, my line of thinking is that as creatures of pure evil, neither is capable of the pure emotion of love. Granted, evil-aligned creatures CAN feel love. But a being of pure evil will inevitably corrupt such a feeling with lust, jealousy, etc. So, the quandry the Paladin is in is resolved - if the pure evil creatures are Evil, they are not in love. If they do not detect as evil, perhaps they have risen above their heritage and are capable of such feelings.
Now keep in mind that several "redeemed fiends" retained their evil subtype (see the "Succubus Paladin" WotC published a while back), and it becomes really interesting ;)
I would usually consider Demons able to love. Sick, possessive, conditional love maybe... but to make them incapable of it is just needlessly cutting down on the number of possible plots.
|
Going back to the BoED picture, my line of thinking is that as creatures of pure evil, neither is capable of the pure emotion of love. Granted, evil-aligned creatures CAN feel love. But a being of pure evil will inevitably corrupt such a feeling with lust, jealousy, etc. So, the quandry the Paladin is in is resolved - if the pure evil creatures are Evil, they are not in love. If they do not detect as evil, perhaps they have risen above their heritage and are capable of such feelings.Now keep in mind that several "redeemed fiends" retained their evil subtype (see the "Succubus Paladin" WotC published a while back), and it becomes really interesting ;)
I would usually consider Demons able to love. Sick, possessive, conditional love maybe... but to make them incapable of it is just needlessly cutting down on the number of possible plots.
I saw that a while back. It would definitely make use of Smite Evil tricky.
It would also make Lay On Hands quite interesting.
The moral problems become even more complicated when you bring gods into the mix. To borrow an example, killing little Tommy might be abhorrent to Pelor, while Gruumsh might consider it the height of public service.
So should good and evil be something that reins in even the gods, or are they the arbiters of it?
Exactly. Little Tommy's not pulling his weight on the raid.
For players playing Lawful religious types, their first question should always be what the faith's orthodoxy is in these cases. (And, much of the time, a lawful religion will have instructions on everything they could think of and placed it in their holy text.)
That brings up the second problem - logistics. often enough it is untenable for a party to take on an evil 'hostage' and still complete their mission. It may be time sensitive, or involve infiltration, etc... Taking a prisoner because of the refusal to finish the death that the party's combat had started, lessens the chance of the party's success.
Why did you think the party paladin was buying so many handcuffs, gags, and leg restraints while he was back in town? To spice up his relationship?
Killing fiends for being evil is worse than killing (most) mortals for being evil. What? How can that be? Think about it. Fiends are "created" evil, they don't have a choice. Even if a fiend manages to change their alignment, they still retain the [Evil] subtype (without some kind of ritual to remove it). But mortals aren't born with an alignment (a non-neutral one anyway), they have to earn one through their deeds. Thus when a paladin learns a mortal is evil, that mortal did deeds to become evil, but when a paladin learns a fiend is evil, well that is just the creature's nature. Killing it on that basis is like killing an elf for being an elf (I mean we all want to do that but it still ain't good). Stop the prejudice against the fiends. They aren't bad, they are just created that way.
The same argument is used in the finale of Fritz Lang's "M" for a serial child killer.
|
|
Why did you think the party paladin was buying so many handcuffs, gags, and leg restraints while he was back in town? To spice up his relationship?
That brings up the second problem - logistics. often enough it is untenable for a party to take on an evil 'hostage' and still complete their mission. It may be time sensitive, or involve infiltration, etc... Taking a prisoner because of the refusal to finish the death that the party's combat had started, lessens the chance of the party's success.
Well, if we talking about the succubus paladin...
PS Last time I made this argument, I was called a tree-hugging f*ggot; pretty enlightened, huh?
Just curious... how did they get tree-hugging out of that? Not to say the other component is any less unenlightened, as you say, but the tree-hugging aspect is a little out of left field, no?
P.S.- I gladly accept my identity as a tree-hugger. But watch out for splinters.
Why did you think the party paladin was buying so many handcuffs, gags, and leg restraints while he was back in town? To spice up his relationship?
That brings up the second problem - logistics. often enough it is untenable for a party to take on an evil 'hostage' and still complete their mission. It may be time sensitive, or involve infiltration, etc... Taking a prisoner because of the refusal to finish the death that the party's combat had started, lessens the chance of the party's success.
Uhm... yes?
:)
|
|
a lot of stuff replying to me...
Why yes, I have. An appendix (or follow up or whatever you want to call it. maybe it was just a second paper) in my thesis went on to disprove my entire thesis using much more sound reasoning and logic. the fact that on the surface you can justify these things was the point of the paper. that someone who hadn't thought it over and read more in depth might be inclined to believe it works like that. It was an odd class with an odd teacher who valued my twisting of the writings and my ability to formulate what seemed like good logic more then what I was actually saying. basically I just took that central tenet, as you put it, of maximizing joy and minmizing pain and crunched the numbers. if a gang participates in a rape, 1 person feels pain, multiple people feel joy. yes, this is wrong on many levels and actually goes against the teachings. don't hate me, i don't believe it myself. i got the A because I argued a point well, however twisted the logic, not because my subject matter was agreeable. That's what we're supposed to get the As for, writing good essays.
On a side note, this is the same teacher who allowed me to use Charles Darwin as a philosopher to argue against Xenotransplantation. maybe that can give you some insight into the kind of class it was.
(also, I'm not trying to draw you into an argument. after rereading my original post i realized how it sounded and i felt the need to explain some things. please take this post with a grain of salt that i do not in any way advocate any of this, and was expressing my contempt for a belief system which is so easily misunderstood. also, don't judge the class until you've taken it. it actually taught me a lot. And yes, the teacher recognized the fallicies in my paper, which is why i needed the second paper disproving it. it was a lot of extra work, but it was the most fun i've had writing a paper.)
Why did you think the party paladin was buying so many handcuffs, gags, and leg restraints while he was back in town? To spice up his relationship?
That brings up the second problem - logistics. often enough it is untenable for a party to take on an evil 'hostage' and still complete their mission. It may be time sensitive, or involve infiltration, etc... Taking a prisoner because of the refusal to finish the death that the party's combat had started, lessens the chance of the party's success.
He's hoping to visit with that succubus paladin? You know, checking to make sure she's still on the virtuous path;-)
|
|
So, where are we on this question? I absolutely loved Sanchez' philosophical post. I've actually begun rethinking this question.
In my recently complete campaign, the other players poo-poo'd the paladin when he placed his boot upon the throat of an Ur Priest (yeah BoVD style).
And... they really gave the player a strong anachronistic morality lesson. I just sat back and wondered. Wow, if this is unacceptable "good" behavior, then coup de grace is quite out of the question.
But this thread makes me rethink that. And I believe in the epic story-telling of the shades of gray that abound in "doing the right thing." Things like the lifeboat scenario and other moral quandries have always caught my attention.
As for coup de grace - I vote: "It depends" And I think intention, context, and outcome is very important to the story. But morally, ethically, I like my d&d to mirror the ethics of good storytelling and therefore, mirror humanity in real-life. So, I'm torn... is this just one of those issues that should be debated, is this just one of those epic "shades of gray" that the paladin or "good" character must suffer to endure? Or is there a moral imperative here?
|
|
Now keep in mind that several "redeemed fiends" retained their evil subtype (see the "Succubus Paladin" WotC published a while back), and it becomes really interesting ;)
I've gotten some decent milage out of that. I took it as meaning that their physical forms still carried the taint of the planestuff from which they were formed, and possibly that their souls were still marked by their former nature. They could live with that indefinitely, although the Upper Planes would forever be uncomfortable to them and they would likely always be viewed with suspicion by most celestials. And that's what most would do, go on suffering because it was something worth suffering for.
In the cases where they would seek to remove any trace of evil from themselves, it would involve difficult and possibly dangerous tasks of penance and cleansing. This route would probably result in them becoming different creatures altogether, either some standard celestial or something else(I could have sworn there was actually a type of angel somewhere that comprised entirely of completely redeemed fiends). Escorting a devil or demon up the 7,777,777 Steps of Absolution or whatever while providing him with protection and encouragement would be a cause worth any paladin's time.
Why did you think the party paladin was buying so many handcuffs, gags, and leg restraints while he was back in town? To spice up his relationship?Well, if we talking about the succubus paladin...
To be fair she does tend to feel guilty about it afterwards.
Mmm, guilt...
As to the Utilitarianism debate...
I was half-joking about Utilitarianism, from my experiences in a Philosophy department filled with Consequentialists and Utilitarians (in that order). Of course, my bias was made even stronger by the rediculous way philosophy of science was taught (with no actual knowledge of science), but ere I digress farther...
Utilitarianism is a fine idea, but I had trouble ending up with the defining of the utility and the quantification of joy. There seems to be a jury-rigged explanation for dark humor, schadenfreude, etc. I also have a strong disagreement with the "mathematics" of utility. Most philosphers seem to assume that joy is additive, that is, Experience A produces this much joy and Experience B this much and the two together this much. However, I personally believe that the experiences do not occur in a vacuum and are connected. Thus rather than an additive relationship, the utility, for nearly all experiences and individuals, is cooperative (or anti-cooperative), with each modifying the raw utility of every other.
It may help to think of it like heme's preference to bind oxygen in hemoglobin, which is a cooperative process. When one binds, the others are more likely to bind. Thus some joys lead to other joys being greater than alone. Another way to think of it might be similar to inflation; simply printing more money makes the money less valuable. So more joy might be or less utility.
I won't go into morbid detail, but my strong dislike of Utilitarianism (and loathing of Consequentialism) thoroughly disenchanted me with the philosophy department. Of coure, it may have spurred me to develop my own philosophy of Holistic Narcissism, but that is for another post.
As to Coup de Grace:
To bring this back to the OP, as others have suggested, CdG is not necessarily inherently evil. I can envision some characters' ethos seeing the taking of life as abhorrent in all cases, and thus CdG being but one more sin. As for exalted, if their dieties preclude CdG, then the players should be made aware of that.
I find in many games, the shared values are implicit, but when one gets to a corner case like this, the DM perhaps should give an out-of-character note, such as "You realize that this action would be a mortal sin (or a venial sin); you deity instead prefers another solution." The DM might even give an example of other solutions.
However, for day-to-day adventurers, who quite often end up spilling blood, CdG should not be an evil act. I think intent is part of the basis of judgement, and in general, it's like pornography or art - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. :)
I am enjoying this thread far more than I thought I would. Cheers!
"You can kill in a fight, but you can't coup-de-grace." Say what? That doesn't make any sense. Knock an evil cleric unconscious and you have to sit around waiting for him to wake up again before you can stab him again. If you knock him unconscious again without killing him, again you have to wait for him to wake up. How long does that have to gone on before it seems more like torture than combat?