| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rorshack of Watchmen is an excellent example on how a spandex vigilante who engages in this sort of behavior is NOT a hero.On the contrary, Rorshack is the most heroic of the New Watchmen. Possibly of all of them, but we can't really compare him to those like the original Night Owl and Dollar Bill who lived apparently blameless lives and weren't there at the end.
Adrian Viedt killed, in the comic, half the population of New York City by his own estimate. As of the 1980 census that would be 3.5 million people.
Only one person of the four there was willing to stand for justice. He may have been a little deranged and unfashionably violent towards rapists and murderers and made a habit of intimidating skinheads, but he alone of those who knew what Viedt had done cared that he had committed half a holocaust without showing remorse. And he died for his conviction. Like a hero should when push comes to shove.
Yep, I too am in the Rorschach is a hero camp. I especially like the story about the little girl and the killer, which Rorschach insists happened when he was still "soft".
Dnd can get really dark. Sometimes being results oriented isn't necessarily a bad thing. Are rapes down? Will the rapists rape again? Without their wands of rape they won't. Current guards may think twice about being so corrupt and so obviously evil. There is a wand-trimmer out there watching the night and prowling the streets.
In a game, there was a paladin who came across 3 orc knights trying to rape a village washer-woman(orc knights I know, lol). He told them to get off her and they leapt at him. He ended up killing them, barely. So close to incapacitation. The character knew there was a "nearby" guard outpost. The result of that was the DM forced the character to lose all his divine powers since he felt the lawful thing to do was to arrest them and take them to the guard-post. Problem here is that it was two hours ride away. There and back to get help would take about 4 hours. Furthermore, they hit him so hard that he was on single digit hp after the encounter. Imagine taking -4 to all attacks to try and subdue them. He'd probably get killed and then they would still rape her anyway. Its already been acknowledged that castrating them is going a bit far for lawful good, not too much for CG or even NG in specific circumstances. Problem paladins face is that they uphold the law but are also good aligned. Sometimes tht can clash. However, the reason they enforce the law is that they believe it to be a tool of justice, that laws are there to help the people and overall the community. Choosing good over law isn't necessarily an immediate deal-breaker. DMs should be careful about stripping divine class characters of their juice unless the character really did something drastically opposite to their alignment. A warning or two maybe should be given before the hammer of judgement comes down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a game, there was a paladin who came across 3 orc knights trying to rape a village washer-woman(orc knights I know, lol). He told them to get off her and they leapt at him. He ended up killing them, barely. So close to incapacitation. The character knew there was a "nearby" guard outpost. The result of that was the DM forced the character to lose all his divine powers since he felt the lawful thing to do was to arrest them and take them to the guard-post. Problem here is that it was two hours ride away. There and back to get help would take about 4 hours. Furthermore, they hit him so hard that he was on single digit hp after the encounter. Imagine taking -4 to all attacks to try and subdue them. He'd probably get killed and then they would still rape her anyway. Its already been acknowledged that castrating them is going a bit far for lawful good, not too much for CG or even NG in specific circumstances. Problem paladins face is that they uphold the law but are also good aligned. Sometimes tht can clash. However, the reason they enforce the law is that they believe it to be a tool of justice, that laws are there to help the people and overall the community. Choosing good over law isn't necessarily an immediate deal-breaker. DMs should be careful about stripping divine class characters of their juice unless the character really did something drastically opposite to their alignment. A warning or two maybe should be given before the hammer of judgement comes down.
That DM was an idiot. There's nothing wrong with killing in self defense.
They drew first, leapt to the attack, they got what they deserved. Ridding the world of violent chaotic rapists trying to kill you is lawful good.
If they don't come along quietly, then alas (pulls out greataxe). Also paladins are more fun with giant axes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit that there are some grey areas. It can get relative. However, the rules are very clear about alignment. There are descriptions for each one. Its all about taking the actions and matching it to the closest alignment and extrapolating it to the character in the long run. There are also gods for every alignment. They exemplify in their own way how an alignment should be. The problem with the relativist argument is that characters will be justifying burning down entire communities of neutral and some evil individuals. At the same time claiming they are good-aligned.
Yep. DM was an idiot. No argument there.
Well, not everything is a capital offense, for one thing.
If society holds anything to be a capital offense, premeditated murder for the purpose of covering up other crimes would certainly be. Some jurisdictions would consider rape-- outright sexual violence with no mitigating circumstances-- to be a capital offense, and I would agree with them. She didn't just cut down a couple of shoplifters in the market bazaar; if she had, even I would be arguing she was evil.
Well, not everything is a capital offense, for one thing.If society holds anything to be a capital offense, premeditated murder for the purpose of covering up other crimes would certainly be. Some jurisdictions would consider rape-- outright sexual violence with no mitigating circumstances-- to be a capital offense, and I would agree with them. She didn't just cut down a couple of shoplifters in the market bazaar; if she had, even I would be arguing she was evil.
Dude, I tried making these points in the original thread, and have since decided to keep quiet and watch.
My pally pushes over cripples in wheelchairs just to see them obey the LAW of gravity :P
This whole issue is dead. The paladin never actually became an inquisitor, even though it was planned, and atoned with a priest over some of the more extreme actions. The guard captain eventually got her comeuppance when my paladin's rebellion, which expanded to include many individuals and resulted in several more dead government officials, got to the point that the King's Army had to calm things down, which ended with the King deciding that the guards had been getting away with way too much, and several, including the captain, being hanged. My paladin escaped punishment, as the King chose to let her actions go in light of what she was fighting. Then, in a separate scene, I lost the paladin character after I had the gall to take the Test of the Starstone after deciding that a new Lawful Good deity was needed to espouse beliefs she had that none of her deities shared.
ZOMG kels, don't be afraid to tell us about the awesome parts!
ZOMG kels, don't be afraid to tell us about the awesome parts!
It was actually less epic that it should have been. The GM didn't see "I'm going to take the Test of the Starstone" coming or know how to create such a test, so it was just a bunch of skill rolls. I did get to pick out my domains afterwards, though.
Wait, at what level did she take the Test?! O__O
Wait, at what level did she take the Test?! O__O
6. The GM ruled that the test is a test of heart, and that one's suitability for divinity isn't connected to one's character level or sheer power, because if it were every epic level character would become a deity.
I can't play that character ever again, but it was worth it. At least now I have a new Lawful Good deity my new character can worship.
|
Rhorshack's plea to Manhattan wasn't heroic... it was putting the responsibility for his choices on someone else's shoulders. He pushed Manhattan to murder him because he wouldn't himself choose to change his own actions for the greater good. In fact, I'd say Rhorshach's last act was one of ethical and moral cowardice.
Justice and Heroism aren't the same thing. Yes Veidt killed millions of people. Now this is in a context where Billions are about to be snuffed in a war started by Nixon. I'm not going into whether Veidt's action was justified because he's not the topic. The fact is that Rhorshack had no compunctions about tipping the world back into the Armageddon countdown because for him his concern is not justice, not the potential lives that would be lost but Retribution. That's why Night Owl and Spectre aren't blowing the whistle on Ozzy as much as they want to.Remember his last statement. "No compromise... even in the face of Armageddon."
I think that's a misread of Rorschach. He won't compromise on his view of justice, which may have retributive elements to it, but isn't just about retribution itself. At least I don't think so. In fact, I think he can't relinquish his absolute view of justice and he knows it, which is why he tells Dr. Manhattan to "Do it", meaning vaporize him, an act that will keep Veidt's mass murder secret... for a time. And I believe Rorschach knows that.
I don't think I'd call Rorschach the most heroic of the Watchmen - a pretty tarnished bunch overall. He's effective and he won't give up, but I think hero has to transcend a bit more.
I strongly disagree, he was saying if you want this secret kept you will have to kill me. He knew he would seek out justice, even if that would undo the benefit of the atrocity, and if they wanted the secret kept they would have to kill him. HE ALONE could not stomach pure evil for utilitarian ends.
I lost the paladin character after I had the gall to take the Test of the Starstone after deciding that a new Lawful Good deity was needed to espouse beliefs she had that none of her deities shared.
Haha I took this to mean that your paladin had the audacity to become a god and got smushed in the process.
Wait, at what level did she take the Test?! O__O6. The GM ruled that the test is a test of heart
Canonically the first test of the Starstone is to enter the Starstone. Basically, it is a giant rock that's in the center of an enormous circular pit. There is a bridge to and from it, but the real entrance is on the side-- with no entrance or exit and about 60 feet of sheer drop inbetween the 'Stone and the ledge. You must get into the Starstone. While this is easy with a potion of fly, it does say that a lot of "wannabe gods" end up just jumping off of the edge of the pit and plummeting to their death thinking they will just manifest god powers and float there.
If you can pass the only canonical test then good on you, if you can't, whatever-- just wanted to share the only part of the test in the book that's core canon.