... by itself Compassion is only indicative of Good behavior. However, following the letter of the law without compassion is Lawful Neutral behavior. ... When it comes down to the person who must enforce this law and has no part in the creation of such, that person can act without compassion (LN) and take the hand of the thief or seek out a means within the law to lessen the punishment or, at the very least, lessen the pain (LG.) That's the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. A person can follow the letter of the law and remain compassionate by seeing that the law is compassionate. Does that help?
When an explicit punishment is in place, to not enforce it is non-lawful behaviour. where there is a sliding scale of penalties like the real world there is room for compassion and therefore goodness while remaining lawful.
outside of this, punisment can be delt in a good way if it deals less harm to the greater number of beasts rather than a small amount of harm to a significant portion of the "community".
Truth and honor are the burdens of a paladin and providing evidence brings one closer to finding the truth.
truth and honour to the gobbo are not burdens of the paladin because it is a creature that does not deserve them. just as any vermin of the realm is undeserved of it. rats, monkeys, cattle, dogs etc do not deserve to be held to the same standards of truth and honour as a dwarf or a human.
if the scenario had swapped all the gobbos for chimpanzees would we be having this discussion?
The way of nature, as I pointed out, isn't Lawful Good. From the sound of it, the law of the realm isn't Lawful Good either.
nature is lawful as i pointed out. as for whether it is good, it depends on the intent of the user, like anything else.
as for the law of the land not being lawful good..... not the paladins problem. he just needs to enforce it while doing as much good as possible. in this case doling out legal punishment upon the gobbo who was in possession of the excessive amount of potions that were most likely stolen from the missing persons.
What Measure Is A Non-Human at work, folks. I think the biggest disconnect here is between people who see goblins as people, however different they may be, and those who see them solely as monsters.
That is why I replaced the concept with the "Native Americans" a race human that was not too long ago (from a historical) was seen as "sub-human."
The parallels can become very scary, very quickly.
Everything you're describing to me sounds closer to Lawful Neutral behavior. If the paladin were chaotic or evil, he may not have bothered to ask any of the goblins anything and simply enlisted some men to help him burn down the entire market and kill all the goblins. Given his excuses for killing the goblin, I'm surprised he didn't do just that. He certainly seems to think he would have been within his rights to do so.
I disagree. I would be more inclined to call what the Paladin did Lawful Evil (from our modern perspective).
But what I was saying is that you need to look at it from the perspective of the GM's world, panthion, culture, etc. What is defined as "Good" can become dangerously subjective.
I would say LE fits the bill exactly. In essence it sounded like the paladin just wanted to do it, and was trying to justify it, which fits the LE bill to me.
"They are an inferior race, so it's okay" isn't Lawful Good at all, and definately not how a paladin should act. They're supposed to be crusaders of justice, not this setting's equivlent to white (Or in this case, human) surpremisists.
"It's evil" isn't an excuse. A goblin isn't beyond redemtion (you can have good aligned goblins). It's not a paladin's job to decide if somthing cannot be redemed, that's what priests are for. It's not like their god's will is ambigious, theres plenty of things which exist that allow the paladin to find out if an act would be frowned upon by their deity.
"Law of the Jungle" is a poor excuse for a paladin. Maybe theres a reason why most nature gods are considered True Neutral whilst paladins are required to be Lawful Good. The paladin isn't some jungle born barbarian struggiling to survive, and theres really the only time when this rule would need to be followed. Also, by the same logic the paladin shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with greater evil beings like Balors or Pit Fiends, since they're only following that law if they happen to turn up and murder his entire family.
@Lord Fyre
I woudln't nessicerly say the paladins are a poorly designed class due to their moral code, in my experience the ones who play them as "Lawful Anal" tend to be the same players who, if playing an evil charatcer, will use "I'm Evil" as an excuse to simply play an atagonistic character. I really do beleive these problems arise due to the players playing them and not the class itself.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
hmm, is raoul the Paladin's player?
He may be able to justify to himself everything he's done, but he's Lawful GOOD, not Lawful Evil (unprovoked murder) or Lawful stupid.
Does he go around kicking kittens too? They're animals and 'less than human' "The kitten has killed the small bird, SMITE EVIL!
In fact even with this 'law of the jungle' BS he should be complimenting the Goblin on his prowess. Hmm, was Tarzan a Paladin in this worldview? :-)
I'm sorry, but in every sane universe I've read he'd find out "Not everyone agrees with your analysis."
hmm, is raoul the Paladin's player?
He may be able to justify to himself everything he's done, but he's Lawful GOOD, not Lawful Evil (unprovoked murder) or Lawful stupid.
Does he go around kicking kittens too? They're animals and 'less than human' "The kitten has killed the small bird, SMITE EVIL!
In fact even with this 'law of the jungle' BS he should be complimenting the Goblin on his prowess. Hmm, was Tarzan a Paladin in this worldview? :-)
I'm sorry, but in every sane universe I've read he'd find out "Not everyone agrees with your analysis."
yes raoul is the paladins player, who is very open to be proved wrong as it would in a way complete the angle of attaining a the seven virtues (the opposite of the seven sins) and this would just make for a plot spike to refocus his efforts.
that said; i stand by the actions of the dwarven paladin. if the kitten killed a human in order to resell his goods, killing it would neither be evil nor non lawful. the goblin may indeed have been better than the original owner, however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
that said; i stand by the actions of the dwarven paladin. if the kitten killed a human in order to resell his goods, killing it would neither be evil nor non lawful. the goblin may indeed have been better than the original owner, however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned.
Hmm, so another Paladin could come along and smite Paladin #1 since it is possible he might sell the goods, just like Paladin #1 killed the goblin because he might have stolen the goods. Got it.
Hmm, so another Paladin could come along and smite Paladin #1 since it is possible he might sell the goods, just like Paladin #1 killed the goblin because he might have stolen the goods. Got it.that said; i stand by the actions of the dwarven paladin. if the kitten killed a human in order to resell his goods, killing it would neither be evil nor non lawful. the goblin may indeed have been better than the original owner, however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned.
hehehehe interesting, however paladin #1 is of a species who is subject to the laws of the land and so would be treated with the decency granted to citizens of the land.
... however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned.
Are you sure that the goblin was "lesser" then the Paladin? Did you actually defeat him (or was it her?) in honorable combat? (Your logic here is questionable.)
That said, what is the status of Humanoids in the GM's world setting?
Are they "Always Evil"? If this is so, then your action would be Good - Indeed from a religious standpoint, it might be your duty.
Or are Goblins in a centuries long genocidal war (often the basis of the Dwarven combat bonus)? Then your action might be considered acceptable - Indeed from a cultural standpoint, it might be your duty. (... But, expect the other Player Characters to feel differently.)
Or are Goblins one race amoung many - often an enemy race (hence their being seen as evil) - but with individuals that can vary? In that case, your actions would be highly suspect (at best).
What does your god feel about Goblins? Since your diety is the being/force that grants your powers, and could take them away, it is untimately that judgement that counts. (i.e., Torag (a dwarven diety) may have a different view then would Iomedae (a human goddess) on this specific subject.)
I do hope that I have confused matters. :)
... however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned.Are you sure that the goblin was "lesser" then the Paladin? Did you actually defeat him (or was it her?) in honorable combat? (Your logic here is questionable.)
That said, what is the status of Humanoids in the GM's world setting?
Are they "Always Evil"? If this is so, then your action would be Good - Indeed from a religious standpoint, it might be your duty.
Or are Goblins in a centuries long genocidal war (often the basis of the Dwarven combat bonus)? Then your action might be considered acceptable - Indeed from a cultural standpoint, it might be your duty. (... But, expect the other Player Characters to feel differently.)
Or are Goblins one race amoung many - often an enemy race (hence their being seen as evil) - but with individuals that can vary? In that case, your actions would be highly suspect (at best).
What does your god feel about Goblins? Since your diety is the being/force that grants your powers, and could take them away, it is untimately that judgement that counts. (i.e., Torag (a dwarven diety) may have a different view then would Iomedae (a human goddess) on this specific subject.)
I do hope that I have confused matters. :)
you have made me smile. and in that you have done enough hehehe
the combat was a success, it was neccessary due to the numbers of other gobbos nearby that it be done in a way that would not cause alarm. i would have prefered one to one combat face to face, however this was not an option that was available. having said it was a success, the way in which it was a success matters not when defining whoo was the superior being.
it is certain that gobbos are not always evil in this setting. the combat bonus does apply in this setting, although no game play has given a reason for its existance and as a dream dwarf the typical greenskin bonuses do not apply to the paladin. the incarnation of the god this dwarf follows beleives dwarves to be a superior species in comparison to gobbos and this is backed up by the law of the land, however dm judgement is yet to come....
the player knows he is treading into dubious waters by allowing the character to act as it has. the character thinks it is doing what is right. the character will naturally accept any punishment if found guilty.
|
Okay just for a minute Ignoring details about race alignment and deity simply written in plane black and white in the paladins code.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth ), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Now there is no way in any of the many D&D hells that what happened here is acting with honour the results of which are also quite clear
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.
Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
The PHB version can be vague... but I feel this is black and white.
All Sentient and Sapient creatures would have equal rights in the eyes of the paladin's code (even if they don't in the eyes of the law).
Though you could easily argue that by being allowed to sell goods in the area (thus recognizing the right to possession of goods) it implies that they are recognized as people and not just creatures under the eyes of the law as well.
I feel the paladin is in major violation of his code (lying, stealing & murder).
it is certain that gobbos are not always evil in this setting. the combat bonus does apply in this setting, although no game play has given a reason for its existance and as a dream dwarf the typical greenskin bonuses do not apply to the paladin. the incarnation of the god this dwarf follows beleives dwarves to be a superior species in comparison to gobbos and this is backed up by the law of the land, however dm judgement is yet to come....
Given that additional two pieces of information (Goblins are not always evil and that there is no standing racial war) I think your (soon to be a fighter) character may be in a lot of trouble.
Look, Raoul, the problem is that your argument is basically flawed. If you want to play with what it means to be a paladin, be my guest, but that sort of necessarily requires you be, I don't know, a paladin, which means upholding the code of conduct writting in plain black and white ink in the player's handbook which defines the class. It also requires you to build the paladin's actions on a logically sound basis, which so far, doesn't sound like the case.
I'd say the major problem here is that you're mixing relativism into a setting that deals in absolutes. You ask who makes right and wrong, and how can this act be evil if the dwarf thinks it's good. That just doesn't hold up in a universe which has a (relatively) clear-cut definition of what it means to be good, and there is no way to argue with it. There are corner cases which can be debated ad infinitum, but this isn't one of them.
It also doesn't work to twist parameters around to try and support the argument you're making. I can say that attacking every other male I encounter on sight with lethal force is good because it will strengthen the gene pool, but that doesn't make it so; especially in the magical land of D&D-world.
The law of the jungle simply isn't something that a paladin can follow. It is not a true law, just a turn of phrase which has, in this situation, led to a preposterous situation. Or, if you insist that it is a true law, there is no way to construe it as a lawful good one. A paladin therefore cannot follow it. Case closed.
I'm glad to hear you're so open minded about being proved wrong and developing it into a plot for your paladin, because it definitely is an issue he needs to address. I'll go so far as to say that if your DM doesn't rule this as gross violation of the paladin's code, then he has tossed aside the clearly stated code of the player's handbook, at which point none of what we say matters in your particular game because you'll just do whatever you all want. But when it comes to D&D, in general, where all the RAW apply, there is simply no real debate to be had here.
That is not a paladin, Judge Dredd is definitely NOT a paladin...nor is he Lawful Good...
"I AM THE LAW" aka I am Lawful Neutral...
Paladins must be within one alignment step of their deity, just like Clerics...
so a Paladin can't by the rules follow a neutral deity...
He can follow a LG, LN or NG deity. This would rule his edicts, a Paladin that follows a LN deity will be more lawful in his code, and a Paladin following a NG deity will be more Goodly in his deeds...
Law of the Jungle...bah...strip him of his powers and let him be a blackguard, that's how he's playing his character anyway.
If he doesn't eat the goblin after killing him, then I am not buying the whole "Law of the Jungle" argument. The Nuge all the way!
What seems to be clear is that the paladin killed the goblin with the goal of taking his stuff. His excuses are flimsy at best. Taking the goblins stuff is Chaotic. Killing the goblin, when it would have been quite easy to take him prisoner for questioning, was evil. And Chaotic, too. In fact, he just hampered the law! He killed someone who could have known something!
I say, that this is a Chaotic, Evil, and dishonorable act, and the paladin should be stripped of his powers til he truly sees his wrongdoing.
I love how most of the justifications are either circular and/or totally metagame.
This goblin couldn't have made these items because he would have survived my axe hit if he was able. Thus my totally unwarrented attack was justified because he didn't survive it. See if he had survived it, it would have proven he was innocent.
Next up, holding old women with cats under water to prove they are not witches. If they drown they are innocent, if the surivive they are obviously guilty. Nobody expects the Spanish Paladins!
EDIT: So why didn't the entire goblin town rise up against the murderer and thief, sorry, I mean paladin?
I love how most of the justifications are either circular and/or totally metagame.
This goblin couldn't have made these items because he would have survived my axe hit if he was able. Thus my totally unwarrented attack was justified because he didn't survive it. See if he had survived it, it would have proven he was innocent.
Next up, holding old women with cats under water to prove they are not witches. If they drown they are innocent, if the surivive they are obviously guilty. Nobody expects the Spanish Paladins!
EDIT: So why didn't the entire goblin town rise up against the murderer and thief, sorry, I mean paladin?
Because they don't know yet. This should be interesting...after all, even if they don't feel vengeance, they still have a sense of self-preservation. The paladin killed one, he may kill another.
I love how most of the justifications are either circular and/or totally metagame.
This goblin couldn't have made these items because he would have survived my axe hit if he was able. Thus my totally unwarrented attack was justified because he didn't survive it. See if he had survived it, it would have proven he was innocent.
Next up, holding old women with cats under water to prove they are not witches. If they drown they are innocent, if the surivive they are obviously guilty. Nobody expects the Spanish Paladins!
EDIT: So why didn't the entire goblin town rise up against the murderer and thief, sorry, I mean paladin?
I have tried many times to avoid saying exactly this lest it fall upon deaf ears (or blind eyes, as is the case online), so I am pleased I am not the only one who thinks along these lines.
|
Velcro Zipper wrote:
Everything you're describing to me sounds closer to Lawful Neutral behavior. If the fighter were chaotic or evil, he may not have bothered to ask any of the goblins anything and simply enlisted some men to help him burn down the entire market and kill all the goblins. Given his excuses for killing the goblin, I'm surprised he didn't do just that. He certainly seems to think he would have been within his rights to do so.
I disagree. I would be more inclined to call what the Paladin did Lawful Evil (from our modern perspective).
But what I was saying is that you need to look at it from the perspective of the GM's world, panthion, culture, etc. What is defined as "Good" can become dangerously subjective.
I thought I'd chime in again quickly before I leave for the office.
I'm okay with calling the fighter's actions Lawful Evil (or even Chaotic Evil as some people put it.) He's certainly done enough to prove he's either. I was referring more to this Law of the Jungle/Land ballyhoo when I said it sounded like LN behavior, but I think it's becoming obvious from the way the fighter attempts to defend his actions by crying "but it's the law!" that he has some respect for the order of law but little respect for much else and is therefore displaying LE characteristics (i.e. he believes his actions are justified because the laws of the land/jungle permit him to act in such a manner without recompense.)
Off to work...
Velcro Zipper wrote:
Everything you're describing to me sounds closer to Lawful Neutral behavior. If the fighter were chaotic or evil, he may not have bothered to ask any of the goblins anything and simply enlisted some men to help him burn down the entire market and kill all the goblins. Given his excuses for killing the goblin, I'm surprised he didn't do just that. He certainly seems to think he would have been within his rights to do so.I disagree. I would be more inclined to call what the Paladin did Lawful Evil (from our modern perspective).
But what I was saying is that you need to look at it from the perspective of the GM's world, panthion, culture, etc. What is defined as "Good" can become dangerously subjective.
I thought I'd chime in again quickly before I leave for the office.
I'm okay with calling the fighter's actions Lawful Evil (or even Chaotic Evil as some people put it.) He's certainly done enough to prove he's either. I was referring more to this Law of the Jungle/Land ballyhoo when I said it sounded like LN behavior, but I think it's becoming obvious from the way the fighter attempts to defend his actions by crying "but it's the law!" that he has some respect for the order of law but little respect for much else and is therefore displaying LE characteristics (i.e. he believes his actions are justified because the laws of the land/jungle permit him to act in such a manner without recompense.)
Off to work...
First of all, he's a fighter without bonus feats. Heh. Second, I believe that his 'but it's the law!' excuse is not really sincere. Clearly, he wanted the magic items. After he's 'turned them into the law', we'll see if he keeps any. Then we'll see whether he's lawful.
|
|
You know, I could buy his reasoning, I could even buy his excuse on returning the stolen goods if he took them back to town without ever using a single one on himself. What I can't buy is the asked him to take them off the shelf and then struck him from behind.
That's where no matter how he argues he violated his code. Because even by the laws of the jungle he wasn't acting honorably. I'm also going to say that while I think a paladin can follow the code of the jungle, I don't think that's an excuse to play a lawful neutral/lawful evil paladin, which this paladin has played (in my opinion he's lawful neutral, but he just commited a lawful evil act). He can follow the code of the jungle, but he has to temper his knowledge of the law with a good persons judgement, That's what I want to hear Raoul, can you tell me how in any way your actions were good, that couldn't also be used as justification for doing the same to any particularly wealthy merchant?
As for the metagame argument of my axe hit took him down I agree that that alone is so metagame knowledge, in the real world I don't think that any store selling jewelry in excess of 15K that if I hit the storekeep in the back with an axe and he died, that means he had to have gotten the goods illegitimately.
Or he just wanted to do the action to provoke a discussion like this. That's fine, but the point remains that the argument and justification for the action is severely flawed.
|
A DM'S 'HOW TO PUNISH BAD PALADINS' GUIDE
"Give her to your men!"
Worse case scenario, the PC has made such enemies of those he/she has wronged that punishment by the angry masses is inevitable. Strip the Paladin of his/her powers? Yes and No. It is increasingly apparent that a Paladin's powers are not provided by a God, but are drawn from the Universe. Where a Monster of a Paladin violates the rules of the God, they get their Paladin abilities from, it is possible that the vengeful god will take those abilities away. But where the Paladin gets the power from the Order of the Universe, the rational for abducting those powers becomes difficult.
Wow. great response by all.
Glad you took the time to read the thread, Raoul.
Just to add an extra piece of information in regards to a comment made by Kevin Mack; the Paladin had agreed on a price to pay the the Gobbie for his potions then, when the goblin turned his back, the paladin executed him. Would this go against the paladin's code re. cheating, lying? After all, they had agreed on a trade.
Secondly, why kill just one Goblin when he could slay them all. Seems as if the paladin chose to kill the one he could most benefit from, meaning it had nothing to do with defeating evil.
It took two attacks to kill the gobbie mind you, seeing as his surprise attack missed - pretty funny.
Wow. great response by all.
Glad you took the time to read the thread, Raoul.
Just to add an extra piece of information in regards to a comment made by Kevin Mack; the Paladin had agreed on a price to pay the the Gobbie for his potions then, when the goblin turned his back, the paladin executed him. Would this go against the paladin's code re. cheating, lying? After all, they had agreed on a trade.
Secondly, why kill just one Goblin when he could slay them all. Seems as if the paladin chose to kill the one he could most benefit from, meaning it had nothing to do with defeating evil.
It took two attacks to kill the gobbie mind you, seeing as his surprise attack missed - pretty funny.
No Probs Tronos, I feared I may have tainted the discussion by letting everyone know that I was the paladin in question, but Its also interesting the number of posts that proclaim that I obviously wanted to keep the potions. Only you are aware of the 7 virtues I am questing to attain and the method I am using to track positive and negative examples of attainment so I can see why they may think this way.
To all:
In summary as far as the paladin is concerned (and the paladins understanding of the kings law at this point) the gobbo is no better than an animal who was found carrying the possessions of a family found dead at the roadside. Killing it was neither evil, nor chaotic. Attempts to subdue it any other way would have met with resistance beyond that which the paladin could handle (as using the potions which are apparently a mix of healing, enlarge, shrink and gentle repose is out of the question for the paladin) and so immediate execution waas required. The potions will be returned to the city to be used as the crown sees fit.
In relation to the metagaming idea of "well he died with one hit so he must have been low level": while this was discussed afterwards, it is a circular and counter intuitive scenario, particularly if you condsider the possibility of a low constitution creature potentially with the puny flaw meaning that they did not neccessarily gain any HP per level and may have been a level 20 character if <10 HP is the only defining factor. The paladin judged the gobbo as not having had significant worldly experiance in order to be able to make such items due to a complete lack of the accoutrements of one with such experiance. granted a cauldron is a relatively expensive item, but outside this there was no indication of social status or wealth of the individual that would suggest he had seen the kind of life that would give a being the experiance required to create such a varied and potent array of potions.
To the paladin, the only real question at play is the one originally asked by Tronos.
Are gobbo's worthy of treatment as though they were human/dwarf/etc?
|
|
Like I said the paladins code clearly state A paladin should act with honour there is no little sub bit that says "Unless It happens to be x creature then it is okay" Also I cant think of any culture in existence past or present that would consider putting an axe in the back of an unsuspecting persons head as Honourable. I believe the racial profiling thing being evil was already addressed by the description of a lawful evil character earlier in the thread.
To the paladin, the only real question at play is the one originally asked by Tronos.
Are gobbo's worthy of treatment as though they were human/dwarf/etc?
Ultimately the paladin's view of this is irrelevant unless you play in a game where alignment is subjective. If alignment is objective, then it doesn't matter how the paladin views goblins, but how the universe views them.
Yeah I forgot about that.
The paladin was haggling with the goblin about price, and when it was finally agreed the paladin insisted that the goblin fetch down all the potions before showing him the money (which by the way he didn't have!)
Then the paladin swung and missed at the goblin's turned back, but won initiative and caked the guy before he could do as much as squeal in surrender.
Dishonourable! Mean and tricky!
Firstly, lying about having the money to pay for the goods is not paladin-like behaviour.
Secondly, attacking whilst someone's back is turned is not paladin-like either!
Regardless of the motive, the method was not that of a LG paladin.
And what of the seven virtues?
Prudence - proper judgment of reasons for action with regard to appropriateness in a context.
Was killing appropriate in this context, without even stating your suspicions or accusing the goblin directly, giving him a chance to admit his crime or provide evidence of innocence?
Justice - proper judgment regarding individual human interests, rights and desserts.
I would add an "-oid" to "human" in the above as it should certainly apply to dwarves, elves and other normally "good" races in the D&D setting and arguably apply even to drow, orcs, goblins and normally "evil" races as well.
The paladin assumed that the goblin had no "rights" as he was not capable of being a citizen of the land. That assumption was based on the fact that as a level 1 character, he had not previously seen a goblin citizen, and on the fact that goblins were generally viewed as a problem akin to vermin.
Restraint or Temperance - practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation.
Moderation? I think the paladin let his thirst for blood get the better of him, taking the easy path of dealing death rather than the more difficult one of self-control in the face of a trying challenge. Did the paladin abstain from taking life unneccesarily? All signs point to "NO!"
Courage or Fortitude - forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation.
Forbearance? No. The paladin said that he killed the goblin to prevent greater bloodshed? But if he hadn't killed the goblin, bloodshed may have been avoided. The paladin could have confronted his fear of bloodshed and uncertainty of being in the middle of a goblin caravan, but he chose an underhanded, violent method to avoid confronting fear and uncertainty.
Faith - steadfastness in belief.
This I think the paladin has no problem with provided he is not acting in a calculated or cynical manner. He seemed to be acting in good faith and argued as much. As I said, his method is what I have a problem with.
Hope - desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
I would say that the paladin hoped that the end result of his actions would bring the world closer to perfection according to his god's model.
Love or Charity - selfless, unconditional, and voluntary loving-kindness.
The paladin sure as heck didn't show that gobbo any love!
So, I would say that the paladin's actions in killing the goblin not only violated the paladin's strict code of honour and rigteousness, but also deviated profoundly from his professed goal of achieving the seven virtues.
When was it proven that the potions etc were the previous belongings of the dead travellers?
Sounds to me like a circular argument of self justification. Secondly, is trying to attain the 7 virtues counter to the class itself if, as you point out, you're going to explore the positive and negative aspects. surely a willingness to do this points to chaotic immediately and also a reluctance to bother with the things that make a paladin a paladin.
we were only sent there to investigate. It would have been, in my opinion, up to the city to decide guilt and punishment unless we actually witnessed crime.
What do ppl think about the monk stopping the wizard in the apprehension of the other gobbie selling body parts?
The monk pointed out that there are several known magic items based on human or humanoid body parts. This he knew from his monastic studies (knowledge arcana).
The wizard as a future magic item crafter should have known this as well (also knowledge arcana).
The goblin was not selling components to make magic items (i.e. raw body parts) but actual finished and functioning items.
If the wizard had the same doubts as the paladin as to the provenance of the parts that went into making the items, he should have asked for explanations (which he did). The goblin stated that he bought the item in question from a travelling goblin a while ago.
The monk didn't see how that answer (even if it wasn't true) justified an immediate casting of daze, sleep or other spell on the goblin without asking him to accompany the party back to the city to be properly questioned. If he had 'resisted arrest' however, very different story...
|
|
Ultimately the paladin's view of this is irrelevant unless you play in a game where alignment is subjective. If alignment is objective, then it doesn't matter how the paladin views goblins, but how the universe views them.
Well said, and a point I was also going to bring up.
The rules of the game dictate how creatures of various alignments act. The rules also make mention of planes of existence that embody the individual alignments. Within the rules of the game, these planes are the beginning and end of all things pertaining to their alignment. Their natural denizens exemplify the characteristics of their plane and the spirits of prime material beings are sent to these planes at the end of their mortal lives according to their actions in life. Thus, if you intend to play within the rules of the game, there is no room for subjective views on alignment. The universe has already decided what is good or evil and no prime material culture can change that. Any man can claim his actions are right and justified but, in the end, the universe decides if those actions are good or evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral.
If you want to throw the alignment rules in the fire and say all alignment is subjective, there is no point to having deities or The Great Wheel because one man's angel becomes another's demon and no action can be defined as moral or immoral. Paladins would cease to exist within the rules of the game because there would be no gauge for what constitutes Lawful Good behavior. By saying alignment is subjective, you're basically saying that a Detect Evil spell has just as much of a chance of detecting a LG cleric as it does a CN cleric because of the caster's subjective view on alignment.
Everybody in this group seems just a little too excited to use force. Frankly, I think maybe you just go and do some dungeon crawling as this social interactions seems to be beyond the characters.
LOL. Funny you should say that pres man as the player most likely to use force was absent at the time.
True though, at that point we had been 'investigating' fruitlessly for over an hour game time I think...
MWAHAHA!
I think you're right. We definitely get bogged down in the minutae at times. It's probably more of a role play group than a combat group I think. Not to say that combat is minimal or anything.
I agree that I should've asked the gobbie to accompany us - still, my thoughts were that the gobbie was/ or had a very good chance of doing something bad. The copper doens't just ask you to come with him when he sees at the murder crime scene. He cuffs you and takes you away for further questioning. I wasn't gonna give him the chance to get away - and I didn't use spells thst would physically hurt him, I was just passifying him. Imagine coppers that could do that! No more guns.
Everybody in this group seems just a little too excited to use force. Frankly, I think maybe you just go and do some dungeon crawling as this social interactions seems to be beyond the characters.
I agree with the wanting to use force too much. However I don't think going straight to dungeon crawling is the answer. These are low level characters (level 1 for crying out loud) and starting heroes make mistakes. This looks like a great area to expand the role playing and see where it leads. The paladin could regain his powers by atonement and questing, which would be a great thing.
Now if the players where to post, "Yeah we would rather just do a crawl" then sure, however until that point it's simply mistakes made lessons learned, role playing done/ to be continued.
********
My opinion on the situation:
The paladin was in the wrong. He had no proof of anything he suspected, his actions were underhand, and the goblin had done no evil as far as the paladin could tell. The paladin didn't even Detect Evil, which could have at least started to give him a valid excuse.
Characterwise I would say it was a hate crime by a bigot, and the church would see it as such. However since the church wants to be above such things and not overly punish unduly there would be atonement offered if compensation was made to the goblins family and a quest was undertaken to prove the paladin's conviction.
Heh, it's becoming an argument between the original party members.
I say, remember the example of Miko. Being misguided only makes it okay in Eberron.
Even if the pally doesn't fall, sic the gobbo's family/friends/fellows on him! There is no way this is legal.
Everybody in this group seems just a little too excited to use force. Frankly, I think maybe you just go and do some dungeon crawling as this social interactions seems to be beyond the characters.
Unnecessary generalisation regarding the entire group. You are being described only one portion out of an ten hour gaming session.
Please be careful with your monk-like ability to jump to conclusions.
Everybody in this group seems just a little too excited to use force. Frankly, I think maybe you just go and do some dungeon crawling as this social interactions seems to be beyond the characters.Unnecessary generalisation regarding the entire group. You are being described only one portion out of an ten hour gaming session.
Please be careful with your monk-like ability to jump to conclusions.
Sorry, I was just getting a very small view, so that is all I could go on. The wizard was trying to attack with spells, the monk was trying to attack the wizard, the paladin is putting axes in the back of merchants skulls. That seems a very agressive type of behavior. I see now that it was mostly done out of frustration (an hour wasted with fruitless searching), so that is understandable.
|
"Mams! Whens Dads comin' home?" asked little Grit, his large eyes looking up hopefully at his mother.
"Shud be ana minnit now, dear." Veet reassurred her son, patting his wide goblin head. Life had taken some odd turns lately, but things had been looking up these past few weeks. Her mate had found a supplier of goods that the tall folk would certainly be willing to trade for, and they had come by an excellent and seemingly safe location to do business. They could make a real living here, rather than the scrabbling and scratching through the refuse of the tall folk or the wilderness to eke out a meager survival. She and her mate had wanted more than that for their children.
She stared at the door for a time, wondering herself when Dolq would return. "Any minnit now."
Outside, leaves began to fall in the autumn wind...
|
|
I wonder as to how the Paladin in question feels about the red dragon that claims a territory then begins eating the farmers. After all compared to a dragon humans are vermin, and barely sentient vermin at that. To the dragons mind he's just preventing the humans from rising against him, which to his mind is wrong. So I guess the mighty red is LG by this reasoning?
That last comment is pure awesome.
I don't think the search was fruitless, yeah it took a while but it's a thourough group. I really enjoy these situations because you get to see the player play the character. Althought there are disagreements they are always communicated in an adult manner.
...except the name calling and general verbal abuse....;)
That last comment is pure awesome.
I don't think the search was fruitless, yeah it took a while but it's a thourough group. I really enjoy these situations because you get to see the player play the character. Althought there are disagreements they are always communicated in an adult manner.
...except the name calling and general verbal abuse....;)
dammit, backtracked too far.....
glad to see we are coming to a consensus.
the paladin is juvenile and will grow. it is highly dependant on whether the city determins his actions to be justified.
the red dragon.... the paladin would not hesistate to beleive that it is LG with LN tendancies as the humans may not have caused him or his species any harm and therefore no evil was done and the actions were in line with the way of nature.
|
|
Sigh the Paladins code once again
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I'm pretty sure letting a Dragon munch on villagers violates the parts of the Paladins code I've bolded.