You deny the fact that there are grey areas in D&D morality, Shifty?
...for the third time, no.
She had already said that these guys were not judged simply because the evidence was missing and the people trusted these guards. Apprehending them and trials were probably already tried and done away with by that part.Actually, the breaking point when the paladin went to kill them was when a barmaid reported a crime they brutally raped and beat her nearly to death
She wouldn't have been in the condition to report, and would have been too scared to report anyway. Besides, these guards could have bribed their way out or use any other classic evil trick in the book to get out of jail, then rape her again and actually kill her. I say the Paladin took the best method in dealing with these guys, but castration was uncalled for.
Someone's been watching Boondock Saints too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, so the guard Captain had his men accused of a crime by someone without even a dot of evidence and ended up giving them a warning.
So he actually did listen, you just weren't happy with the outcome.
Instead of, I dunno, getting a local Priest/independent third-party with Detect Lie etc and bringing the Girl in to the Captain/his boss, or any number of other 100% foolproof options, the chosen path was a cold blooded massacre and defilement of corpses as a 'warning'... a warning to whom? You'd just killed everyone.
but it is analogous to the situation. guards who torture people for reporting their crimes instead of a tyrant. it is reasonable to suspect that the crimes go hire up, that someone else thought to go to the nearby noble to report the offense.
No really, it isn't.
And it's also not what happened.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotDumb
Ahem. Evil does not play by the rules. The Guard Captain could have easily just shifted side to his own henchmen and dropped the case. Also, like I said earlier, the girl was just raped and almost murdered. Bringing her in to testify, even with magic, would have been almost impossible due to the trauma. Shifty, you're being ridiculous and probably are the type of person who wants Paladins to fall whenever you find even one small reason to call for such by this part.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nowhere does it say in the paladins code that they cannot mutiliate and murder corrupt guards as punishment for committing evil acts. i would encourage this behavior.
the traditional paladin is suppoed to be an overly righteous Zealout who beleives that they ARE the law. if i played your paladin, i wouldn't have stopped at castrating those guards. i would slowly castrate them with a cheese grater while they were bound yet still alive. like a true champion of justice would do. and force them to eat thier own grated genitalia like grated cheese. and carve the holy symbol of my god upon thier foreheads.
Wow, so the guard Captain had his men accused of a crime by someone without even a dot of evidence and ended up giving them a warning.
So he actually did listen, you just weren't happy with the outcome.
Instead of, I dunno, getting a local Priest/independent third-party with Detect Lie etc and bringing the Girl in to the Captain/his boss, or any number of other 100% foolproof options, the chosen path was a cold blooded massacre and defilement of corpses as a 'warning'... a warning to whom? You'd just killed everyone.
Not a dot of evidence? It's the middle ages. What are they supposed to pull out?
As for the priest, magical divination is not used in trials. It costs a fair amount of money and not all defendants can afford it (defendants pay for their jailing and trial), and the government considers it discrimination to allow the defendants with the money to have it but not the defendants without the money.
Also, it's she. The guard captain is a woman, which makes me hate her even more.
nowhere does it say in the paladins code that they cannot mutiliate and murder corrupt guards as punishment for committing evil acts. i would encourage this behavior.
the traditional paladin is suppoed to be an overly righteous Zealout who beleives that they ARE the law. if i played your paladin, i wouldn't have stopped at castrating those guards. i would slowly castrate them with a cheese grater while they were bound yet still alive. like a true champion of justice would do. and force them to eat thier own grated genitalia like grated cheese. and carve the holy symbol of my god upon thier foreheads.
That's going a bit far, even when Good is not Nice. Then again, if you are a Paladin of Sarenrae, a "no mercy for the wicked" thing fits the theme perfectly. Also, a Paladin of Iomedae might also go into such frenzy over the horrid torture that woman went through.
That's going a bit far, even when Good is not Nice. Then again, if you are a Paladin of Sarenrae, a "no mercy for the wicked" thing fits the theme perfectly. Also, a Paladin of Iomedae might also go into such frenzy over the horrid torture that woman went through.nowhere does it say in the paladins code that they cannot mutiliate and murder corrupt guards as punishment for committing evil acts. i would encourage this behavior.
the traditional paladin is suppoed to be an overly righteous Zealout who beleives that they ARE the law. if i played your paladin, i wouldn't have stopped at castrating those guards. i would slowly castrate them with a cheese grater while they were bound yet still alive. like a true champion of justice would do. and force them to eat thier own grated genitalia like grated cheese. and carve the holy symbol of my god upon thier foreheads.
Well, the GM let me trade my paladin levels for inquisitor levels, so I don't have to worry about the paladin code of conduct anymore.
@Icy
Wow, I find that amazing Icy... that in order to fight Evil you can just employ any means necessary to do the job and murder people in cold blood and thats cool.
Never said good was dumb, never said good is ineffectual; only that good is bound to certain ideals and behaviours that are frequently hard work, frequently a burden, and often highly inconvenient.
If you are happy to call it good when you go on a murderous killing spree as part of a blood vendetta with no regard for law, order, or consequence where the end justifies the means then by all means fill your boots, but kindly refrain from offending my sensibilities and passing it off as the good guy act of a Paladin.
I object to you claiming I am 'ridiculous' after you have sat around trying to deliberately misrepresent me earlier, and once that was corrected for you I suppose it was only logical for you to engage in ad hominems.
@Dragon
As I said, bring in the local Clergyman with detect Lie.
The Captain was stated as doing nothing as he was provided with no evidence. Thats all Kelsey said.
now, i feel tempted to make an inquisitor of the Dawnflower who supports the idea of no mercy for the wicked.
I'd take 'no mercy' to simply mean no quarter given... as opposed to slow and lingering torturous deaths.
|
A Paladin should get a warning for that sort of thing.
A character might still be able to remain Lawful Good, while doing the occasional law-breaking or vicious or unnecessarily vindictive thing, but a Paladin has stricter-than-normal guidelines about such behavior. Lawbreaking isn't as heavily disavowed as evil, so a Paladin could likely get away with 'street justice' or vigilante-ism, but mutilating a body serves no purpose towards good or law, and is just riding the emotion of the moment.
A craftier Paladin could have arranged for the guards to be caught up in some scandal, and punished by their own. (It may be okay for them to do stuff like this, but it might become 'not OK' if they appear to have targetted someone related to the authorities, or if the entire town knows about it and is up in arms about it, and the guards need to be 'made an example of' so that the authorities can get on with being lazy and cruel, without fear of a peasant uprising.)
A less-patient Paladin could simply have barged into a room and cleanly murdered them, the 'law' of her faith and her moral code trumping any corrupt regional authority, but going a step further and mutilating them makes it less 'justice' and more 'revenge.' Intent matters.
A cruel non-good authority would be the sort to make punishments fit crimes (cutting the hand off of a thief, for example), and a corrupt one more likely to make grisly displays to 'send a message' like hanging people in crow's cages or setting heads on pikes. A Paladin might by necessity live within a cruel or corrupt system, but shouldn't embrace their methods.
This is very much the sort of thing a Calistrian cleric or inquisitor, etc. might do, but Calistria isn't a paladin-supporting goddess, by any means!
Media encourages us to see 'comeuppance' as 'just deserts' or 'deserved,' and the drive for vengeance is supported by various TV shows, with some cop / investigative shows going out of their way to show 'the system' as inefficient, and only the 'rogue cops' who fly by the seat of their pants and intimidate witnesses and ignore search and seizure laws 'getting the job done,' which creates, IMO, a false expectation of how a 'lawful' person should act. A Paladin should be above that sort of thing. Less Dirty Harry, more Dudley Do-Right.
A Paladin's behavior *should* be 'unrealistic' and their moral and ethical choices *should* be harder than those of a CG Ranger or Inquisitor.
At the same time, a GM should also be careful to not go out of their way to screw over a Paladin player, by setting up impossible moral dilemnas or no-win scenarios designed to make them 'fall.' That sort of adversarial Paladin-bashing is passive-aggressive, and the GM *should* have just said at the outset 'I'd rather you didn't play a Paladin.' (Which is what I generally do, because, as a GM, I don't *want* to have to factor into every encounter whether or not it's a 'trap' for the Paladin and will end in some annoying argument about morality and ethics with the player, who, at the end of the day, is supposed to be my friend, here to have a good time.)
@Icy
Wow, I find that amazing Icy... that in order to fight Evil you can just employ any means necessary to do the job and murder people in cold blood and thats cool.
Never said good was dumb, never said good is ineffectual; only that good is bound to certain ideals and behaviours that are frequently hard work, frequently a burden, and often highly inconvenient.
If you are happy to call it good when you go on a murderous killing spree as part of a blood vendetta with no regard for law, order, or consequence where the end justifies the means then by all means fill your boots, but kindly refrain from offending my sensibilities and passing it off as the good guy act of a Paladin.
I object to you claiming I am 'ridiculous' after you have sat around trying to deliberately misrepresent me earlier, and once that was corrected for you I suppose it was only logical for you to engage in ad hominems.
@Dragon
As I said, bring in the local Clergyman with detect Lie.
The Captain was stated as doing nothing as he was provided with no evidence. Thats all Kelsey said.
All your argument proves is that she probably shouldn't be lawful good, and I already accepted that neutral good may be better for her. That's why I made this thread.
As for the detect lies spell, the local justice system does not use magic in criminal proceedings, and even if they did the barmaid doesn't have the money for the spell.
The guard captain didn't even investigate, despite having two guards standing over a badly beaten woman who had just accused them of a capital crime. What planet are you from that you don't see that as cause for investigation and suspension of the guards? Do you think that if this happened in modern Australia or America that the cops involved wouldn't be suspended pending investigation? They sure as hell would be.
Which is where I have been coming from.
Many options, including the 'flipped out in a blood red rage and killed them, then afterwards sought pennance'... but mutliations etc? Thats simply revenge.
now, i feel tempted to make an inquisitor of the Dawnflower who supports the idea of no mercy for the wicked.I'd take 'no mercy' to simply mean no quarter given... as opposed to slow and lingering torturous deaths.
They died fairly quickly. I used a longsword. The removal of body parts was postmortem, and it is already accepted that she want too far there and needs to atone with a priest.
Which is where I have been coming from.
Many options, including the 'flipped out in a blood red rage and killed them, then afterwards sought pennance'... but mutliations etc? Thats simply revenge.
Right, and it is already accepted that the mutilation and display of the bodies was wrong, and she needs to deal with a priest because of it.
The guard captain didn't even investigate, despite having two guards standing over a badly beaten woman who had just accused them of a capital crime. What planet are you from that you don't see that as cause for investigation and suspension of the guards? Do you think that if this happened in modern Australia or America that the cops involved wouldn't be suspended pending investigation? They sure as hell would be.
Seems like you are moving the story around a bit.
On one hand you said 'let off with a warning as he believed them and there was no evidence', now you portray an entirely different scenario.
Additionally, whether they used 'magic' in investigations is neither here nor there, you wanted evidence and proof to take to the Captain, well having a third party clergyman come along and tell the Captain that he had cast detect lie and here were his findings goes an enormous way to providing more weight to the claim for the Captain to act upon.
It seems the tide is shifting now that you aren't liking the outcomes much.
|
|
now, i feel tempted to make an inquisitor of the Dawnflower who supports the idea of no mercy for the wicked.I'd take 'no mercy' to simply mean no quarter given... as opposed to slow and lingering torturous deaths.
i was thinking a more Sadistic character who would give slow and lingering torturous deaths.
Bind and Castrate Rapists with a cheesegrater
Impale corrupt politicians on a pike and let them bleed to death
Cut the tongues out of those who slander the dawnflower
Slaughter the families of any followers of Lamashtu in cold blood for they could grow to be just as evil as the abberration mother herself.
By this part, the only thing I find funny is how heated up Shifty is getting, even after you just showed that these guards were no better than orcs with how they behaved. Either way, at least this ended in a more or less satisfying fashion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She believes in the cause of good. It's thieving, murdering, smuggling, slave trading corrupt guards that she is killing. Those two guards she killed and castrated brutally raped a woman, and then beat her into unconsciousness and left her for dead as punishment for reporting the crime, and got away with it due to being guards. They sorely deserved what happened to them, and I don't think what I did was non-good, just non-paladin.I'd question if you were even 'good' to be honest.
LN at best. LE quite possible.
Lots of people who engage in awful, wicked and evil acts do it because they think it is the "right" or "good" thing to do. It doesn't matter.
Remember, it is not only the Lawful who mete out mercy or let justice take its course. It is the good who do so, as well. Because goodness requires mercy and some measure of faith, even if only in your fellow man. Your character has no mercy, no remorse, has no faith in the system, and does not trust in other good people to enact justice. That's not good, no matter how much you want it to be.
Castrating somebody is not justice. It is revenge. Revenge is not the mark of a good character. Good guys avenge. They do not revenge.
You, yourself, say that they "sorely deserved what happened to them." According to who? A jury of their peers? A judge? Is it in keeping with the law? The tenets of some goodly faith? What if you're wrong and the victim misidentified them? What if YOU misidentified them? What if you keep doing what you're doing and SOME DAY you misidentify the perp? Will you still be good? Will you still have done the right thing? Or will you be a vigilante-turned-murderer?
Famous ancient saying: "Before embarking on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."
Another one:
"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
But here's the best one: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Responsibility to everyone, even the crook you are catching. Even the children you are protecting, who deserve better than to see that crook crucified on a wall somewhere, their psyches scarred for life. And even the community, who deserves to see real justice done, and to have faith that there could be such a thing. This is why Spider-Man does not kill.
The guard captain didn't even investigate, despite having two guards standing over a badly beaten woman who had just accused them of a capital crime. What planet are you from that you don't see that as cause for investigation and suspension of the guards? Do you think that if this happened in modern Australia or America that the cops involved wouldn't be suspended pending investigation? They sure as hell would be.
Seems like you are moving the story around a bit.
On one hand you said 'let off with a warning as he believed them and there was no evidence', now you portray an entirely different scenario.
Additionally, whether they used 'magic' in investigations is neither here nor there, you wanted evidence and proof to take to the Captain, well having a third party clergyman come along and tell the Captain that he had cast detect lie and here were his findings goes an enormous way to providing more weight to the claim for the Captain to act upon.
It seems the tide is shifting now that you aren't liking the outcomes much.
I never said the guard gave them a warning out of a lack or evidence or because she believed them. You came up with that yourself. My evidence comment was in response to what you said, and it stands. Aside from divination that is not useable in court and too expensive for us, what could I possibly show?
Plus, read above. How would the guard captain not have cause for an investigation?
I'd say LE. But I personally think a LE character fighting for the cause of good with an "every means necessary" outlook could be interesting. *Shrug*
She believes in the cause of good. It's thieving, murdering, smuggling, slave trading corrupt guards that she is killing. Those two guards she killed and castrated brutally raped a woman, and then beat her into unconsciousness and left her for dead as punishment for reporting the crime, and got away with it due to being guards. They sorely deserved what happened to them, and I don't think what I did was non-good, just non-paladin.I'd question if you were even 'good' to be honest.
LN at best. LE quite possible.Lots of people who engage in awful, wicked and evil acts do it because they think it is the "right" or "good" thing to do. It doesn't matter.
Remember, it is not only the Lawful who mete out mercy or let justice take its course. It is the good who do so, as well. Because goodness requires mercy and some measure of faith, even if only in your fellow man. Your character has no mercy, no remorse, has no faith in the system, and does not trust in other good people to enact justice. That's not good, no matter how much you want it to be.
Castrating somebody is not justice. It is revenge. Revenge is not the mark of a good character. Good guys avenge. They do not revenge.
You, yourself, say that they "sorely deserved what happened to them." According to who? A jury of their peers? A judge? Is it in keeping with the law? The tenets of some goodly faith? What if you're wrong and the victim misidentified them? What if YOU misidentified them? What if you keep doing what you're doing and SOME DAY you misidentify the perp? Will you still be good? Will you still have done the right thing? Or will you be a vigilante-turned-murderer?
Famous ancient saying: "Before embarking on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."
Another one:
"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."But here's the best one: "With...
We've already agreed the torture and mutilation was a mistake that she needs to atone for. I'm also highly leaning towards NG, not LG.
As for misidentifying them, this wasn't her first encounter with the guys, and there is plenty of precedent for extrajudicial killing being permitted of good characters in D&D.
All your argument proves is that she probably shouldn't be lawful good, and I already accepted that neutral good may be better for her. That's why I made this thread.
As for the detect lies spell, the local justice system does not use magic in criminal proceedings, and even if they did the barmaid doesn't have the money for the spell.
The guard captain didn't even investigate, despite having two guards standing over a badly beaten woman who had just accused them of a capital crime. What planet are you from that you don't see that as cause for investigation and suspension of the guards? Do you think that if this happened in modern Australia or America that the cops involved wouldn't be suspended pending investigation? They sure as hell would be.
Really, there's no reason why she couldn't remain lawful good. From the sounds of things she has a very strong moral code and a specific way she believes things should be done; if she's logical, rational and has well defined personal beliefs why can't she be lawful? Lawfulness can be expressed in ways far more meaningful than simply, "they follow the rules of the land".
Too many people here seem to ignore Kelsey's post and simply jump to conclusions. It's hard to take your opinions seriously if you don't do your homework, people D:
Betwixt seems to have made an exception though.
The guard captain knew full well about the rape allegations and the beating outside the guard house, and let the guards in question off with a warning and failed to start an investigation into their behavior. They made it clear that a trial and due process was not going to happen, as the guard captain in charge of determining who is charged with crimes was allowing her people to get away with their behavior.
^^^ So you did turn up with a lack of evidence?
At this point you only talk about 'allegations', allegations =/= evidence?
Now, if the local nobility invest you with this power, it's another game.You're forgetting, up until a few hundred years ago, there was another branch of 'the law' that was recognized by kings and queens and all their vassals.
The soldiers of the church. The class name Inquisitor comes from Inquisition, which was the police arm of the church. And their authority was as real as the baron's guards were. They reported to a similar hierarchy, all the way up to the Pope.
In this case, she's got the authority of the church behind her. Until and unless the church tells her she has lost that authority, or until the church and the kingdom work out some other deal, then she has the same authority as the city guards do. Given that the crimes they are accused of include flouting the local law, she has plenty of jurisdiction.
The Inquisition did not exist in the middle-ages. Also, I don't think the the "name" of a class gives you this kind of power. It's only a name, not a in-game political title.
Now, if in your game, your church has the political power to entitle you this vigilante role, you may well be in your right to do so. It means your chuch have a standing agreement with the local nobility in the best case, or that they are wrestling for judicial power in the worse.
But I still think you can't be a "loyal vigilante". You need to follow common rules - they may come from the king, or the pope, but they must be justified by something larger than your own definition of morality. The "law" by definition, is not something you decide for yourself. It is either a social contract, or a law given by a god, but is is by nature something that is not your "individual" take on morality.
I also don't think a loyal-good character would be justified to act in an anarchic way because the power in place is loyal-evil. They will go to war, but in a lawfull way, stating why they do so, and doing so openly. IMO they will aknowledge they are certain rules to follow, and I can't picture a loyal character acting as a vigilante. The law may be a tool for the greater good, but a necessary tool you can't discard when convenient just because someone is misusing it.
So, I think The end does not justify the mean for a loyal-good character. The mean is as signifiant for them as the end, because they can't picture good without common rules. "You did wrong so I can do wrong too" does not seem a very "loyal" way of thinking to me.
So, to awnser the OP, I would say.
Loyal good if your actions are backed by a common code recognised by a group of people. You are legally invested by this group, be it the nobility or your church, to act as an agent of morality. End and mean are equally important to you.
Neutral Good if you are acting alone, as a vigilante. The law is a tool. A tool can be used for good or bad. You think you can go against the law when it is used to shield evil, but will respect it when used for good. The end justify the mean.
Chaotic good if you think the police/army is the root of evil, because it replaces compassion with power and critical thinking with conformism. The idea of a "common law" is the root of evil, and because you see yourself as good, you will be justified to go against it. You are not a vigilante, you are a good anarchist. Your mean (freedom to make your own rules) is as important as the mean (common good) because you can't pitcure one without the other.
^^^
The allegations were enough evidence for an investigation. Let's look at that the guard captain knew. Girl accuses guards of rape (capital crime), gets taken outside the guardhouse, is beaten severely, and the two guards she accused are standing right there.
If that isn't probable cause to investigate them, I don't know what is. The fact that the guard captain did not choose to investigate is inexcusable.
Good says that there are laws and customs in place and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Good believes in the rule of law and fair trials.Good calls for arrest, restraint, and mercy.
No, that would be Law. Good belives in the inherent value of life and that it should be protected for its own sake.
How you protect it is for the most part, a different axis. Chaotic good does not believe in the law by definition. It is also by definition, good.
^^^ So you did turn up with a lack of evidence?At this point you only talk about 'allegations', allegations =/= evidence?
I think you are putting far too much emphasis on something which, beyond the current era was rather difficult to come by. Evidence is your word vs mine, and if it had already been shown that nothing intended to be done bringing in the "possibility" of magic or the like is stretching it even further. How easy do you think 3rd level clerics are to "hire out" for every crime, petty or otherwise? How many such crimes do you think would happen daily? How easy do you think it would be outside a modern setting for a few coins in the right hands to flout "justice".
I don't disagree that mercy is a very key aspect of what it entails to being truly Good; I do disagree that law, trials and the like have anything in particular to do with "Goodness" in the context of most D&D settings.
|
See above post. They committed a brutal rape, then attempted to murder the victim to get away with it, and got away with it because of their status as guards. They deserved to be punished.
By-passing jail and going straight to killing is frowned upon in Monopoly and society! If you're paladin-slash-inquisitor became a vigilante and enforced justice through capital punishment.
IMHO...
A Neutral Good individual is willing to by-pass the law to do good. I suppose it is good for good's sake, much like Neutral Evil is evil for evil's sake. Most Neutral Good individuals would err on the side of law rather than chaos because it makes society run better. (YMMV)
If you decide to that your character is judge, jury and executioner, you're riding neutral or evil territory. Dealing in absolutes is not always the most functional path to justice.
I would be siding with LN, LE or N; may be a Chaotic alignment (it would be easier to judge if I was at the table while this was being played out). If her heart is in the right place, I would persoanally not rule that she is NE. That would be conditional, depending on her future actions.
|
|
The thing is, she's equally concerned with both. She despises them for being evil and being involved in rape, slavery, attempted murder, and the like and worried that they will continue to do it, and she despises them for escaping the law by perverting it.
Unfortunately, the ends do not justify the means.
