|
As a DM of many years I still have problems with the Paladin code, well not so much when someone plays it up as a goody two shoes. My problem is... when are they walking the line or when are they Breaking it? The situation involves the following two Pc's. I like to state that we are all veteran players from 2nd edition on up and have been playing together for over 7 years, were also all friends outside of gaming and many of us work together so no newbies or unacknowledged players.
- Lawful Good Human / Paladin of Iomedae level 2
* 32 hit points / High AC
- Chaotic Good Human / Wizard follows no specific god level 2
* 19 hit points / Good AC with mage Armor
* PC had higher then average hit point due to starting with their Con Stat as base hit point instead of using the class dice.
The rest of the groups alignments are all Neutral or chaotic neutral.
Paladin's Code of Conduct
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Iomedae
- Is the goddess of righteous valor, justice, and honor. Having served as Aroden's herald, she inherited many of the Last Azlanti's followers upon his death, and continues to espouse the ideas of honor and righteousness in the defense of good and the battle against evil.
The Church of Iomedae is assertive and vigilant in rooting out evil. Iomedae's priests are composed of clerics and paladins. Personal cleanliness as well as an honorable demeanor are both very important for her followers.
Lawful Good alignment
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Chaotic Good alignment
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Here is what happened, it involved the two PCs and here is how I ruled it but now I am starting to second guess myself so I would like some help.
Situation
- PC's are on the high seas as crew on the Scurvy Duchess and volunteered as a boarding party to search a derelict ship that the Captain wanted to salvage per maritime law. They defeated the monsters on the ship and were returning to the Scurvy Duchess via the launch boat when they were surprised attacked by vicious Red Hand Goblin Pirates captained by(adv templated) Troglodyte.
There were several other PC's involved and the Goblins were soundly defeated in quick order. The Goblins spoke only Goblin and did not understand common. The goblin ship was boarded and the Trog BBEG was killed in round 2 in fair combat. The PC's then quickly killed the majority of the goblins who were still viciously attacking the PC's group.
Two goblins seeing their fellow goblins surrender,(one of the non involved PCs spoke goblin and convinced one to give up) or fall asleep due to the wizard, retreated to the ships hold and the Paladin pursued them. Once he had them cornered he offered them a chance to surrender (spoken in common and used Detect Evil to verify their alignment). The goblins not understanding him and seeing him stand their with a bloody bastard sword that mere moments before had killed their captain attacked the paladin. The Paladin killed them.
* Point in fact - The goblins were not doing well in combat and the PC's were never really threatened and had not expended many resources on the ship they just disembarked from. The Paladin stated he did not know they could not understand him. I let it stand with no repercussions.
The PC's ended up capturing a total of 5 Goblins due to the wizards sleep spell(3) and RP(1) by the groups leader using goblin language and by grapple and disarm (1). The Goblins were then bound and taken aboard the launch. They returned to the Scurvy Duchess but the Captain would not let the goblins on board unless the PC's vouched for them and were responsible for their actions while they were on board. The group leader vouched for his one(much fun RP hijinks soon to follow in more sessions... muahh ahhh but I digress), the PC that grappled his vouched as well.
* The Wizard refused to vouch for his three and as the group was talking (in character) about disarming them and setting them free back on their ship, The wizard decided to coupe them while they were helpless and bound, using a wand of magic missiles. Mind you this happened in front of the PC's including the paladin but they were on the ship while the wizard was still in the launch.
I believe in Real Life the players were so stunned at the unexpected actions of the player that they failed to react to it and so in that fact the PC's did not attempt to stop the act.
I ruled that the Wizard would have to change his alignment to chaotic neutral and let the Paladin alignment stand. The Paladin was on the Scurvy Duchess at this point and the Wizard was in the Launch so whether he knew what was happening or not is in question?
* Note: We have house ruled (agreed upon as a group) that no role is required to kill a bound and helpless creature. you just state you are killing them and they are dead.
The Wizard is complaining about the alignment change and says the Paladin should be shifted as well as he knew they did not understand common the therefor couldn't know to surrender to him while he had them corned in the hold.
So Did I make the right call or should something be changed?
Thanks.
|
Well, maritime law of the day allowed for the execution of pirates, even those who had surrendered. If the Paladin felt that he/she could not vouch for them, and that if released they would return to their evil ways, they would be honor bound to kill them. I wouldn't call that in and of itself enough to make a paladin fall or the wizard to change alignment. Let them know you felt that was on the fence, and acting much beyond that would cause a shift. Iomedae would probably have dropped the goblins herself, I can't see her being that upset that the Paladin did it for her.
Does the paladin in fact have knowledge religion? If so did he roll?
If not or if he failed the roll how would he know what they spoke?
Paladin is fine IMHO
The goblins had every chance to surrender to the paladin; instead, they suicidally charged him. You don't need to understand someone to beg for mercy, and the fact that the paladin didn't charge them and kill them directly would have been a tip off anyway. Paladin is fine.
Wizard went for expedience over "good", but then CG is just the kind of alignment to think that goblins, especially murderous pirate goblins, didn't deserve mercy and that the seas would be safer without them. Without knowing the wizard's motivations, I could only flag the event and watch for a pattern of behavior and intent later.
I do wonder, why didn't the other PCs (including paladin) vouch for the wizard's goblins instead? Seems strange that it would have to be that particular PC doing the vouching.
|
|
I do wonder, why didn't the other PCs (including paladin) vouch for the wizard's goblins instead? Seems strange that it would have to be that particular PC doing the vouching.
It was after combat free of rounds so the whole group was kinda talking at once and RPing with me. I talked with the leader and the PC that grappled his as they approached me first and had the mini's goblins with them on the Scurvy Duchess. The Wizards mini and 3 remaining goblins were still in the launch and he was not trying to RP with the captain.
It was a bit confusing, I admit.
The Paladin killed them in self defense. During the heat of battle people will make mistakes. But the Wizard knowingly and consciously slaughtered 3 helpless and bound intelligent creatures. Just to clarify did the pally detect them as evil?
|
|
The Paladin killed them in self defense. During the heat of battle people will make mistakes. But the Wizard knowingly and consciously slaughtered 3 helpless and bound intelligent creatures. Just to clarify did the pally detect them as evil?
Yes. "Paladin pursued them. Once he had them cornered he offered them a chance to surrender (spoken in common and used Detect Evil to verify their alignment)"
How did the wizard justify his actions?
|
|
For one, detect evil shouldn't have given the Paladin anything, on the grounds that you need to have 5 or more HD in order to even register as evil faintly I believe.
Therefore the detect evil wouldn't have registered them as anything.
All be it if the Paladin didn't feel that he could vouch for the goblins then fine, also, if they attacked him then that is fair enough to kill them.
You are correct. Over the years the Dm's in this group have just kinda glossed over that fact.
|
|
How did the wizard justify his actions?
Well as you know any group that's been together a long time has friction and quirks. This Player (although a good friend of mine) like to stand out from the group not in combat but in as being not like everyone else. If were a evil group he plays a good PC and if were a good group plays evil. Just the way he is...
Sorry; I meant the wizard character, not the wizard player. (Yeah, I know what you mean re: the Party Alignment Killer. Makes for interesting situations, at least.)
Well by 'Law' the Goblin Pirtaes would have only been executed on the shore,so the Wizard has only done what was inevitable.
He didn't kill them under the flag of parley, and as they are pirates they are not really entitled to clemency or quarter.
Paladin totally ok.
Wizard, not 'nice', but Chaotic Good isn't Carebear Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along the same lines our (7th lvl) barbarian slaughtered a tavern of innocents:
- kicked down door of tavern, knocked over a serving wench
- he tried to intimidate the crowd (looking for an assassin that had ran into the tavern)
- someone shoved him
- he responded by cutting the guy in half with his axe
- so some of the bar flies rush him with their dinner knives
- he cuts them down
- bar maid tries to hit him with a platter
- he cuts her down and orders his dog to attack
- a group of bar flies managed to kill his dog while he was off killing their friends
- kills the patron that killed the dog
All told he probably killed at least a dozen 1st lvl commoners and 2 1st lvl warriors (town guard that were drinking in the tavern). After he killed the bar maid our other tank came in and attempted to knock him out with a sap.
He *still* has CN written on his sheet so I guess by comparison the wizard in WhipShire's example isn't looking so bad.
|
|
Along the same lines our (7th lvl) barbarian slaughtered a tavern of innocents:
- kicked down door of tavern, knocked over a serving wench
- he tried to intimidate the crowd (looking for an assassin that had ran into the tavern)
- someone shoved him
- he responded by cutting the guy in half with his axe
- so some of the bar flies rush him with their dinner knives
- he cuts them down
- bar maid tries to hit him with a platter
- he cuts her down and orders his dog to attack
- a group of bar flies managed to kill his dog while he was off killing their friends
- kills the patron that killed the dogAll told he probably killed at least a dozen 1st lvl commoners and 2 1st lvl warriors (town guard that were drinking in the tavern). After he killed the bar maid our other tank came in and attempted to knock him out with a sap.
He *still* has CN written on his sheet so I guess by comparison the wizard in WhipShire's example isn't looking so bad.
ROFL... WOW!
Along the same lines our (7th lvl) barbarian slaughtered a tavern of innocents:
- kicked down door of tavern, knocked over a serving wench
- he tried to intimidate the crowd (looking for an assassin that had ran into the tavern)
- someone shoved him
- he responded by cutting the guy in half with his axe
- so some of the bar flies rush him with their dinner knives
- he cuts them down
- bar maid tries to hit him with a platter
- he cuts her down and orders his dog to attack
- a group of bar flies managed to kill his dog while he was off killing their friends
- kills the patron that killed the dogAll told he probably killed at least a dozen 1st lvl commoners and 2 1st lvl warriors (town guard that were drinking in the tavern). After he killed the bar maid our other tank came in and attempted to knock him out with a sap.
He *still* has CN written on his sheet so I guess by comparison the wizard in WhipShire's example isn't looking so bad.
Huh. I can think of a few character types for this that might be CN. Not many, but a few.
@blaphers
The player is claiming that the barbarian was in the right because "[t]hey attacked him first!" and the GM ruled that the barbarian remains CN instead of CE because he was acting ethically within his frame of reference.
Personally, I think that the barbarian should just give in and start taking levels of anti-paladin. God knows he could use the will save bonuses.
@blaphers
The player is claiming that the barbarian was in the right because "[t]hey attacked him first!" and the GM ruled that the barbarian remains CN instead of CE because he was acting ethically within his frame of reference.
Personally, I think that the barbarian should just give in and start taking levels of anti-paladin. God knows he could use the will save bonuses.
I doubt the "attack" even did non-lethal damage.
Responding with lethal force is only something a CE or NE person would do.
I would agree with the rest. Paladin is ok. He offered surrender, it should have been clear from his tone and posture what he was saying even if they don't understood him.
Wizard... I'm not sure I'd have put him down to CN for this, but given him a slap on the wrist instead.
What I find curious though is, why does the wizard player insist the paladin gets alignment shifted as well, especially since he knows what that would mean for a paladin, where as for him it's merely changing a letter on his sheet? I mean that's not very nice group behaviour there.
I don't think he'd be happy if the paladin suggests next time they're captured "You know, they shouldn't just take his spellbook away, they should be smart about it and burn it right away. Also why does noone ever rip out a wizard's tongue so he can't cast spells with verbal components anymore?"
|
|
Execution of nuisance prisoners who would be executed under the law anyway (brigands/pirates) isn't evil. It's self serving. I'd say it's neutral.
There aren't any rules on how quickly one switches alignment from certain acts.
As DM I'd rule this wouldn't push a character to evil no matter how many times they did it, but it would drift them towards neutral.
There are legitimate (in the "self-consistent" sense, anyway) perspectives that could maintain a chaotic good alignment while briskly executing captive goblin pirates. It fits some flavors of the vigilante hero type. Capture, interrogate, execute; why wait for the law to do it or risk them escaping and killing/robbing more innocent people? And sure, let them surrender first; it'll be that much easier to take out the trash.
It may sound evil to a lot of us, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable calling it an objective assessment.
I would actually claim that both of the characters are completely fine. If we look at the monks "vow of peace" then he is not even required to stop slaughtering people that he feels cannot be converted to a peaceful member of society, something that it definately can be argued that evil goblin pirates cant.
I do realise that DnDs allignment system has many flaws, and we can discuss stuff like that for ages.
But if we look at the wizard deed, if pirates are executed like they were in the real world, then executing them is actually a lawful deed, because that is what the law would do.
As for killing evil creatures while bound i would say it can be roleplayed both ways, but killing creatures that are generic evil in dnd is actually a good deed (you save people from getting hurt), so i would let him get away with it.
In my mind you have to let DnD be very black and white allignment wise or their allignment system is simply going to give to many problems, and the paladin code of conduct would suck even more.
an example would be a paladin hell bend on erasing evil from the world, engaging and killing anything that lights up with detect evil (or is known to be evil). possibly with the restriction that in a city he would try to get the law involved first. This paladin could definately be played as a zealus lawfull good type, just very extreme, even if we modern people would think him evil for butchering a goblin village of women and kids after taking out the men.
I agree that pally is okay. Were he exalted (have those rules been converted from 3.5 yet?) it would be another story, but he isn't.
Wizard... well. I would definitely not change his alignment based on one occurence. But I would warn him. Were he to do something like this more often I might force him to shift alignments after a few more occurences. I would also ask the group to RP noticing how the wizard seems to be on a slippery slope. The pally especially.
Also: just because stepping across the line has worse consequences for a pally than anyone else, it does not mean the pally gets off easier, or even as easy as anyone else. The alignment requirement is there for a reason.
|
The Paldin did not violate his code. The wizard, having no code, should not have his alignment shifted immediately. If this act is one of a long chain of such actions, then yes, a switch to CN would be in order.
Had the goblins not been killed, they would have likely presented a more difficult dilemma for the Paladin. Since the captain of the ship is the highest authority at hand, he can order the goblins' execution, though the Paladin would be obliged to object to killing helpless prisoners. The goblins would certainly face execution when returned to a port anyway, so that is still no reasonable solution for the Paladin. Perhaps putting the goblins in a launch and setting them adrift would satisfy the Paladins code. The goblins have a chance to survive and no one else is in danger.
I'd say that in the future, the Wizard should cast something other than a Sleep spell if he does not want prisoners.
Based on R.A. Salvatore's version of CG, in the form of Drizzt, all is fine with the wizard. In one of the Dark Elf Triology books, Drizzt explains how Ocrs (his favored enemy) are all inherently evil and deserve no quarter. I would say goblins are the same. They are just too much trouble to have to deal with. We all know that if they had the chance they would do the same thing to the wizard. As such the wizard was just protecting themselves.
FYI: I got ride of the alignment system and detection spells in my games. Makes for MUCH better role playing.
The wizard did not kill people. He killed GOBLINS. Evil creatures that have no purpose in life except make life crap for other races.
I would no more have his alignment changed than a house-owner who disposes of vermin.
The wizard was wise to not vouch for the EVIL goblins. And he was honorable for ending their lives himself, rather than having someone else do it. And he was GOOD for defeating evil monsters so they can no longer spread their ways.
"The only thing that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The wizard did not kill people. He killed GOBLINS. Evil creatures that have no purpose in life except make life crap for other races.
I would no more have his alignment changed than a house-owner who disposes of vermin.
But Pathfinder differs between sentient beings and vermin. In any case, helpless beings that sren't posing any threat because they're bound? It may not be evil to kill them but it isn't good either.
To comment on the justice system and pirates vs. pally codes: The pally could probably execute the goblins himself were they given a fair trial where they were sentenced to death. ;)
|
Based on R.A. Salvatore's version of CG, in the form of Drizzt, all is fine with the wizard. In one of the Dark Elf Triology books, Drizzt explains how Ocrs (his favored enemy) are all inherently evil and deserve no quarter. I would say goblins are the same. They are just too much trouble to have to deal with. We all know that if they had the chance they would do the same thing to the wizard. As such the wizard was just protecting themselves.
FYI: I got ride of the alignment system and detection spells in my games. Makes for MUCH better role playing.
Actually Drizzt's favored enemies were Goblins. And it should be interesting to note that in a later short story Salvatore had Drizzt come across a goblin slave who was not at all evil. (Not really good, either. Just very downtrodden and not malicious at all . . . LN, if I had to venture a guess.) In one of the later books he even references it where Drizzt comes across a tribe of goblins and searches for a peaceful resolution instead of killing them. (The deal falls apart when they threaten to rape Catti-Brie.) But I think Salvatore's own view on the matter matured a bit and he definitely made Drizzt a bit more merciful.
Where the Lawful/Chaotic line delineates is not the difference between vicious and merciful. (If anything, a CG character would be more merciful as he should be more concerned with being kind than just.) A more apt difference would be the CG character suggesting putting the goblins adrift and the LG character insisting they be brought before a (presumably good) captain for his judgment according to maritime law and the customs of the ship.
My personal philosophy would be that no creature, no matter how wicked or vicious or stupid, can be slaughtered while helpless without it being an evil act. After all, what makes them evil is their willingness to do just those sorts of things, and more often than not, they turn it on one another. I don't think one act should be enough to change the Wizard's alignment, but he should definitely be warned against it in the future.
My personal philosophy would be that no creature, no matter how wicked or vicious or stupid, can be slaughtered while helpless without it being an evil act. After all, what makes them evil is their willingness to do just those sorts of things, and more often than not, they turn it on one another. I don't think one act should be enough to change the Wizard's...
Too exploitable to be a viable rule. And it puts others at risk.
Evil clerics, demons and dragons aside, what do you do when a high level monster/villain surrenders? Should the local law enforcement risk their lives trying to contain it? When it breaks free, all the lives lost in its escape will be on your head. The PCs are often the ONLY force that can even stop an enemy. If the enemy can be contained, fair enough, but taking non-goodly creatures prisoners is usually not a good idea.
Too exploitable to be a viable rule. And it puts others at risk.
Evil clerics, demons and dragons aside, what do you do when a high level monster/villain surrenders? Should the local law enforcement risk their lives trying to contain it? When it breaks free, all the lives lost in its escape will be on your head. The PCs are often the ONLY force that can even stop an enemy. If the enemy can be contained, fair enough, but taking non-goodly creatures prisoners is usually not a good idea.
Have to agree there; forcing the PCs into a Joker Immunity type of situation where no matter how much damage the bad guy does he can just say "I surrender" and get off completely free (since it would take him less than five minutes to escape NPC custody) isn't a good way of doing things.
{stuff}
I think you made the correct call. The paladin didn't do anything wrong per se, he did offer foes a chance to surrender and he was not in a position to intervene with the executions.
Maritime law would indeed have the death penalty for piracy BUT a paladin should be concerned with due process as well, and not summary execution. Likewise, the actions of the wizard while not evil were very questionable. The 'Good' part of the alignment means that expedience does not get priority over doing what's right. While the wizard certainly shouldn't be concerned with due process, he shouldn't be concerned with what the rules say either, so maritime law is not a defence for him.
I'm not sure I would have reduced his alignment for one incident, but that's your call.
|
...I ruled that the Wizard would have to change his alignment to chaotic neutral and let the Paladin alignment stand...
...The Wizard is complaining about the alignment change and says the Paladin should be shifted as well as he knew they did not understand common the therefor couldn't know to surrender to him while he had them corned in the hold.
So Did I make the right call or should something be changed?
On the Paladin:
You did the right thing.Here are 3 points as to why:
1) Firstly, the most IMPORTANT thing - is Iomedae piss off at her Paladin?
Paladins serve a Deity. Paladins get their powers from them.
So the big question is, is Iomedae angry at the Paladin's actions?
Cos seriously, if a Deity is going to get upset at every little flaw that their servants commit, they are going to run out of servants really fast.
Its like.... oops! You bought the wrong incense to burn at my altar... BAM! You are no longer my Cleric/Paladin/Worshiper.... WTH?
It makes no sense for a Deity to punish a worshiper for every small mistake they made.
The gods are not that petty. (at least most are not.)
If Iomedae is not upset, why should the wizard be?
-
2) Only the Paladin and his Deity knows what happened in there.
What happened in the ship is known only to the Paladin and his Deity. Its for them to decided what the outcome is. (Deity here means the DM... lol)
-
3) A Paladin is LG not "Lawful Stupid". Mercy is expected, but not required of a Paladin. Same for obeying the laws.
Yes, he should try to capture the Goblins if they surrendered, but he is never REQUIRED to.
Aka, attacking the paladin then say "sorry" does not mean the paladin must forgive you. If he is kind and caring, he should, but he does not HAVE to.
Like what Chengar have said, saying "I surrender" or "I'm sorry" or "Please forgive me" is not a Clear All Aggro magic button.
-----------------
On the Wizard -
YES he should get that change of alignment.
A character's Alignment is not just for the purpose of spells effects.
Its a measure of how they see themselves and how OTHERS see them.
A Evil person could believe with all his/her heart that an evil deed like. killing others, is right, but that does not mean that others see it so.
He killed 3 KILLED helpless "prisoners" in front of others. What does he expect these people to think of his actions?
If he suddenly start... say... molesting! A child opening in front of his party, does he expect the party to go "oh... well he is just horny... lol"???
No Sane party will just "over-look" such behavior.
If he like to make "unexpected" actions then he should be prepared to face the consequences of such actions.
|
|
Just my thoughts: This kind of thing comes up quite a bit, alignment is one of those things that are hard to judge and it depends on if you see them as hard and fast rules to be followed to the letter or guidelines to assist in role playing, I generally see them as the latter.
In most cases where alignment is going to shift I don't "force" it on anyone, before they commit an act I say that in character they feel something, like a lump in their throat or a twing in the pit of their stomach, then out of character I tell them something like "If your character follows through with this next action it may change your alignment". That was you can usually avoid someone getting an alignment change without them willingly accepting it was a possibility.
Now in this specific case I feel the wizard is comparing the two situations unfairly, since they're not the same. The paladin had no way of knowing if the goblins were surrendering or not, and after confirming there alignment he could, within his alignment, easily assume that they would only cause more pain and misery in the future. An opponent who has surrendered is also not a defeated opponent, how many times in movies has the villain said, "I yield!" or "I give up, I swear, don't hurt me!" and then stabbed the hero in the back as soon as he could? However if you have an opponent tied up, bound and helpless then it's a very different situation and killing them now would be in much more of a grey area for alignment change, but no good character would willingly murder bound opponents, and that's what it really is, murder.
Just my thoughts :)
|
|
Wow... such great conversations going here, thanks for all the input!
OK I am good to go with the Paladin staying his alignment.
Looks like the Majority think I should warn the Wizard and not give him a shift. I will reverse the rule.
I like in game effects so how this for an answer...
I will use in game RP of him getting a 3 - 4 nights of bad sleep / dreams (of the incident) over the course of several weeks, that leave him fatigued in the morning. Unlike normal fatigue it will clear itself during the time it takes for him to study his spellbook each day to prepare his spells.
I am enjoying reading the discussion and seeing how others handle alignments. I might have to look at my own handling of alignment system, i always been pretty hardcore on it but that may change.
Paladin is fine.
Wizard is fine and within his alignment of chaotic good to me. The goblins are evil, they are pirates, they could not be safely vouched for, they are not going to suddenly change their ways and repent, the wizard is not lawful so he won't go for any kind of trial. If the wizard did make a habit out of killing unarmed and helpless foes then I'd probably have him change alignments to CN. For this singular act alone, he'd just get watched carefully by me to see if he forms a pattern.