For someone supposedly so willing to be proven wrong, there seems to be a lot of fallacious logic flying around which is beginning to possibly impune that claim.
For someone supposedly so willing to be proven wrong, there seems to be a lot of fallacious logic flying around which is beginning to possibly impune that claim.
i'll admit alot of the "logic" used is serving more purposes than purely relating to the actions of the character so please excuse any that you think dont deserve discussion.
perhaps what I am about to say is an example of such, but it is still of interest to me.
It seems that the paladin in question chose to when unsure of whether to follow the law or do what is good, executed the law (rightly or wrongly and/or preemptively, allthough the law has no burden of proof, ie innocent untill prooven guilty does not apply).
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
For someone supposedly so willing to be proven wrong, there seems to be a lot of fallacious logic flying around which is beginning to possibly impune that claim.i'll admit alot of the "logic" used is serving more purposes than purely relating to the actions of the character so please excuse any that you think dont deserve discussion.
perhaps what I am about to say is an example of such, but it is still of interest to me.
It seems that the paladin in question chose to when unsure of whether to follow the law or do what is good, executed the law (rightly or wrongly and/or preemptively, allthough the law has no burden of proof, ie innocent untill prooven guilty does not apply).
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
Ideally he shouldn't choose but apply brillant intelligence to find another option. Occasionally simply stating the problem to everyone involved will actually clear up the situation.
However remember Paladins people, so occasional small breaches happen. Hence why the atonement option, even for one that has fallen as far as lying, murder, and racism to achieve a very dubious end.
Redemption is always an option.
|
For someone supposedly so willing to be proven wrong, there seems to be a lot of fallacious logic flying around which is beginning to possibly impune that claim.i'll admit alot of the "logic" used is serving more purposes than purely relating to the actions of the character so please excuse any that you think dont deserve discussion.
perhaps what I am about to say is an example of such, but it is still of interest to me.
It seems that the paladin in question chose to when unsure of whether to follow the law or do what is good, executed the law (rightly or wrongly and/or preemptively, allthough the law has no burden of proof, ie innocent untill prooven guilty does not apply).
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
Often times Paladins act as liberators of people who live in tyrannical lands under Evil rulers so I would say yes. If not then he would hardly be a beacon of virtue he would just be a LN fighter. I've often used the "Paladins Choice" in my games and I feel that he should attempt to overcome unjust laws, either through civil means or his blade. If you say that the Paladin should instead choose law he could find himself supporting evil in many cases, just because the rightful ruler is evil. Remember he is LG not LN.
There are in D&D legitimate and legal ways to rebel. Rebelling is usually chaotic, however in many cases it can be done while maintaining a Lawful alignment. In these cases you would present a list of grievances first, attempt to find a way to clear them without combat. Then offer combat as a means to solve the grievances, arraign a time and place then do it. This is of course difficult, especially with any non lawful types (and can still be with lawful evil types) however it would present a means for a paladin to lead a rebellion without resorting to chaos.
|
|
But the very act of overthrowing the rightful rule is non-lawful. But that,s the beauty of the game, we can interpret things diferently in our own games. IMO a paladin must first be good, second lawful, if the laws violate the tenants of good he should work against them, at least that is how it goes in my games. To say that the paladin MUST choose law first is like saying the CG ranger MUST rebel against every law. i think the Good-Evil axis should be the priority.
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
Yes.
Game Masters, and fellow players, are FAR less likely to question a "non-Lawful" action then a "non-Good" action.
An odd concept here but not all Laws are lawful. Just like not all drugs are good (or bad) or all lies complete.
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?Yes.
Game Masters, and fellow players, are FAR less likely to question a "non-Lawful" action then a "non-Good" action.
I wholeheartedly concur. If faced with a choice of doing good or upholding the law, good comes first.
All issues regarding alignment on the law/chaos axis can be completely swept away by replacing the wording with order/chaos. Save my game article in the WotC archives to that effect. Probably the single most valuable bit of game related text I ever read.
One would have to wonder about the compassionate side of Lawful Good being involved here. Righteous fury is fine when you're taking a vile foe to task with a sword and your deity's power, but it's dicey when you're killing someone who didn't do anything to deserve getting killed. Isn't a Lawful Good individual supposed to be compassionate? It's not compassionate to carve up a goblin who had done no wrong, certainly.
Also, when you consider that, according to the Complete Scoundrel, Batman, Dick Tracy, and Indiana Jones are Lawful Good, try and imagine those characters doing what you suggest. Batman might squeeze the goblin for information, could be gruff and intimidating, but wouldn't tear the gobbo's head off. Dick Tracy would also do something similar, I'm sure. Indy wouldn't do such a thing either, I'm sure. Yes, he shot that guy in the street, but the guy had a sword. Indy wouldn't kill someone in cold blood for no reason.
I know that it's a slippery slope and whatever, and my argument is probably going to get ripped to shreds, but this is how I see it: if the goblin hadn't done anything heinously evil and wasn't drawing steel to knife said paladin, I'd say that a paladin who kills said goblin in cold blood loses his powers. Ask yourself: what would Indy do?
Indy wouldn't do such a thing either, I'm sure. Yes, he shot that guy in the street, but the guy had a sword. Indy wouldn't kill someone in cold blood for no reason.Indy also had a bad case of dysentery at the time too. ;)
Yes, but it's still sensible to shoot the guy before he can cut you up, particularly if you're feeling ill. The point is, though, that Indy did not shoot the man without reason. He shot him because the guy was going to do him serious harm if he didn't.
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
Given that a paladin falls automatically for commiting a single evil act, but does not do so for commiting a chaotic act, I would say that the Good-Evil issue is of higher priorty than the Lawful-Chaotic.
For someone supposedly so willing to be proven wrong, there seems to be a lot of fallacious logic flying around which is beginning to possibly impune that claim.i'll admit alot of the "logic" used is serving more purposes than purely relating to the actions of the character so please excuse any that you think dont deserve discussion.
perhaps what I am about to say is an example of such, but it is still of interest to me.
It seems that the paladin in question chose to when unsure of whether to follow the law or do what is good, executed the law (rightly or wrongly and/or preemptively, allthough the law has no burden of proof, ie innocent untill prooven guilty does not apply).
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
Since Paladin's, like priests, must be within one step of their god I give these guidelines to my players.
Internal Conflict Priority List
A paladin will try to follow all laws (of men and god) and do what is right at all times. But there are sometimes situations that put a paladin’s choices in conflict with those things. Paladins often have an idea of the priority to which these goals are given, based on their god’s teachings. These priority lists often look similar to the following:
The Paladin’s God is of Lawful Good Alignment:
1. the paladin’s god’s rules/laws
2. the good of society
3. the laws of society
4. the good of the individual
The Paladin’s God is of Neutral Good Alignment:
1. the paladin’s god’s rules/laws
2. the good of society
3. the good of the individual
4. the laws of society
The Paladin’s God is of Lawful Neutral Alignment:
1. the paladin’s god’s rules/laws
2. the laws of society
3. the good of society
4. the good of the individual
But remember the rest of the paladin's code still applies. An evil act will still cause a paladin to lose their abilities.
Given that a paladin falls automatically for commiting a single evil act, but does not do so for commiting a chaotic act, I would say that the Good-Evil issue is of higher priorty than the Lawful-Chaotic.
Not to mention that a paladin is more focused on fighting evil than chaos, since his/her main class feature is "Smite Evil".
Also many of the paladin's other abilities (such as the spells Protection from Evil, Holy Sword, Bless Weapon) only provide benifits whilst fighitng evil creatures, and there isn't any anti-chaos abilities at the paladin's disposel.
This, to me at least, surgests that if prompted with a "Law or Good" dilemma, they should always favour good (though I feel that, at first, they should attempt to find a solution satisfying both).
It should also be noted that Lawful doesn't always translate to the Law of the lands. In a barbarian tribe, the law could be radically different from a city, and the same applies to dominately evil societies.
No lawful Good character is likely to be in suport of things such as slavery or tyranical goverment bodies, so why should they show support simply becuase they have an honourable mindset?
Look, the paladin killed someone who might have been innocent, in cold blood, on the basis of racism, just because the goblin could have killed someone. What part about that is either lawful or good? After all, even a lawful evil person would take the goblin captive rather than kill what could have been a vital witness. Killing the goblin rather than taking him in for questioning was a chaotic move, and killing him in cold blood without even knowing whether he and done anything wrong was evil.
the atonement option
I heartily agree with this. In theory, a paladin should do his best to find options which synthesize both good and law, avoiding false dichotomies and looking at the situation in a different light to see if there isn't some option available (at least in 3.5, their spellcasting is tied to Wisdom, indicating they should have at least a moderate score and be somewhat proficient at this). Yet when their truly is no other option which might synthesize the two ideals, and the paladin has to choose between good and law, I would generally say he should choose in that respective order (depending on the specifics of the situation and the tenets of the individual paladin).
However, a breach of the code is still a breach of the code, even when it is unavoidable. A paladin shouldn't just be "okay" with it, but should seek some redemption. Paladins are meant to be exemplars, and as such are held to exemplary standards (I hestitate to use the word "impossible," but in some regards they are). This should be tempered with a knowledge that they are mortal and can and will fail, perhaps even fall. The important point is their quest for redemption. It's not about being perfect, which is impossible; it's about trying your hardest to come as close to that ideal as humanly (or elvenly or dwarvenly or any other -ly) possible.
Hence the atonement spell (see the top of the second half of the strip), which is what this paladin needs, I do believe.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
It seems that the paladin in question chose to when unsure of whether to follow the law or do what is good, executed the law (rightly or wrongly and/or preemptively, allthough the law has no burden of proof, ie innocent untill prooven guilty does not apply).
...So I ask, If a Paladin is ever forced to choose between Good and Lawful, should it ALWAYS choose good?
The paladin performed a questionably evil action in pursuit of a personal, racist conviction. He didn't bother to find out whether the laws applied to this goblin, or perform a proper investigation.
He didn't have to choose between Good and Law(Order), he chose between Right and Easy.
"It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get." ~Confucious
"Evil is easy, and has infinite forms." ~Blaise Pascal
"Enter the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road easy that leads to destruction, and many enter it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." ~Jesus
"It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get." ~Confucious
"Evil is easy, and has infinite forms." ~Blaise Pascal
"Enter the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road easy that leads to destruction, and many enter it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." ~Jesus
I fear I'm about to ruffle some feathers, so I shall premise this with I agree wholeheartedly with alot of what everyone said, it is interesting that viewpoint of even some key commenters have swung about a couple of times, mostly out of empathy or a lack thereof for the paladin before he opened his intelligence 10 mouth.
Our table sees the rules as a set of guidelines to be lent on if things get a bit out of hand and for that (amongst a million other reasons) I really value our DM. This discussion I know has made me grow as a player which is all anyone can ask for and i hope everyone else has gained from it as well and therefore all our games will be richer for it.so onto the feather ruffling. in relation to the above quotes, i think they are all wrong.
Why?
to be selfish is not evil, it is in fact difficult for humans to do either evil or good at either extreeme. pick any truely good act and there are an equal number of evilo acts that a human would find just as hard to do. what is easy is to be lazy, apathetic, or nonchalant. granted I am not a scholar of international renown but nor am I a deliberate and knowing rebel against the laws of the powers that be whos influence preys upon the weak of mind and weak of spirit. I'll let you guess which of the quoted that refers to most, It's not as obvious as first appears.
I'll say this. The paladin in question definitely didn't commit a neutral act.
I respectflly diagree with the insinuation that it was evil.
I'll say this. The paladin in question definitely didn't commit a neutral act.I respectflly diagree with the insinuation that it was evil.
Well there are three choices along that axis. There is good, neutral, and evil. I haven't yet heard any argument that the action take was good in anyway. Thus we now have two choices: neutral and evil. As you said, "what is easy is to be lazy, apathetic, or nonchalant." This describes neutral (at least in one aspect, the other is trying to balance good and evil). Does the act then fit that idea? Was it "lazy, apathetic, or nonchalant"? If not, then we are down to one choice along that axis. Which one would that be?
"It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get." ~Confucious
"Evil is easy, and has infinite forms." ~Blaise Pascal
"Enter the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road easy that leads to destruction, and many enter it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." ~JesusI fear I'm about to ruffle some feathers, so I shall premise this with I agree wholeheartedly with alot of what everyone said, it is interesting that viewpoint of even some key commenters have swung about a couple of times, mostly out of empathy or a lack thereof for the paladin before he opened his intelligence 10 mouth.
Our table sees the rules as a set of guidelines to be lent on if things get a bit out of hand and for that (amongst a million other reasons) I really value our DM. This discussion I know has made me grow as a player which is all anyone can ask for and i hope everyone else has gained from it as well and therefore all our games will be richer for it.so onto the feather ruffling. in relation to the above quotes, i think they are all wrong.
Why?
** spoiler omitted **
...
...What teh hell? Nobody ever said that being selfish is evil, or even chaotic. We are saying that killing a goblin on the basis of racism, in a civilized area, taking his stuff, and denying the murder to others is evil. If he really thought it was good, he would have told people up front. And it would still be evil, because he had no proof that the goblin was guilty.It would appear that this argument is incredibly simple, and you're only delaying it by ignoring it: He had no proof the goblin was guilty, or even evil. He kills the goblin anyways, when the goblin's back is turned. He takes the goblin's stuff, rather than asking an enforcer of the law to get it.
Now THIS is a Lawful Good act, DEFINITELY!
|
I'm still waiting for the fighter to say something like, "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are goblins."
*whispers* Psst, hey raoul. Nobody's buying it, man. You should probably pack up your character sheet and sneak out the back door. I'll try to get their attention by balancing this pear on the end of my horn.
it is in fact difficult for humans to do either evil or good at either extreeme.
Which is kinda sorta, oh, I don't know, what a paladin is all about in the first place. They are supposed to take the difficult path of the righteous because they are exemplars of good. They view and use the law as the best way to arrive at good ends (returning to the previous issue about choosing between the two). The concepts of good and evil are fixed in D&D, no relativism need apply; and the action here is in no way interpretable as good.
I repeat: there is no real debate to be had here. This is absolutely a violation of the paladin's code. The only possibility for any real discussion is whether it constitutes a "gross" violation which might lead him to fall. And might vote is "You bet your ass it was."
I'm still waiting for the fighter to say something like, "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are goblins."
*whispers* Psst, hey raoul. Nobody's buying it, man. You should probably pack up your character sheet and sneak out the back door. I'll try to get their attention by balancing this pear on the end of my horn.
*Munch munch*
What pear? I thought it was an apple.
... I'm a little lost at where some of the hostility is coming from. some interesting points were (re)raised though and i think i'll take one last post to summarise the actions as the paladin sees them, rightly or wrongly then i'm going to take a back seat to any further comments that occur.
Goblins are the equivalent of weapon carrying Chimpanzees, only they have the cheek to try to sell goods to the greater species. They are not aable to be the targets of racism as they are just animals. This particular group of animals was suspected of murdering humans and selling their items. One of the Chimps was found in possession of an extreeme value (over 90 years human wages worth, the equivalent of an amazing house with change, can you imagine a chimp owning a 3,6 million dollar home based on a 40,000 average wage?). The Paladin found this to be overwhelming evidence of deception, either the gobbos killed the humans or were in possession of stolen items and sentenced the gobbo with the items to summary execution. this is a punishment that is acceptable for humans who commit this crime and innocent until proven guilty does not apply. It is unfortunate that the paladin felt that lethal force was required, since the law does not apply to the lesser species, lawful punishment should not have been needed, and the paladin is very sad for these actions. however, if he had not acted in this way there were 2 possible outcomes. either he leaves it well alone and does not recover the illegally gained possessions, or risks an all out fight with all the gobbos possibly then needing to do lethal damage to multiple opponents. Neither of these would have served the good of the dead humans.
i have previously discussed the merits of a detect evil and quote myself here:
and for the record, a detect evil would have proven nothing. if he came up as non evil he could have bought or otherwise procured the items without having done an evil act. if he had have come up evil, it still doesnt mean he knowingly commited the crime i accuse him of.
he may have been given the items by the killer and accepted them without knowing their source, if he bought them from the killer this act would not be evil, but then other questions come into play lioke, where did the gobbo get the money from in the first place especially if he paid a reasonable price (900gp) or is it a standard arrangement and each knows what the other party does, which would be evil. fact is: possession of stolen items is a crime.
This extends to all kill it if it is evil scenarios which I dont think is a paladins obligation at all as I have also mentioned.
Naturally as a player I am quite attached to the character. As I beleive all good players should, I have a desire to keep the game fair fun and interesting. The character will take any prize or punishment given him for his action. As a player I feel satisfied that I have been able to take actions that were justifiable even if they are wrong and in so act as my character would and keep that as seperate to how I would act as a person.
oncfe more thanks to all for their comments
:D
|
|
So your argument is still "it's ok, it was just a goblin.." or he didn't know how the goblin could have owned that stuff." See Solnes post earlier about RACE and the paladins code. At the very LEAST the paladin is a racsist, which to me is NOT GOOD! You are grasping at straws to justify his actions, and I'm sorry but it still don't make it right. The paladin commited an act based on racial prejudices, a direct violation of the code. If it was my game, which it's not, he falls, no amount of arguing would change that.
The argument that they are the equivalent of animals does NOT improve your position ... because careless slaughter of any creature just because it is there is not, IMO, a GOOD act. Therefore, as a now ex-paladin, I do hope you find fun in your play. Because by the opinions of just about all the folks posting to the thread, you would lose your abilities -- despite any legalistic semantics you employ.
Personally, I think you are just enjoying stirring the pot and seeing how many folks you can rile by your constant denial of the wrong headedness of your character's actions.
The argument that they are the equivalent of animals does NOT improve your position ... because careless slaughter of any creature just because it is there is not, IMO, a GOOD act. Therefore, as a now ex-paladin, I do hope you find fun in your play. Because by the opinions of just about all the folks posting to the thread, you would lose your abilities -- despite any legalistic semantics you employ.
Personally, I think you are just enjoying stirring the pot and seeing how many folks you can rile by your constant denial of the wrong headedness of your character's actions.
Seconded. By RAW (Rules as Written), by RAI (Rules as intended) and by just about everyones interpretation here, the paladin was in the wrong. The longer you push the "It's only a goblin" argument, the more it'll look like you're just trying to stir things up, since, as just about everyone has said, it's not a valid excuse.
Allow me to quote the monster manual
Small Humaniod (Gobliniod)
Translation: Not an animal, not vermin, a humaniod, putting it in the same boat as elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes.
usally neutral evil
Translation: Is not beyond redemption, non-evil member sof the race exist.
What part of those two points are so hard to understand? And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if your paladin beleives otherwise. The god won't (and if he/she does, then they should damm well not be granting paladin abilities in the first place).
You're in a Goblin market.
Tents and stalls line the streets, filled with everything from leatherwork to pots and pans. Sure, the goblin traders here drive a hard bargain, but they haven't tried to mislead, attack, or do anything ubtoward to you or your party.
Question;
Is it ok for the Lawful Good paladin to put his axe through one Goblin's head (selling potions etc) and take its' stuff on the basis that they are vermin?
Background;
Our party was sent to investigate a goblin market on the King's road that had sprung up near a ruined bridge. Some human travellers had gone missing nearby. The goblins built a new bridge, allegedly charging a toll. We weren't charged a toll by them and two of us left the market without harrassment. Although the bridge looks like it was destroyed by tools, there is no proof that the gobbies did it......yet.
So, to the question.
The way I look at questions like this is I substitute the word 'human' or a similar word for goblin and see where the paladin would fall. i.e:
You're in a vagabond market.
Tents and stalls line the streets, filled with everything from leatherwork to pots and pans. Sure, the vagabond traders here drive a hard bargain, but they haven't tried to mislead, attack, or do anything untoward to you or your party.
Question;
Is it ok for the Lawful Good paladin to put his axe through one Vagabond's head (selling potions etc) and take its' stuff on the basis that they are vermin?
Background:
Our party was sent to investigate a vagabond market on the King's road that had sprung up near a ruined bridge. Some travellers had gone missing nearby. The vagabonds built a new bridge, allegedly charging a toll. We weren't charged a toll by them and two of us left the market without harrassment. Although the bridge looks like it was destroyed by tools, there is no proof that the vagabonds did it......yet.
So, to the question.
I use 'vagabond' here just to fit the flavor of the ersatz market theme, but it could be 'bandits' ,'hobos' ,'gypsies' etc. Would it be OK for the paladin to treat any of those groups like vermin? Then why would it be OK to treat goblins who have not offered up any hostility in such a fashion?
I would posit that killing a merchant of any race and taking his stuff would be a fairly chaotic act, as well as evil. Random killing because of racial prejudice and stereotyping (and greed because the character wants the merchant's potions I assume) falls under the aegis of chaos and evil IMO. The paladin's act fosters racial hatred, disregard of the rule of law (assuming that the kingdom has some laws in place to handle non-human inhabitants), and suppresses trade as no gobbo is going to set up a tent and sell things if anyone feels justified slicing them open at a whim.
This scenario would a good time to do a little investigative roleplaying and discover the truth about the goblin's operations, as you would expect the party to do if the antagonists were portrayed as human. If the gobbos are up to no good they can be arrested or fought, but killing a goblin merchant because he's a goblin is a thin excuse.
You wouldn't expect a paladin to kill a human merchant and take his stuff while looking for highwaymen in a human town. The poor merchant had nothing to do with the highwaymen, just because he was in the area and shared the antagonist's racial profile isn't enough to warrant random violence and theft.
My 2 cp
To further reiterate another point, it doesn't matter if the "local laws" don't apply to goblins. The paladin still has to act like a paladin no matter who he's dealing with. It doesn't matter if he's negotiating with Demogorgon himself; even with a fiend, the paladin still has to act honorably and uphold his word. The point is that the paladin's actions have to uphold good through the means of law. (and, as an aside, it sounds so far as if you've been using the law as the ultimate ends, switching back and forth from the "law of the jungle" to the "law of the land," all with an inability to understand that it's the good that matters). The paladin must therefore hold himself to the standard and not alter his code of conduct based on who he is dealing with. If the partner in a negotiation turns out to be false, that's his problem, not the paladin's.
The hostility is surfacing frustration from people who are pointing out the logical fallacies which ruin your justification, only to see you continue to fall back on those logically flawed points as if totally ignoring what other posters have said.
Seek atonement or go for blackguard, but face it: you broke the code.
Having read through a bit of the postings since replying, I can see there are a few problems with the justifications I can see.
Assuming that a goblin shouldn't have as much stuff as he has is stereotypical. If he is a merchant, perhaps he is a good one? It seems a slippery slope to say that goblins can't amass wealth except by stealing. Did the paladin hand all the goods he 'recovered' to the local constabulary? What relationship does the paladin have with the local nobility/constabulary?
The law of the land allows summary execution for theivery, which incedentally no medieval law system allowed. High (i.e. death penalty) justice was reserved for Kings or powerful dukes or their duly-appointed Justicars. Even if you say that this isn't the case in this kingdom, then by all that is holy why would the goblin merchant have wares on display that he could get executed for? It would be a ridiculous as a crack dealer building a kiosk by the Brooklyn Bridge with a huge sign saying: CRACK, GUNS AND STOLEN GOODS! GET'EM HERE! More than likely he would have a hidden place for any questionable goods, and would probably dive for cover any time an armed human came riding through.
For that matter, why would goblins even bother building a market if the law of the land placed their lives as forfeit to humans? If I was a goblin in this scenario I'd hide in the forest and ambush passing humans as payback for my relatives getting slaughtered. Things like markets and trade only exist when there are laws in place to afford them some protection. When said laws are not in place, then it becomes a black market, and those kind of markets are rarely openly displayed.
If anyone has any questions about the campaign setting, feel free to ask me, and I shall answer as best I can.
Can goblins be considered "innocent" (as how the word is used in the descriptions of good and evil) in this setting?
Are the skill mechanics for bluff and sense motive being used in this game? If they are, did the paladin in question roll a bluff and the goblin roll a sense motive for the lying about the purchasing of the potions?
How hard is it for someone to be considered evil in the setting? For example, would a bully that gives kids, that play with weird shaped dice, swirlies be considered evil, or does it take something a bit more aggressive?
How common is the death penalty applied within the legal framework of the setting?
What kind of prison system is involved in the setting?
Killing innocents for their stuff is an evil act. As such, the goblin would register as evil, if he had done the deed. This is no petty theft. However, the racist paladin (which in itself is considered lawful evil)decided that he was Witness, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and told the court that the defendant was a goblin. He saw it himself! The goblin even had valuable stuff. The Jury ruled that the goblin was guilty, the Judge sentenced the goblin to death. The Executioner told the goblin to look behind him, and then killed him.
How is any of that good? Racism is considered evil, murder is considered evil, and cold-blooded killing is considered chaotic at the very least.
If anyone has any questions about the campaign setting, feel free to ask me, and I shall answer as best I can.Can goblins be considered "innocent" (as how the word is used in the descriptions of good and evil) in this setting?
Are the skill mechanics for bluff and sense motive being used in this game? If they are, did the paladin in question roll a bluff and the goblin roll a sense motive for the lying about the purchasing of the potions?
How hard is it for someone to be considered evil in the setting? For example, would a bully that gives kids, that play with weird shaped dice, swirlies be considered evil, or does it take something a bit more aggressive?
How common is the death penalty applied within the legal framework of the setting?
What kind of prison system is involved in the setting?
Until our DM gets in here (which I'll ask him to do just not at 230AM current time) I'll throw a few answers as much as I know them. The party hasnt really been thrown against racial types this borderline before... all my comments will have NOTHING to do with the paladins opinions, his time for speaking is over as tempted as the player is to further input. Also the player is more than happy for the DM to disagree with what the player says, its his homebrew and his choice.
Can Goblinoids be considered innocent. The answer would be yes. the same as humans, animals and plants. Good and evil are mutually exclusive to innocence/guilt on a case by case basis. Obviously Evil objects are more likely to be guilty at some point because laws are loosely based on good behaviour.
Heavily; as are diplomacy, etc. And yes if memory serves there was a roll made.
Acts of evil are deliberate, knowing acts. the player presumes that evil is defined as being for pleasure or personal gain in a manner that is deliberwately bereft of good intent. in short an evil act cannot be an accident.
This encounter was very deliberately worded that as avatars of the law the punishment was to be determined by the characters so long as when they got back to town they could justify their actions. To answer the question explicitly, the death penalty is known nto have been applied many times particularly for acts of treason. it is also known to be a penalty for escalated minor penalties.
The goblin markets are already accused of stealing from the king by charging a toll on his road, however that is what the party was sent to discover, so is likely but undetermined. Cost to the state for imprisoning a tribe of gobbos may or maynot come into consideration against the weight of theor crimes, at this point the player is unable to comment on precisely on how this works. When the player played a justicar, all criminals were taken directly to prison where appropriate. if this was not possible, the home of the justicar was equipped with a very costly cell that could handle all varieties of inmate upto and including medium to large demons.
I'm sure the watchman will be available to comment soon, hopefully he can shed more light than I can for you :)
Can Goblinoids be considered innocent. The answer would be yes. the same as humans, animals and plants. Good and evil are mutually exclusive to innocence/guilt on a case by case basis. Obviously Evil objects are more likely to be guilty at some point because laws are loosely based on good behaviour.
Notice I asked with respect to good and evil description (both of these use the term innocent). So a discussion about the legal view is not appropriate in my question.
Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
|
"Grit, son! Don't go!" Veet begged her eldest son. The young goblin, only just into his first year as a man, paused at the door, but did not turn around.
"Yer gon to get yurself killed if you go after him! You don't have to do this! Dolq wouldn't want this!"
Grit could only stare outside, at the wide world he was about to step into. Young goblins milled about the dirty street, their mothers tending to the laundry and tiny gardens that marked the only greenery to be found in the ghetto their race called home this past decade.
"Yur father wouldn't want you throwin' yur life away for revenge." Veet implored her son. That was certainly what he seemed prepared for, with his chipped longsword strapped to his back, the same one he had salvaged from a scrap heap outside the city. It had seen better days, but Grit had managed to polish the thing so taht at least most of the blade shined in the light.
Grit finally turned. "It's not revenge I'm lookin' for, Mams." He said gently but with absolute certianty. He clasped the tiny, wooden replica of a long sword that hung from his neck. Veet had been worried when her son started praying to that strange new goddess that was finding traction with the younger goblins. She suspected this "Yomeday" was some human deity the younger among them had adopted, as they often did with their other deities. "The man who murdered Dads is still out there. Someone has to see that he answers for his crimes. And if the guard couldn't or wouldn't do it, then someone else has to. And nobody is gonna help us before we help ourselves."
Veet wiped at her eyes. She could see now that there was no stopping him. Her son stepped forward, embracing her one last time before departing. "All Dads wanted was a fair chance at makin' a good life for us. Someone took that away from him. Someone else has gotta make sure that doesn't happen again. But it's gotta be done right. The humans think they're better'n us. Some of 'em think we're animals. Someone's gotta prove 'em wrong." He almost promised that he would return safely, but he knew he couldn't be certain. With one last hug, he turned and left without another word.
|
You're in a Goblin market.
Tents and stalls line the streets, filled with everything from leatherwork to pots and pans. Sure, the goblin traders here drive a hard bargain, but they haven't tried to mislead, attack, or do anything ubtoward to you or your party.
Question;
Is it ok for the Lawful Good paladin to put his axe through one Goblin's head (selling potions etc) and take its' stuff on the basis that they are vermin?
Actually, I have to go with the Paladin on this one. :(
Why?
Well, a while a go I started a thread on this topic "Do Orcs = Evil?" Because, my intuition is that "Racism" is a classic "Lawful Evil" behavior. But, check out the response I got from Mr. Jacobs. :(
So, it follows that if "Goblins = Evil" then they can, and should, be slaughtered without compuction - reguardless of their current actions!
I don't like it. My very being recoils from it as repulsive. But there is a certain midset that supports that action as good and just.
good thing you never play a Paladin.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can Goblinoids be considered innocent. The answer would be yes. the same as humans, animals and plants. Good and evil are mutually exclusive to innocence/guilt on a case by case basis. Obviously Evil objects are more likely to be guilty at some point because laws are loosely based on good behaviour.
So you executed a possible innocent without cause using deceit, deception and not giving him a chance to prove his innocence.
Congratulations, enjoy your fighter without bonus feats.
...... I'm a little lost at where some of the hostility is coming from. some interesting points were (re)raised though and i think i'll take one last post to summarise the actions as the paladin sees them, rightly or wrongly then i'm going to take a back seat to any further comments that occur.
Goblins are the equivalent of weapon carrying Chimpanzees, only they have the cheek to try to sell goods to the greater species. They are not aable to be the targets of racism as they are just animals. This particular group of animals was suspected of murdering humans and selling their items. One of the Chimps was found in possession of an extreeme value (over 90 years human wages worth, the equivalent of an amazing house with change, can you imagine a chimp owning a 3,6 million dollar home based on a 40,000 average wage?). The Paladin found this to be overwhelming evidence of deception, either the gobbos killed the humans or were in possession of stolen items and sentenced the gobbo with the items to summary execution. this is a punishment that is acceptable for humans who commit this crime and innocent until proven guilty does not apply. It is unfortunate that the paladin felt that lethal force was required, since the law does not apply to the lesser species, lawful punishment should not have been needed, and the paladin is very sad for these actions. however, if he had not acted in this way there were 2 possible outcomes. either he leaves it well alone and does not recover the illegally gained possessions, or risks an all out fight with all the gobbos possibly then needing to do lethal damage to multiple opponents. Neither of these would have served the good of the dead humans.
i have previously discussed the merits of a detect evil and quote myself here:
** spoiler omitted **
That's some funny s*!t man. Chimp Slayer!
I agree that the vibe here is at times getting unneccessarily hostile. Let's keep it nice people. Raoul is good enough to open up on his game to get a debate happening so let's respect his ideas like he's respecting ours.
I agree that the vibe here is at times getting unneccessarily hostile. Let's keep it nice people. Raoul is good enough to open up on his game to get a debate happening so let's respect his ideas like he's respecting ours.
I think the problem is that he is not respecting our "ideas" because they do not support the erroneous way he has chosen to interpret the Paladin.
Yes, the GM allowed him to follow a different "law" in this Law of the Jungle stuff, but what almost all the folks have pointed out, repeatedly, is that the action the character took cannot be deemed anything but an evil action because he chose to do NO investigations but reacted in a deceptive and evil manner by slaughtering a suspected being.
No proof, only suspected. The party was not asked to clear out the market, they were not asked to arrest all the goblins and bring them in for trial where they could prove their innocence (Code Napoleonic), they were asked to investigate the suspicions. The paladin did not use any of his abilities to do anything, instead implying he was going to make a purchase (LIE), demanding that the goblin show him all the goods first before he showed the money (that he did not have -- LIE), and then attacking from surprise, from behind, and slaughtering an unarmed and non-threatening opponent (MURDER).
The question was asked at the start, and other questions have been asked, and the folks that have answered have been pretty united on their answer ... yet we're constantly being told that the Paladin in question does not agree. As has been pointed out, it matters not one iota if the paladin agrees, the Gods would doom him by his blatantly evil actions.
I don't think anyone has actually gotten hostile, but many of us are frustrated to have what we are saying dismissed as irrelevant because of a misbegotten belief that what the character feels is right and wrong takes precedence over the rules as written ;p
Well paladins who choose to follow me are allowed to kill whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish... and they don't have to be LG! of course they don't get any Divine Powers, but they do get bonus feats like a fighter.... and a nifty lil' "I serve the Lord Prez" pin to wear. ;p
(j/k)
I fully agree with the 'atonement' line of reasoning. Everyone makes mistakes, and this paladin is not the quickest of cats (although he is very wise - Wis 18? - go figure...).
Maybe a message from his god saying 'Mal, you have been very naughty. You must undertake this quest or I will take away your divine powers!'. I think that would fit nicely. DM's call of course.
Re the campaign setting, we have been told that alignments change based on actions performed. Usually a single action won't have an effect, but if you perform say two or three non-minor actions that go against an alignment component then that component could shift in the direction of the action. That is to say, our paladin could find himself being LN if he did this kind of action repeatedly. I believe the actions would have to be close together in time as well.
That being said, if the pally then made an effort to do blatently good actions (sort of like atonement)and avoided more evil actions, his alignment could change back.
In a sense, he strayed from the path and found his way back to it, a reformed dwarf.
And just on a side note, Raoul is a guy that will argue himself blue in the face on philosophical or ethical questions. Don't expect any traction with your arguments. :-) Just saying, it can be frustrating, but he is a nice bloke and is not doing it to be offensive.
good thing you never play a Paladin.
Thank You for illustrating my point.
Namely that issues of alignment are very open to interpretation. (What is "Good"? What is "Law/Order"?)
Therefore classes that are based on a strict alignment are more trouble to play then they are worth.
I agree that the vibe here is at times getting unneccessarily hostile. Let's keep it nice people. Raoul is good enough to open up on his game to get a debate happening so let's respect his ideas like he's respecting ours.I think the problem is that he is not respecting our "ideas" because they do not support the erroneous way he has chosen to interpret the Paladin.
Yes, the GM allowed him to follow a different "law" in this Law of the Jungle stuff, but what almost all the folks have pointed out, repeatedly, is that the action the character took cannot be deemed anything but an evil action because he chose to do NO investigations but reacted in a deceptive and evil manner by slaughtering a suspected being.
No proof, only suspected. The party was not asked to clear out the market, they were not asked to arrest all the goblins and bring them in for trial where they could prove their innocence (Code Napoleonic), they were asked to investigate the suspicions. The paladin did not use any of his abilities to do anything, instead implying he was going to make a purchase (LIE), demanding that the goblin show him all the goods first before he showed the money (that he did not have -- LIE), and then attacking from surprise, from behind, and slaughtering an unarmed and non-threatening opponent (MURDER).
The question was asked at the start, and other questions have been asked, and the folks that have answered have been pretty united on their answer ... yet we're constantly being told that the Paladin in question does not agree. As has been pointed out, it matters not one iota if the paladin agrees, the Gods would doom him by his blatantly evil actions.
I don't think anyone has actually gotten hostile, but many of us are frustrated to have what we are saying dismissed as irrelevant because of a misbegotten belief that what the character feels is right and wrong takes precedence over the rules as written ;p
Agreed, but his actions as a player/PC don't have to support your views or those of the majority. He's been very honest about his reasons so there's really no reason to feel frustrated because his views are contrary to the majority. After all, he is accommodating us by taking part in the conversation. We're not here to convince him of anything, we're really just exploring some things that happened in the game so all points of view are valid.
Having said all that, I basically agree with where you stand on things regarding the topic.