Raoul is acting friendly, but he's coming across as patronizing, and he seems to be ignoring our best points. I don't know if he means to, but it's hard to be polite in this case.
Also, he has not been 'good enough to open up on his game to get a debate happening so let's respect his ideas like he's respecting ours'. He didn't start the thread, and it isn't his game. I'm just saying, that comment was inacurate.
Raoul is acting friendly, but he's coming across as patronizing, and he seems to be ignoring our best points. I don't know if he means to, but it's hard to be polite in this case.
Also, he has not been 'good enough to open up on his game to get a debate happening so let's respect his ideas like he's respecting ours'. He didn't start the thread, and it isn't his game. I'm just saying, that comment was inacurate.
.....hmmmmm......ok.....
Isn't it funny in an ironic way that you spelt "inaccurate" incorrectly. :)
Sorry, been a long day.
This is why Palladins will crusade willingly into the lower planes. Against fiends, there is no innocence. There is no need for trial. Their very existance is proof of their guilt. Its a difficult spectrum for us people from a world where physical evil doesn't exist to understand, but for a person from such a world, its an almost comforting absolute.
Fiends are evil incarnate. They have no good in them, no innocence to shelter, no spark of compassion to plead with, no desire to rise above their base emotions, no chance at redemption. They are the one thing a palladin can fight and actually, truly, fight at full power, with no thought to the moral dillema of "As I take the life of the foe before me, and look into his eyes, I see a soul which had a chance for redemption, a chance which I now take away, even if I do so to prevent innocents from being harmed".
In my games, Palladin's hate killing. An evil soul killed simply fuels the afterlife side of evil. An evil soul redeemed robs both the mortal coil and the afterlife of a servant of evil, and may even add a servant of good. The paladin knows he can't redeem every goblin, every orc, every ogre. But he wishes he could. The world would be so much better if he could. Instead, so often, he ends up having to slay them, to defend himself, to defend his allies, or to defend the innocents who live nearby. Sometimes, he can't even entertain the idea of redemption, as much as he would like to; the creature has killed too many, and continues to endanger more, and as much as the Palladin would love to save its soul from the damnation it is destined to receive, he would be remiss in his duty to protect those who can not protect themselves if he allowed the creature to live and continue to threaten innocent lives.
The one time I played a palladin, I prayed over every corpse I left on the battlefield. I buried every body, respectfully. I carried a book of funeral rites for every race I could find. When asked by a fellow paladin what glories I had gained on the field of battle, I looked him in the eye and said "I have slain ogres, I have slain goblins, I have even slain bhargests and ettins. But my greatest glory stands now in the stables tending to my mount. His name is Grok, and he is an ogre. I struck him down in battle, but he survived the wound and begged for mercy. Which I gave freely. I knew he would likely try to escape, but I saw to it his attempts where foiled. And during the time that I traveled from the ogre's lair to the village so my companions could collect the bounty, I conversed with him at length. I found that while he is rather lazy, and dull witted, he is enthralled by animals. And so I showed him how to tend to my horse. Through my encouragements, and a forgiving yet firm guiding hand, he has found a place apart from the wickedness of his kin. And in doing so for him, I have deprived evil of a servant forever. That is my greatest glory."
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. :-)
Sure, I know people and have friends fitting that description. It doesn't make the argument correct or logical, however, and when carried on with beyond reason in the face of solid refutations, it becomes frustrating to those making said refutations.
Is it time to end this debate? Fine.
I do not intend to throw oil on the dying fire, but it is important to consider that the very boundaries of good and evil are often defined not from the book but from the campaign setting.
Compare the criteria of Toril opposed to those of Eberron for example : If on Toril they are clearly defined forces which often oppose to each other, on Eberron the line is more blurry and the alignments are less rigid, less absolute.
Besides, even on a similar world, these criteria can vary from one region to another. Good and evil would be interpreted differently in an egyptian, aztecs, celt, roman or viking environment, according to the culture. Take slavery : Although seen as evil by some, it can be accepted with no question in some civilizations which can even be considered as good.
And above the setting is the DM, who basically place the boundaries and the references.
His duty is to make it clear to his players, so they will know the limits and will have to respect them.
"Lizzie, Lizzie, have you tasted
For my sake the fruit forbidden?
Must your light like mine be hidden,
Your young life like mine be wasted,
Undone in mine undoing,
And ruined in my ruin;
Thirsty, cankered, goblin-ridden?"
In a world where goblin fruits carry cruel addiction and soul-wracking hunger worse than any opiate, the paladin's duty may be clear: Death to any who lure innocents to their doom. The paladin doesn't need to see such a transaction take place, for all the realm recognizes the goblin merchants' infamy.
The question then arises, "Are these tales true in the paladins' world, or are they mere legends, phantasms born of race hatred and peasant superstition?" Are goblins merely shrewd merchants, or does every dealing with them imperil the buyer's soul?
Such questions aren't answered by a knight's swift axe, nor is such rude justice appropriate from a paladin. If he wasn't absolutely certain that his actions furthered justice, he shouldn't have struck.
I do not intend to throw oil on the dying fire, but it is important to consider that the very boundaries of good and evil are often defined not from the book but from the campaign setting.
Compare the criteria of Toril opposed to those of Eberron for example : If on Toril they are clearly defined forces which often oppose to each other, on Eberron the line is more blurry and the alignments are less rigid, less absolute.
Besides, even on a similar world, these criteria can vary from one region to another. Good and evil would be interpreted differently in an egyptian, aztecs, celt, roman or viking environment, according to the culture. Take slavery : Although seen as evil by some, it can be accepted with no question in some civilizations which can even be considered as good.And above the setting is the DM, who basically place the boundaries and the references.
His duty is to make it clear to his players, so they will know the limits and will have to respect them.
I've really fallen in love with the following phrase: Yes, but....
Yes, the definitions of good and evil can vary by campaign setting. However, without any of that information provided, we can only opperate on the assumption that the standard definitions are in place. Likewise, while I am no expert on Eberron, my understanding is that the lines are blurrier around alignment rules, not alignments themselves. I.e., a cleric may not be within one step of their god, and things listed as "always alignment X" may not actually always be alignment X. However, what constitutes good and evil and law and chaos are all unchanged. Therefore, a paladin required to be Lawful Good, regardless of deity (and prohibited from some deities because of that alignment requirement) should still be recognizable in his behavior regardless of world (at least within published settings, and it's hard to imagine changing the alignment concepts so radically that it would vary much in any homebrew, as well).
Further, a large part of this thread has addressed the issue that culture really doesn't matter for determining alignment in D&D land. A culture may think slavery is the best thing around, and that it's absolutely good. But that's a relativist argument in an absolute setting. D&D has literal black and white rules about what is good and what is evil, written in a book. If a culture does not conform to the description of some alignment, then it is not that alignment, regardless of what its population believes. The same is true on the individual level, as this paladin has discovered.
The DM's take on alignment is in some ways a continuation of the variance in alignments by setting. While it's possible that some alternate rules are in effect, without being told that, we have to assume that the standard rules are being observed. Since the DM has even appeared and said he was interested to see what others have to say on these boards, others discussing the situation using standard assumptions about alignment, it would inidicate that the standard assumptions hold in this case.
I've really fallen in love with the following phrase: Yes, but....
Hehehe
Yes, the definitions of good and evil can vary by campaign setting. However, without any of that information provided, we can only opperate on the assumption that the standard definitions are in place. Likewise, while I am no expert on Eberron, my understanding is that the lines are blurrier around alignment rules, not alignments themselves. I.e., a cleric may not be within one step of their god, and things listed as "always alignment X" may not actually always be alignment X. However, what constitutes good and evil and law and chaos are all unchanged. Therefore, a paladin required to be Lawful Good, regardless of deity (and prohibited from some deities because of that alignment requirement) should still be recognizable in his behavior regardless of world (at least within published settings, and it's hard to imagine changing the alignment concepts so radically that it would vary much in any homebrew, as well).
Further, a large part of this thread has addressed the issue that culture really doesn't matter for determining alignment in D&D land. A culture may think slavery is the best thing around, and that it's absolutely good. But that's a relativist argument in an absolute setting. D&D has literal black and white rules about what is good and what is evil, written in a book. If a culture does not conform to the description of some alignment, then it is not that alignment, regardless of what its population believes. The same is true on the individual level, as this paladin has discovered.
The DM's take on alignment is in some ways a continuation of the variance in alignments by setting. While it's possible that some alternate rules are in effect, without being told that, we have to assume that the standard rules are being observed. Since the DM has even appeared and said he was interested to see what others have to say on these boards, others discussing the situation using standard assumptions about alignment, it would inidicate that the standard assumptions hold in this case.
Good points. I agree.
Spoiler: Not trying to rain on your thread too much, Seldriss.
? No problem. That's why we debate on forums, to exchange opinions. That's the point of a discussion.
And that's not my thread by the way ;)
Didn't take, huh?
Some good recent points, however, especially regarding world/setting. In my own home setting, for example, it would be a mistake to assume all goblins are worthy of smiting. But for the classic fantasy settings, including Golarion...
Didn't take, huh?
Some good recent points, however, especially regarding world/setting. In my own home setting, for example, it would be a mistake to assume all goblins are worthy of smiting. But for the classic fantasy settings, including Golarion...
True, but then they would have rode in mowing over the goblins to begin with. The fact that they went in and started "shopping" would indicate this is not that type of setting.
Antecedent of they?
Antecedent of they?
The party in question.
Paladins? Goblins?
Paladins? Goblins?
True, but then they would have rode in mowing over the goblins to begin with. The fact that they went in and started "shopping" would indicate this is not that type of setting.
I fail to see how goblins would make sense in that statement. I was speaking of the adventuring party that the paladin was a member of. The adventuring party did not go in mowing over the goblins, thus I would assume it is not a campaign world where all goblins are evil creatures meant only to be killed.
oh shoot
|
I think this jury of peers has overwhelmingly agreed that what the fighter w/o bonus feats did was evil and against a paladin's code of honor. His DM will decide what to do with him so I move we allow Raoul to argue his character's position to the rocks. Afterall, the brick and mortar of prison walls hear the appeals of the convicted, and perhaps the fighter will find cold, indifferent stone more easily swayed by his protestations than this staunch and unyielding host.
On page 2 of this thread, Tronos asked what people thought of the monk's decision to intercede when the wizard attempted to subdue a goblin with his magic. In the interest of freeing this thread from the quagmire it has been in for the last three pages, I propose we move onto this question. In that situation, a character who is bound by his training to maintain lawful behavior interfered with the purpose of another character who is serving the crown. Was the monk wrong? Did the wizard overstep his authority? Did neither character err?
What do we know about
1. The world the game is taking place in? In the default fantasy world, a goblin is a monster.
2. The extent to which understanding about that world had been communicated by the DM to the player? If the DM did not clearly portray a non-standard fantasy world to the player, then any world-transgressing acts on the paladin's part is the DM's fault for not maintaining setting. If the player was just refusing the world or failing to play a paladin, then the fault lies with the player.
EDIT: Whoa. Some posts disappeared.
Greetings all. I shall post again, sometime soon, but I think I shall first ask two questions:
Does the following represent a fair, unbiased representation of opinions, as expressed on this board?
Would anyone here like to change the category in which I have placed them (in which case I shall modify this post)?
Pjackson
It is clear from the definition of LE that has been posted here that killing someone because of their race is classed as a LE act with the game (as in RL).
Matthew Morris
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.
Kobold Cleaver
Racism is considered evil, murder is considered evil, and cold-blooded killing is considered chaotic at the very least... 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... this paladin killed someone with no proof of any wrongdoing. Just suspicions. That is an evil act. How can it not be?
Saern
Seek atonement or go for blackguard, but face it: you broke the code... 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."
Patrick Curtin
I would posit that killing a merchant of any race and taking his stuff would be a fairly chaotic act, as well as evil.
Nero 24200
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...By RAW (Rules as Written), by RAI (Rules as intended) and by just about everyones interpretation here, the paladin was in the wrong.
Moorluck
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.
Berik
I don't really see how murdering a non-hostile without any proof that he's done anything wrong can be seen as anything other than an evil act, and probably a chaotic one as well. Certainly within the D&D alignment prescriptions anyway!
Sir Geshko
The paladin performed a questionably evil action in pursuit of a personal, racist conviction... I don't think the Paladin should be stripped of his powers (yet), but he's on a very slippery slope. If he continues his Non-lawful and Non-good behavior, especially the next instance it results in the loss of (potentially innocent) life, break out the Atonement.
Rockfall 22
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.
Abraham Spalding
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....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.
Solnes
"A Lawful Evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of HIS CODE OF CONDUCT...He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their RACE, religion, homeland, or social rank."
Seems he wasn't acting LG after all.
Lastknightleft
Really, I honestly do think the paladin should be stripped of his powers. I mean what he did was blatently dishonest and dishonourable. ... Can someone give me an example (any example) of a character acting less honourably?
Lord Fyre
So, yes, it was Evil with a captial "E."
Zambayoshi
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...Definitely evil dude!
Kevin Mack
At the risk of sounding incredibly negative but the more I hear the less this sounds like a Paladin... I believe the racial profiling thing being evil was already addressed by the description of a lawful evil character earlier in the thread.
Velcro Zipper
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 think this jury of peers has overwhelmingly agreed that what the fighter w/o bonus feats did was evil and against a paladin's code of honor.
Xaaon of Korvosa
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.
Archlich
I feel the paladin is in major violation of his code (lying, stealing & murder).
Mikaze
If it was my campaign, the pally would have fallen on the spot, and he'd have murder charges brought up against him as soon as possible.
Gamer Girrl
But regardless of what "Law" this paladin if following, I do not see how he acted for the "Good" and he'd be losing his powers if I were the GM as well.
DM_aka_Dudemeister
If I was his DM he'd lose his class features until such time as he could redeem himself.
Qunnessaa
I would say that the paladin would be breaking his code of conduct by splitting the skull of a random goblin. It depends on how closely you want to examine the morality of the campaign, I guess.
Yellowdingo
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.
Presman
If goblin(oid)s have legal rights, then the paladin could be in trouble with the lawful part of his code (respect legitimate authority).
If the goblin was not evil (or didn't detect as such), then the paladin could get in trouble with the good parts.
Also, one act does not an alignment make (usually).
Mr Fish
It is an interesting moral dilemma.
Disenchanter
as a frequent player of "thugish" characters, that does sound like the Paladin was acting like a thug. And a few of those reasons seem... false. As to the original question, it depends on the definition of civilised... Most social elite will say "no," but since they have a society - a civilisation, of sorts - the point is debatable.
Luna Eladrin
You might also say that his deed was chaotic evil. If he had proof that the goblin did anything wrong, he probably should have arrested him or have him arrested.
But I agree that this is also up to the DM. When in doubt, I always ask the player what was his or her logic behind the deed.
Li7hium
Did the Pally in question use his 'Detect Evil' ability beforehand? I don't believe so. But in any event, he has upheld the tenets of his faith - Law of the Jungle. So Lawful. Good you ask? Greater good in these circumstances. How did the goblin acquire the materials? Has he been involved in or complicit in the murder or thievery of others to acquire these items? Quite probably. Will the world be a safer place without such villiany in the realm, absolutely. Has the strongest prevailed in this circumstance, to the benefit of the Jungle? Putting flamesuit on here, yes.
Raoul
the paladin viewed the action as being required to be preemptive due to the circumstances in which the situation unravelled.
was it his most shining moment as an upholder of good? no.
was it evil? no
was it chaotic? no, in fact it was lawful punishment for the crimes suspected.
I return to watching.
Unless I'm missing some of the OP's posts, I maintain that we still do not know enough about the world to judge the paladin. What do we know, other than, "Goblins have (some relatively undefined) market"?
Thank you, Watchman, that sums up my argument exactly.
However, I believe that Presman changed sides.
However, I believe that Presman changed sides.
Not exactly. I was discussing different things.
If the paladin had detected evil and found the goblin evil, then according to the RAW but perhaps not the RAI, he would have been within his code to just smite him outright.
But using deception (or outright lying as was the case), whether the goblin was evil or not, to attack him from behind, does violate the code of the paladin. Now if the goblin was a known evil being (by using detect evil), this could be a minor violation. But given the goblin was not proven to be an uninnocent, I would say this is a gross violation, by the RAW.
Killing the goblin based solely on the fact that he was a goblin is clearly a lawful evil mentality. Thus with no other reason to kill him (in other words if he had been a human under the same circumstances he wouldn't have been killed) other than he was a goblin means the paladin falls for an evil act.
Another concern is, if goblins have some legal rights within the kingdom, then by smiting the goblin in this fashion the paladin might have violated other aspects of his code, that being the need to respect legitimate authority (the king's laws). Again, whether the goblin was a known evil or not might make this a gross violation or a minor one.
If the paladin had (1) detected evil and found the goblin as evil and (2) attacked him in an honorable fashion, I would actually be behind possibly defending his actions, even if the goblin might have had legal rights. But since the paladin didn't do either of these, let alone both, I have to view the actions as a gross violation of his code and evil. Thus under the RAW, he should fall.
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.
So the question goes to the DM, are items like Hand of the Mage considered unlawful within the kingdom the party is operating? Certainly within the RAW Hand of the Mage need not be evil, though Hand of Glory does require an evil spell.
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.
So again is the possession of these things considered unlawful? DM? Let's hear what you have to say, your players don't seem to know something that a knowledge arcana should tell them.
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...
I would say it is a bit questionable to shoot first and ask questions later. This would be like a police officer asking about something you had and then out of nowhere tazering you (don't taze me bro) in order to arrest you (What? I didn't hurt him permanently.). If the possession was illegal, then certainly taking him into custody would be appropriate.
I would say that the wizard was a little too gun-ho, but as the monk, I probably wouldn't have stopped him unless he was doing lethal damage or I knew it wasn't illegal to have such items. Later I would have pulled him to the side and said, "Hey, ask for them to surrender first, then blast them if they refuse. We don't have to be pricks about taking people in." Stay united if possible in front of others, but behind the scenes work out your differences.
Greetings all. I shall post again, sometime soon, but I think I shall first ask two questions:
Does the following represent a fair, unbiased representation of opinions, as expressed on this board?
You got mine right.
And if this is taken as a vote... It doesn't look good for the Paladin. Even if you count the "questionable action" posts as "no problem" posts.
You got mine right.Greetings all. I shall post again, sometime soon, but I think I shall first ask two questions:
Does the following represent a fair, unbiased representation of opinions, as expressed on this board?
Mine as well. No matter how you judge Evil, goblins or theivery, killing a merchant in his store and taking his goods is an inherently chaotic and evil. Also, if killing goblins/theives summarily without a trial is the legal standard of the land it would follow that there would have BEEN no market to peruse, as the goblins would never have created one in the first place. Evil doesn't mean stupid, anymore than good=stupid.
Some interesting things about goblins:
(hope this is fair use!)
Cityscape 53:
...even the wildest humanoid finds himself somewhat civilized despite himself (assuming, of course, that he survives long enough to let it happen).
Cityscape 54:
Urban goblins tend to remain among the poor and dirty of the city. Uneducated and too small to be effective at physical labor, they usually find jobs only in menial positions. They are most frequently employed in chimney sweeping, sewer maintenance, pest control, and other areas where their size and lack of personal hygiene are boons rather than detriments. Many urban goblins turn to thievery and murder, making it that much harder for the (very) few law-abiding urban goblins to shake their bad reputation. Most remain bitter, and many that attempt to live in a city wind up leaving and resuming their savage ways, unable to make a viable go of it within the walls.
Monster Manual 133:
Alignment: Usually Neutral Evil
Advancement: by Character Class
Organisation: ...or tribe...noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th–8th level.
Goblins are small humanoids that many consider little more than
a nuisance.
Goblins speak Goblin; those with Intelligence scores of 12 or
higher also speak Common.
Monster Manual 134:
Most goblin spellcasters are adepts.
---
Okay, just by the above we know that (and the DM did not say anything to contradict this) goblins can live in a civilised manner (although not common), have spellcasters amongst them, and can reach the level required to make the potions in question.
I would go on to quote Races of Eberron where they talk about a civilised goblin empire lasting 11,000 years, or Races of Faerun where they say that particularly wily goblins can live up to 60 years of age and that they survive on wits rather than muscle, but not really necessary.
I think the above shows that the paladin:
1. Was prejudiced;
2. Jumped the gun by not investigating further before acting;
3. Acted wrongly by killing the goblin instead of attempting to arrest him.
Of course, the DM can have a different situation in his setting as it is homebrew, but as I stated, the DM did not say anything that contradicted the information shown above.
Contributor
|
Unless this is a very lenient DM and a very lenient setting, this is a fall, with possible atonement. The Paladin lied top and killed a merchant. There has to be a difference between goblins and rats, or else how can the world work. Even goblins and chimps (as the player insinuated).
There is a massive difference between finding a chimp over a group of dead bodies covered in blood and a chimp in a mansion with a broken window. (Sorry if I took that example out of context). One is probably a rabid/insane/evil animal and ought to be put down. The other likely has no idea what it's doing, and bears investigation. Either way, luring the animal out with a banana and shooting it in the back is a cowardly act at best, and at odds with the Paladins code.
Believe me, I play fast and loose with alignments, but that goes both ways. If a paladin can be "lawful good" in this scenerio, then the goblin was so far from "guaranteed evil" that a fall is guaranteed at his murder.
|
Oh addendum - Chimp Slaughter. Tell me how killing goblins is justifiably good by comparing them to chimps again?
Greetings, all.
A few people posting here have asked for a few details regarding the campaign setting, or there have been a few points I might be able to clarify. I shall try to explain as best I can.
Do you have Caucasian, African, Hispanic, and Mongoloid dwarves in your game? Because if you don't, then I fail to see how you could confuse Game Term: Race, as pres man described it, with Real Term: Race.
We actually do have specific landforms and the nationalities therein; our game term is Nationality. This does not undermine your argument, though, as Race, as you state, has specific game terms.
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.
Completely agreed. This was a, for want of a better word, gypsy market. The party were asked to investigate whether the market-goblins had destroyed a bridge, and had set up the new bridges to facilitate, support or subsidise trade. It was known of by the crown (or at least the leaders of the nearest city). It didn't have the support of the crown, nor did it pay taxes, but it was within an area that was specifically not governed, per se.
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?
Yes, and quite frequently. The goblin, I (privately) ruled, did not have grounds to suspect the duplicity, and was not 'entitled' to a roll.
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?
Pres Man, I want to answer this question well, so I shall do so a little further on.
How common is the death penalty applied within the legal framework of the setting?
Interestingly, the nearest city is in political upheaval at the moment. Based on existing laws, then the death penalty is applied to murder, treason, and any crime whose severity pushes it into a similar category (arson, for example, may lead to deaths and loss of life, so it is a possible example).
What kind of prison system is involved in the setting?
There is an island off shore from the city in which the characters are based. Think Alcatraz / Azkhaban. The legal system is similar to our own, within the context of spells like Detect Lie. The Judicial system is based around, and provided by the Priesthood of the God of Law.
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.
I think it is very fair to, AT THE VERY LEAST, strongly threaten to lose the paladin's powers. More on that in a moment.
His (the DM's) duty is to make it (alignment boundaries and references) clear to his players, so they will know the limits and will have to respect them.
I very much agree, and I want to give my opinion about alignments, below.
So the question goes to the DM, are items like Hand of the Mage considered unlawful within the kingdom the party is operating? Certainly within the RAW Hand of the Mage need not be evil, though Hand of Glory does require an evil spell.
Hand of the Mage is alignment neutral. While it is certainly perceived as being a distasteful item, there is no legal or moral ramification, apart from a social stigma. Hand of Glory requires an evil spell in the creation, so a Paladin would detect a trace of evil from it, albeit noting that it would emanate from the item.
So again is the possession of these things considered unlawful? DM? Let's hear what you have to say, your players don't seem to know something that a knowledge arcana should tell them.
The rolls made regarding this item, to my judgement, did not allow for the spells required to create the item, rather just to quantify their function.
These are my thoughts on alignment; you may not agree with them, but please at least consider them.
D&D is not the real world.
In the real world, we have a strong social undercurrent to ask why people act as they do, and often to justify their reasons for doing so. So often, we look for a reason, a factor, an ameliorating aspect that somewhat condones the actions of those who commit wrongs. This is one of my stronger opinions regarding modern, real world society, and I certainly respect those who disagree, but here it is: There are people who are downright evil. Not always, but often enough, and with enough zeal that it is a fair and accurate statement to call them by that strong name. Of course, and even more often, the real world has people who can truly be called good. Again, not always, but often enough that they are best described as good people. Simply, in the real world, there are both, and it would be a better place if we recognised that both types do exist, along the continuum of moral behaviour.
In D&D, there is evil, and there is good. As my old english teacher used to say, 'there is no drama without conflict', and D&D is a game about drama, conflict, action and interaction (among so many other things). In D&D, we need evil, just as much as we need good, and every alignment between. We need creatures to be evil, truly, stinkingly evil, so that the characters are, at some times, heroic and good.
To me, in D&D, alignment is a continuum along a moral (Good vs Evil) and ethical (Law vs Chaos) axis, and while a character must be placed in a category, there is room to move. Paladins are not flawless, druids are never completely neutral (but on average, they are), bards can obey laws, and blackguards can undertake a good act (though often self-servingly).
I think in D&D, alignments serve a purpose that is dramatic as well as moral, and that placing real-world analogies will often fail. As some have pointed out, here, what is considered legal, or moral (read: Good) is at the mercy of the prevailing culture, or at least the perceptions of the individuals within it.
However, paladins are paragons of virtue, and they balance, constantly, on the precipice of falling from grace.
Good, like any alignment, is defined by the majority; if an act is considered evil by the majority, then it is evil. There would have to be strong factors to condone the actions of the paladin; this is my, individual opinion. It is also, as confirmed by my previous post, considered the dominant opinion, albeit in the context of what replies seem to be real-world considerations.
The purpose of this entire encounter was two-fold: To place the characters in an ambiguous setting, legally, morally and ethically such that they would have the challenge of a race that is usually neutral evil, as Zambayoshi very correctly points out, but in this instance, were (by and large) not. This was further complicated by the fact that they were in a precarious legal setting, without protection of the crown, and with a second tier of complexity, that the city wanted the problem to go away. The city official with whom they spoke were happy enough that the goblins left, by any justifiable means.
The second purpose was to shadow the perceptions the humans have of goblins (which Raoul has expressed very well) in how the goblins perceive the kobolds within the gypsy caravan.
In many ways, the encounter was a very strong temptation; when you put a dwarven paladin in an environment of his racial enemy, there is temptation to sink into an axe into the nerest goblin, and in most D&D games, he would be right, justified and correct to do so; the dramatic purpose of a creature that is usually neutral evil is to be, usually, neutral evil.
The paladin follows an unusual morality, being that of a 'Law of the Wild', and I was very keen in character creation to see if the dichotomy of a paladin's goodness could co-exist with the harsh neutrality of a food-chain, dominant-submissive culture. It seems that the 'Law of the Wild' proved to be the stronger factor than the altruism of good.
Granted, if I were raoul, I would have argued his case differently. Having said that, I conclude thus:
While the paladin acted in a morally reprehensible, evil way that (and this is my opinion here, not a final decision regarding the character's fate) certainly justifies falling from grace, raoul played the character in an excellent manner, displaying the internal conflict of an irreconcilable dichotomy of belief.
I have excellent players. They are argumentative, pedantic, creative, brilliant, violent, introspective and wonderful.
Any DM would and should be happy to have them.
I shall return to watching.
|
If the paladin had (1) detected evil and found the goblin as evil and (2) attacked him in an honorable fashion, I would actually be behind possibly defending his actions, even if the goblin might have had legal rights. But since the paladin didn't do either of these, let alone both, I have to view the actions as a gross violation of his code and evil. Thus under the RAW, he should fall.
I'm actually 100% in agreement with pres man here. If (1) and (2) had taken place I wouldn't have been happy with the player, but I would've allowed it to pass and put a tally in his notes, if he wracked up enough tallies without entering the Grey Guard PrC I would've made him fall, but not for the one instance. since he did neither, make him fall for grossly violating his code and ethics.
Believe me, I play fast and loose with alignments, but that goes both ways. If a paladin can be "lawful good" in this scenerio, then the goblin was so far from "guaranteed evil" that a fall is guaranteed at his murder.
This is an excellent point.
Well written, Watchman (and thanks for the mad propz!)
I agree with everything there, and look forward to seeing what happens in the aftermath of the paladin's actions. Obviously, with the discovery of the body by a fellow goblin merchant, and the blood all over him and his weapon, the paladin has put himself and the party in a precarious position.
I think some good roleplaying and diplomacy will be needed to get ourselves out of this one...
Or...
as you say, it is a temptation. Why not just cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war?
As a player, I just want to get stuck in and hang the consequences. Stupid of me to choose an LG character!
Well written, Watchman (and thanks for the mad propz!)
I agree with everything there, and look forward to seeing what happens in the aftermath of the paladin's actions. Obviously, with the discovery of the body by a fellow goblin merchant, and the blood all over him and his weapon, the paladin has put himself and the party in a precarious position.
I think some good roleplaying and diplomacy will be needed to get ourselves out of this one...
Or...
as you say, it is a temptation. Why not just cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war?
As a player, I just want to get stuck in and hang the consequences. Stupid of me to choose an LG character!
I'm not precarious - I'm back at town!
Can we get follow ups on this as the game progresses?
Can we get follow ups on this as the game progresses?
Sure. :)
Kind of surprised you guys have shown an interest actually.
It's an alignment thread focused on a falling paladin. Of course people are interested; this is the D&D equivalent of driving past a train wreck.
It's an alignment thread focused on a falling paladin. Of course people are interested; this is the D&D equivalent of driving past a train wreck.
MWHAHA!
Never played a paladin - don't think I'll try........
It's an alignment thread focused on a falling paladin. Of course people are interested; this is the D&D equivalent of driving past a train wreck.MWHAHA!
Never played a paladin - don't think I'll try........
Oh, they have their moments....as long as they're human/oid. After all, nobody's perfect, as we see from this example: A racist paladin who stabbed a merchant in the back, on the opinion that the goblin was no better than a chimp who had probably killed before.
Oh, they have their moments....as long as they're human/oid. After all, nobody's perfect, as we see from this example: A racist paladin who stabbed a merchant in the back, on the opinion that the goblin was no better than a chimp who had probably killed before.It's an alignment thread focused on a falling paladin. Of course people are interested; this is the D&D equivalent of driving past a train wreck.MWHAHA!
Never played a paladin - don't think I'll try........
But, even so, there are better examples of a falling paladin.
To really get into paladins you really have to be in a Superman/Captain America mindset and understand your mindset is not necessary for your allies to have, as long as they aren't doing things the exact opposite of it all the time. For example, a paladin might give his share of a reward to the city to help rebuild (that is playing a paladin well), but a different paladin might demand that the entire party give the entire reward to the city to rebuild (that is playing a paladin poorly).
If someone wants to play a wolverine/punisher type, paladin isn't the class for that.
Just a quick question to the DM of the campaign.
Can Goblins be good in your setting? If so, can they also be paladins? If the answer is yes then there is a clear-cut answer to the solution, since not only did the paladin smite a potentially non-evil creature, it's possible he might have smited a lesser paladin.
I'm pretty sure it's a result of my too modern mindset, but one problem I've always had with this kind of a situation is that I don't like the... shall we say... convenience of having races which are, by definition, evil and/or inferior and therefore, don't deserve to live.
It doesn't feel right. Like... Ha-ha, pretending Racism is Good is Fun!
I know in D&D goblins and orcs are monsters foremost, but I prefer to think monsters with the capital 'M' for a context as Monsters because of their actions. If what they do isn't Monstrous, PCs with LG alignment restrictions shouldn't treat them as they are and get away with it.
The thing is, it doesn't matter the slightest bit whether the goblins are evil, or civilized, or not. The paladin's code governs the paladin's behavior, not everyone else's. Unprovoked murder of a goblin, a rat, a kitten, a merchant, a celestial, or the king is still unprovoked murder. The paladin can't control the actions of others, except after the fact. He can, and must, restrict his OWN actions to a code -- one that doesn't give "free passes" for weaseling out of it. Claiming the "goblin is evil" is the same as a rapist saying "she was asking for it" -- a plea of guilty.
It's not so much "evil" that raises the problem for me, as "monster". Fantasy rpgs take place in settings where there are monsters. If the game was set in a world where goblins are monsters, then killing it while one had the opportunity, before it did who-knows-what, was a prudent, good act. In one world I GM, it would have been murder, cut-and-dried. In another, it would have been ridding the world of a monster.
To really get into paladins you really have to be in a Superman/Captain America mindset and understand your mindset is not necessary for your allies to have, as long as they aren't doing things the exact opposite of it all the time. For example, a paladin might give his share of a reward to the city to help rebuild (that is playing a paladin well), but a different paladin might demand that the entire party give the entire reward to the city to rebuild (that is playing a paladin poorly)...
Well, a paladin might do that, but he'd have to be a very special case (perhaps raised in an extremely strict environment that preached complete charity and that was pretty unaccepting of other opinions), or, more likely by far, deranged (and then we're seeing an ex-paladin, I'd assume).
I think that if you are playing a paladin you have to be aware that your character has the potential to be very disruptive to the enjoyment that other players experience.
A paladin holds himself to the highest and strictest standards, but in the interests of a good playing experience, should not be so extreme as to hold everyone to them. Otherwise, you are restricting players choices in how they play their characters.
Even refusing to adventure with evil party members is a bit of a burden. I have always wanted to play a character who is opportunistic and amoral (neutral evil) but there has always been some goody-goody like a paladin, cleric etc who would get all righteous and smity if such a character were in the party.
Another of our players wants to try a necromancer-type character who isn't actually evil but uses dead bodies as tools in the same way that another wizard uses constructs. However, one of the characters hates all undead and will go beserk on any character who associates with them.
I think that what I am getting at is that, in the same way as having a good power-balance between characters is important so that all players can be 'effective' in combat if they wish and the DM can construct appropriate challenges, so players must give some thought to the alignment and moral aspects of their characters. Having an extremist in the party can put undue pressure on players not to have characters that oppose that moral view.
That is not to say that all characters must be morally ambiguous and easy-going. With a bit of thought, a character can have extreme elements without necessarily spoiling any other player's character options.
For example, this very paladin in question adventured with a half-vampire, and his justification was that the half-vampire fit into the whole 'survival of the fittest' code that he followed, and being charitable and tolerant towards her fit into the 'seven virtues' he was pursuing.
It's not so much "evil" that raises the problem for me, as "monster". Fantasy rpgs take place in settings where there are monsters. If the game was set in a world where goblins are monsters, then killing it while one had the opportunity, before it did who-knows-what, was a prudent, good act. In one world I GM, it would have been murder, cut-and-dried. In another, it would have been ridding the world of a monster.
Gold Dragons are monsters too, as are the Lillend, and Shedu. Monster =/= evil. Evil = evil no matter racial status.