| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The Paladin falls. No one ever said being good was easy, or fun. Sometimes being good means letting a murderer/rapist live. Sometimes it even means helping them overcome the urge to do evil. That's what good is. Murdering someone due to their actions is still murder. It's just socially acceptable.
Also, Gygax kinda got the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" thing wrong. Not bashing him, a lot of us do, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Paladins are expected to kill people in the game. No, he does not fall. If he falls for that then Paladins should be falling for a lot of other kills they make. Also letting certain people live can cause more harm, and it is a paladin'd duty to protect, more than it is to give every "sorry that I am caught" guy a 2nd chance.
@ the OP: As you can see different GM's run paladins differently, and players are not mind readers. So even if you think he should fall give the player a pass then explain what you expect at YOUR table. If he no longer wishes to play a paladin allow him to change his class, just to be fair.
Well the moral question there is killing a helpless blind man who cannot resist.
The other two could be killed because they were still fighting. The heat of battle puts things into a different context.
Not that they should fall for an execution in this case. Just giving a bit of context.
A much better example would be from a 'paladin falls' thread I saw where the paladin worships a 'redemption' god, but got goaded into killing the prisoner by empty threats made at her family (since hey- they were already captured and being brought in). Just up and randomly killing that guy was definitely non-kosher (maybe not fall, but a slight tick or two closer to it), since it allowing your emotions to rule over you and then kill an unresistant opponent. Maybe not evil, but chaotic at least, and definitely not honorable.
But a proper execution? With the closest thing to proper procedure you can get on the battlefield? Sure, that is fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then the GM can turn around and say the paladin falls for not killing him later on after his blindness is cured and he escapes and rapes more people.
Of course someone will ask what if his blindness is not cured. Well in that case the man is in prison with other men most likely just as evil with no sight, and he might die anyway. That is not really any less cruel than killing him. Placing him in the hands of someone who will just indirectly cause his death.
Ok, so what if the paladin just leaves him blinded in the warzone? That is also almost a sure death, and not really much better than actually killing him. It is just a passive-aggressive form of "mercy" if you want to call it that.
etc etc ..more scenarios and reasons why a GM may say "you are now without your powers"
PS: This is why the one time I played a paladin I asked the GM how he did things to avoid cases of "no matter what you lose".
Lemeres I am aware you were not advocating any no-win scenarios.
The question is does he kill a helpless prisoner, or a raper who was caught in the act whom he judges according to the laws of his deity or the local customs?
I would say on of the best examples of a paladin was Ned Stark. The book and the movie begins with him executing a member of the nightwatch who deserted. And we know he why he deserted.
Judge him, tell him his verdict, and then do the deed. Report your superiors.
Judging from the posts, this is another Paladin Catch-22 situation. Fall if you do, fall if you don't.
The rapist is blind, weaponless, and asking for mercy. He has offered no resistance whatsoever, and present no threat to anyone while on his knees and begging.
So at this point we step back and ask ourselves. What does the Alignment rules have to say on this topic?
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
So as we can see, killing others is actually evil. The paladin is not defending himself, he's not being altruistic, respectful of life, or showing concern for the dignity of another sentient being. So him summarily executing this guy, is not touching on any aspects of Good or Neutral behavior. He's simply killing a guy, a guy who has not offered him combat or threat, only pleas for mercy.
To me, this seems like a clear-cut evil act, since he's just killing to placate his sense of injustice, which is not what being a paladin is about.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
"Punish", not summarily execute. When you join the club of the ultimate mortal paragons of goodness and righteousness, you relinquish your claim on the Judge Dredd character concept.
Execution or murder?
Murder.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three evil doers caught in the act of Rape and pillage in a Warzone.
Party happens upon them and immediately blind them all. Two bads slaughtered in round one. Third bad falls to his knees Blind,Weaponless,Pants around his ankles. Surrendering and begging for Mercy. Can the Paladin walk up and just kill him?Paladin says it is execution and is totally in his rights to do without issues to his alignment or Paladinness.
I would say it depends.
Did he just walk over to the begging criminal and kill him?Or did he elaborate his actions?
Example 1: Paladin walks over to the man who is on his knees and kills him without saying a word or even with a snarl: Murder.
Example 2: Paladin walks over. "In the absence of a proper jurisdiction I am holding a field trial. You are a criminal and have done things that are punishable by death. So my sentence is: Death by the sword. Any final words before your soul will be judged by Pharasma?: Execution
Example 2 makes it clear that the paladin did not kill out of anger but as a divine agent of justice. He might feel anger but he is not controlled by it. He shows dignity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rapist is blind, weaponless, and asking for mercy. He has offered no resistance whatsoever, and present no threat to anyone while on his knees and begging.
So at this point we step back and ask ourselves. What does the Alignment rules have to say on this topic?
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
So as we can see, killing others is actually evil. The paladin is not defending himself, he's not being altruistic, respectful of life, or showing concern for the dignity of another sentient being. So him summarily executing this guy, is not touching on any aspects of Good or Neutral behavior. He's simply killing a guy, a guy who has not offered him combat or threat, only pleas for mercy.
To me, this seems like a clear-cut evil act, since he's just killing to placate his sense of injustice, which is not what being a paladin is about.
...Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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
The paladin is protecting other people from this man.
How many times would he have to escape prison and commit the same crime before it becomes "not evil" in your opinion?
edit: Punish via killing. What other ways does a paladin have to punish someone other than torture which likely falls under evil and dishonorable?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 2 key elements
Caught in the act (Literally) and war.
While we all know soldiers do horrible things in war, in most civilized countries if you commit as a rape you will get the same punishment as if you commited murder.
Punishable crimes
Currently, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 14 offenses are punishable by death. Under the following sections of the UCMJ, the death penalty can be imposed at any time:
94 - Mutiny or sedition
99 - Misbehavior before the enemy
100 - Subordinate compelling surrender
101 - Improper use of countersign
102 - Forcing a safeguard
104 - Aiding the enemy
106a - Espionage
110 - Improper hazarding of vessel
118 - Murder (including both premeditated murder and felony murder)
120 - Rape (including child rape)[5]
Now the paladin has no chance to arrest the person and send it back for trial. Under combat operation standards an officer has the right AND duty if the situation demands it to judge the person and execute him.
I repeat right AND duty!
So again walk to him and kill him manslaughter.
Judge him, and execute him. The honorable and right thing to do!
The paladin is protecting other people from this man.
Not really, since he's not a threat to anyone presently. You are not protecting anyone from this man. You are just killing an unarmed, blind criminal.
How many times would he have to escape prison and commit the same crime before it becomes "not evil" in your opinion?
If the man repeatedly escapes imprisonment and hurts others, that is not the paladin's fault. Killing a blind, relatively helpless, unarmed man who is begging for his life will not stop being evil. Naturally you can then ask the question, whether the paladin is being naive, or if killing him would be smart. But neither of those two, change the alignment of the act. Perhaps there will come a time, where the paladin decides that he can no longer personally justify this guy repeatedly escaping and hurting others, that would be understandable, the paladin is only mortal after all. If that happens, the paladin may decide to cut him down and kill him, and willingly take the fall, because he's mistaking his actions for protecting people against the evils he is convinced this man will commit. He can then seek atonement for his evil act.
edit: Punish via killing. What other ways does a paladin have to punish someone other than torture which likely falls under evil and dishonorable?
Imprisonment springs to mind. Tagging someone with a Mark of Justice is another option. Depending on the situation, other options may present themselves. Or not.
-Nearyn
That is modern law. Medieval law (which seems to form the basis of the law in most D&D and Pathfinder settings) was much less merciful.
As I stated you still get executed today in the US military for rape and murder.
Waiting for the execution for rape
I can't believe Nearyn thinks that killing a rapist is a bad thing
I can't believe Nearyn thinks that killing a rapist is a bad thing
I've yet to divulge my personal stance on real-world rape, and it is unlikely I will in this thread, since it is not relevant to the discussion. I'm speaking strictly from an in-system perspective.
-Nearyn
I can't believe Nearyn thinks that killing a rapist is a bad thing
Would you be equally hungry for blood if the rapist was a woman, or are you in the camp that believes that women cannot rape?
I can't believe Nearyn thinks that killing a rapist is a bad thingWould you be equally hungry for blood if the rapist was a woman, or are you in the camp that believes that women cannot rape?
Yes. Rape is basically the worst thing you can do to a person, regardless of gender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, I am against the death sentence as a general rule for a multitude of reasons. However, it seems that most people who commit the crimes warranting such don't have an inch of empathy towards other people and won't feel any remorse after doing such things. Either way, I worry this discussion will get so heated that this thread will get locked, so I think we should stick to the actual discussion on whether or not it is right for the paladin to execute the prisoner. I still lean to it being fine, since from what I recall the developers have said that killing is neutral and murder is evil. Lawful execution of a criminal doesn't seem like an evil act by those standards.
You've a right to your opinions, but I suggest we do not begin touching on our personal stance on the issue. It is likely to end badly, and it doesn't contribute to the topic.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've a right to your opinions, but I suggest we do not begin touching on our personal stance on the issue. It is likely to end badly, and it doesn't contribute to the topic.
-Nearyn
That is why I said we should NOT let this discussion get so heated that things end badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I thank all for your opinions and points of view.
Couple of things. Mark of justice a little out of our current power level, Party is currently 3rd level.
I am not the GM but one of the party members.
I stopped playing Paladins a long time ago because I kept getting jerked around so wanted to see if things changed that much from 3.5 days.
The Paladin while stating he would have executed the surrendering bad never actually got the chance as another party member with much higher Initiative killed him before he could act.
They were blinded in opening round by glitterdust spell after all failing saves so it was definately NOT permanant.
The other two one of which was killed by the paladin did not surrender because they were killed before they could even act in round one.
My question stemmed from the Paladins statement that he would have just executed him if the other party member had not killed him first.
You're welcome mate, it's what the boards are for :)
Your question is a good one, and hopefully you've taken something away from this topic that you agree with, and can use to improve or help games you participate in (or run), in the future :)
-Nearyn
I consider killing to be a neutral act. Paladins and Good characters are allowed to do neutral acts.
As for legal extension of the law? I don't buy that, unless there is some story point SAYING he can be judge and jury. If I'm playing a Paladin of Erastil... in a land where Erastil isn't worshiped... my 'authority' doesn't mean jack there. His conscience may be clean... but yeah, it could still be murder in the eyes of the law.
Way too many considerations in this scenario. Was there a justice system in place? Was the man being HONEST when he surrendered, or did he just not want to die... or at least buy a moment to tie his pants up and grab a sword? Sense motive is a class skill. 'I give up' isn't a get out of fight free card if he's obviously lying.
I play a Paladin of Saranrae in Kingmaker right now. He's extremely merciful and spends more time redeeming bandits then killing them.
However, there HAVE been deaths and sometimes mercy runs out. There are no 3rd or 4th chances...
WotR? I play a Paladin myself, and have executed one and offered another one a chance for suicide.
You know, thinking about it, a single rank in knowledge (local) by anyone involved would go a long, long way here. That is the one that lets you remember local laws, customs, and traditions.
Although the DC for that bit of info is 10, which means you can do it untrained.
Just asking the local laws on the matter (including punishments), procedures for captured criminals, and the effects of martial law and field trials would really clear up the issue. You might even get an official decree from a general to 'kill any outlaws on sight. We do not have the time or resources to handle them until we get the enemy off our necks'.
And really, if anyone makes the 10, and the GM has to BS and answer, then you get the official stance of the GM (unless the area is like Cheliax, in which case you need a grain of salt. If the GM says 'the laws say it is fine', then that should usually be the GM saying 'it is fine'. If he makes you fall then...well... you MIGHT just need a new GM. You used the resources available to you to make the best judgment possible, and he still faulted you for it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, thinking about it, a single rank in knowledge (local) by anyone involved would go a long, long way here. That is the one that lets you remember local laws, customs, and traditions.
Although the DC for that bit of info is 10, which means you can do it untrained.
Just asking the local laws on the matter (including punishments), procedures for captured criminals, and the effects of martial law and field trials would really clear up the issue. You might even get an official decree from a general to 'kill any outlaws on sight. We do not have the time or resources to handle them until we get the enemy off our necks'.
And really, if anyone makes the 10, and the GM has to BS and answer, then you get the official stance of the GM (unless the area is like Cheliax, in which case you need a grain of salt. If the GM says 'the laws say it is fine', then that should usually be the GM saying 'it is fine'. If he makes you fall then...well... you MIGHT just need a new GM. You used the resources available to you to make the best judgment possible, and he still faulted you for it.
In Cheliax, obeying the law is probably the quickest way for a Paladin to fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Cheliax, obeying the law is probably the quickest way for a Paladin to fall.
Well, most of the time, I would imagine that the laws are fairly reasonable (no theft, rape, murder, etc.). The way the laws are carried out....maybe not so much (long, drawn out torture, gory, elaborate executions, etc.).
That is the thing with diabolism- it seems just reasonable to get people to stick around. The only real point of contention most of the time would be slavery and legal loopholes.
The fact that there is a paladin oath for freakin' hell knights supports the idea- paladins can get all old testament.... although the users of that oath have to jump through a lot of mental hoops to do that on a regular basis.
Sidenote- From some of the text, it seems that a lot of hellknights are actually reasonable, neutral people. It is just that the top brass got there by a 'lie, cheat, and steal' attitude, and they are both corrupt and good at convince people that their ideas sound good.
The paladin is protecting other people from this man.Not really, since he's not a threat to anyone presently. You are not protecting anyone from this man. You are just killing an unarmed, blind criminal.
Did I really need to type the word "future" or did you not understand that is what I was getting at?
Also you need to remember that fantasyland does not use our modern code of justice. Now if a cop were to kill a rapist then I agree it would be murder by our law, but we are using fantasy land standards not modern ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there is a paladin oath for freakin' hell knights supports the idea- paladins can get all old testament.... although the users of that oath have to jump through a lot of mental hoops to do that on a regular basis.
Sidenote- From some of the text, it seems that a lot of hellknights are actually reasonable, neutral people. It is just that the top brass got there by a 'lie, cheat, and steal' attitude, and they are both corrupt and good at convince people that their ideas sound good.
I think that most are not even that evil and corrupt. Just the toughtest meanest self rightous, most devot to the cause there is. But we fall from the topic.
The paladin is protecting other people from this man.Not really, since he's not a threat to anyone presently. You are not protecting anyone from this man. You are just killing an unarmed, blind criminal.
Did I really need to type the word "future" or did you not understand that is what I was getting at?
Also you need to remember that fantasyland does not use our modern code of justice. Now if a cop were to kill a rapist then I agree it would be murder by our law, but we are using fantasy land standards not modern ones.
Oh no, don't worry, I completely understood, and what I'm trying to get across is that the future doesn't matter. To think that you can predict whether this rapist is going to hurt someone again, and judge him because you are "protecting" people against his "future crimes" is the ultimate arrogance. Even Pharasma is not arrogant enough in her predictions to not weigh the soul again after death, despite it being said that she knows the final destination of every soul, at birth.
Judging a person because you're protecting innocents from his "future crimes" is beyond fascist. You may as well be killing a teenager who was found guilty of accidental manslaughter, because you've predicted there is a likelyhood he's going to accidentally kill again.
I say again, you are not protecting anyone from this man, because this man is not threatening anyone. If he was standing over his victim with a machettte, raised and ready to kill, then you're perfectly within your rights, as a paladin, to strike him down, because you're protecting his victim. But if he's disarmed and pleading, and you decide to kill him, you're not protecting anyone from him. You're just killing a dude.
-Nearyn
EDIT: On the topic of modern moral-code vs fantasy-land, I'm speaking strictly from an in-world perspective, which is why I quoted, and spoke from a position based on, the alignment rules in my first post in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now the paladin has no chance to arrest the person and send it back for trial. Under combat operation standards an officer has the right AND duty if the situation demands it to judge the person and execute him.
I repeat right AND duty!
So again walk to him and kill him manslaughter.
Judge him, and execute him. The honorable and right thing to do!Your reasoning is flawed: Golarion isn't the US. There are different ethics and laws at work. Not to mention that the UCMJ isn't universal IRL and the US armed forces bear little resemblance to a paladin order.
Depending on the GM and player, a paladin might very well have a legal and/or moral obligation to try to take these people prisoner and try to reform them or hand them over to the proper authorities for justice.
Absolutly correct. My reasoning is flawed.
But look on this the hard way. You are fighting in a war, you usually do not have the time, or the ressources, to bring every evil doer to your headquarter. If you can, fine, but dragging someone with you, thereby binding necessary personal and/or endangering your mission.What would you do? Endanger the mission? Send the culprit with a pat on the back on his way. Again, in most militarys a Paladin would feel comfortable rape is a capital crime deserving capital punishment.
And the Paladin is giving his powers by the gods so that he can, and will protect the weak and punish the guilty. And if you tell me the raper caught with pants down is not guilty, then please tell me who is?
Maybe the mongols or the dothraky horde are diffrent, but then I do not see a paladin between them.
Again this guy DID rape someone, and deserves punishment. Mercy is a very beautiful concept, but I would ask yourself where is the mercy in holding down a girl and raping her. And if rape was not done for psychological warfare, I could tell about girls being nailed to tables in the kosovo, but I will say no more of it, usually ended with a dead woman or a woman close to death.
If you want to read it up, there are quite a few very hard reports to read from amnisty international, but be warned do not eat anything before you read them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just an example:
Rape, as an adjunct to warfare, was prohibited by the military codices of Richard II and Henry V (1385 and 1419 respectively). These laws formed the basis for convicting and executing rapists during the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453).
Napoleon Bonaparte found rape committed by soldiers particularly distasteful. During his Egyptian Expedition, he declared that “everywhere, the rapist is a monster” and ordered that “anyone guilty of rape would be shot.”[35]
But again.
I have to reread the Paladin codes, but afaik while mercy is important to some, the basic concept of justice is also important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Rape is basically the worst thing you can do to a person, regardless of gender.
I can think of quite a few things I'd rather get raped than experience. Like being fed into a wood chipper, conscious, feet first. Or being burned alive. Or even spending the rest of my life in prison.
Maybe worst thing you can do to someone that doesn't involve death, dismemberment, maiming, crippling, etc.
Or being burned alive.
Being burned alive is over rather soon. And you don't have to life with the Memory. You burn (which is brutal) become unconscious and die. That's "all".
With several other things you will replay it in your memory for years, if not forever and be haunted by it.
Then the GM can turn around and say the paladin falls for not killing him later on after his blindness is cured and he escapes and rapes more people.
Exactly.
I'm not kidding when I say by RAW ANY action can make a paladin fall.
The paladin's code is just a built in self-destruct switch that the GM can flip at any time. Players really have no right to complain when that happens because that is just the GM following the rules.
Personally, I would rewrite the code as a GM before playing with it.
What sort of madness is this?! Are people seriously arguing that it is ANYWHERE within either spirit, or letter, of the rules, to have a Paladin fall for the actions of a person he failed to stop?! Has everybody lost their mind???
-Nearyn
What sort of madness is this?! Are people seriously arguing that it is ANYWHERE within either spirit, or letter, of the rules, to have a Paladin fall for the actions of a person he failed to stop?! Has everybody lost their mind???
-Nearyn
Well, if you put it this way, "Yeah, that person you let go proceded to commit the same exact crime because you were foolish enough to show mercy when they comitted one of the two most heinous crimes known to mankind RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU." then yeah, it probably isn't too much of a stretch. It isn't that the paladin failed to stop the person, its that the paladin easily could have yet chose not to.
Well, if you put it this way, "Yeah, that person you let go proceded to commit the same exact crime because you were foolish enough to show mercy when they comitted one of the two most heinous crimes known to mankind RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU." then yeah, it probably isn't too much of a stretch. It isn't that the paladin failed to stop the person, its that the paladin easily could have yet chose not to.What sort of madness is this?! Are people seriously arguing that it is ANYWHERE within either spirit, or letter, of the rules, to have a Paladin fall for the actions of a person he failed to stop?! Has everybody lost their mind???
-Nearyn
I hate to tell you this, but nowhere in the rules is it supported to have ANOTHER person's alignment impacted by YOUR actions. You are not responsible for the actions of ANYONE other than yourself.
A character's alignment is not affected because he gave 2gp to someone, who used that money to buy a dagger and kill someone with it. Any responsibility one could shift onto the character who gave the 2gp away is strictly between the characters in the setting, but doesn't matter whatsoever in terms of the actual alignment of the act.
By the same token, choosing to let a criminal go, or not assisting in an arrest, does not make you responsible for the future outcome of that criminal's actions, as far as alignment is concerned.
-Nearyn
EDIT: Or to raise an example: Peter Parker's alignment was not affected by letting a certain criminal run, despite the fact that the man, only a few moment later, shot and killed someone. He may feel guilty, others may say he was responsible, but as far as alignment is considered, not acting is a neutral act, no matter the outcome.
Well, if you put it this way, "Yeah, that person you let go proceded to commit the same exact crime because you were foolish enough to show mercy when they comitted one of the two most heinous crimes known to mankind RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU." then yeah, it probably isn't too much of a stretch. It isn't that the paladin failed to stop the person, its that the paladin easily could have yet chose not to.What sort of madness is this?! Are people seriously arguing that it is ANYWHERE within either spirit, or letter, of the rules, to have a Paladin fall for the actions of a person he failed to stop?! Has everybody lost their mind???
-Nearyn
I hate to tell you this, but nowhere in the rules is it supported to have ANOTHER person's alignment impacted by YOUR actions. You are not responsible for the actions of ANYONE other than yourself.
A character's alignment is not affected because he gave 2gp to someone, who used that money to buy a dagger and kill someone with it. Any responsibility one could shift onto the character who gave the 2gp away is strictly between the characters in the setting, but doesn't matter whatsoever in terms of the actual alignment of the act.
By the same token, choosing to let a criminal go, or not assisting in an arrest, does not make you responsible for the future outcome of that criminal's actions, as far as alignment is concerned.
-Nearyn
EDIT: Or to raise an example: Peter Parker's alignment was not affected by letting the criminal run, despite the fact that the man only a few moment later shot someone. He may feel guilty, others may say he was responsbile, but as far as alignment is considered, not acting is a neutral act, no matter the outcome.
Your logic is most certainly flawed when one takes it to its logical conclusion. Take a more similar example: stopping a criminal. A Paladin walks down the road and sees a petty crook robbing some people. He decides that its not worth his time and continues without stopping to help them only later to learn that they were murdered by said bandit. The Paladin is guilty of a crime of ethics and morality through inaction.
Lets take a more extreme example to further illustrate your flawed argument. I have a level 20 Paladin and an evil sorcerer who I can easily defeat is about to destroy some small town. I have a Macguffin/the power to stop this person, but when I get there and he begs for mercy, I let him go, thinking that he can be redeemed... he proceeds to destroy the town. The Paladin is guilty. Plain and simple. You would be hard pressed to find a GM that WOULDN’T make said Paladin fall. Or how about this, the Paladin simply didn’t bother to get up and stop the sorcerer. Still guilty.
Inaction as agreed upon by most philosophers, is a choice within itself. Ever hear of Bystander Syndrome? If a Paladin ever gets a case of this, he falls. Plain and simple. This is different than your dagger example in that the Paladin knew that this was certainly a possibility and chose it anyway. There is no logical reason why a Paladin should believe giving alms to a beggar would lead to murder, nor should anyone.
EDIT: Want a more extreme example? According to your logic, you are not responsible for another person's actions even if you have the power to do something. "You are not responsible for the actions of ANYONE other than yourself." is what you say, but if I am a Paladin and see a person clubbing baby seals or burning down an orphanage, and I decide to choose inaction, you can be sure I am going to be shifted to an evil alignment when said person clubs another seal or torches another building. Why? Because of the apathy implicit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or being burned alive.Being burned alive is over rather soon. And you don't have to life with the Memory. You burn (which is brutal) become unconscious and die. That's "all".
With several other things you will replay it in your memory for years, if not forever and be haunted by it.
Well, thats the advantage of therapy and still being alive for said therapy. Spend a night getting a human booster shot from a bad man named Molly, or get shot in the head, I'd still take Molly. I'd personally take a single event over anything that killed/disabled/maimed/imprisoned me for the rest of my life. Not saying it isn't wrong or heinous, just that I can think of a lot worse things to happen to someone.
But we're getting off topic.
The character in question found someone actively raping someone in a warzone. They apparently weren't a soldier, so the only reason they would have to be in the area is to rape and plunder. They only stopped and begged for mercy because they realized they couldn't fight their way out of the situation.
This is what happens to Paladins that hesitate in the face of Evil begging for mercy.
The person was clearly Evil, was engaged in depraved Evil acts, the Paladin was a first hand witness to said Evil acts, this isn't even a gray area in my book. Give the Paladin his xp.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah - there's no way the paladin falls.
And there's no way that any LG character I've ever played wouldn't kill him. (Paladin/Samurai/Monk - whatever.)
I picture it this way -
Paladin: For the crimes of rape, murder, and assault, the sentence is death. To be carried out immediately.
Bandit: Please Mi'lord - forgive me.
Paladin: Very well. I forgive you. The sentence is still death.
Bandit: But - I thought that you forgave me!?
Paladin: I do. You are no longer charged with assault against my person. However, I have no authority to forgive for what was was done to others.
Bandit: Wait don.... *schtick* (sound of blade slicing cleanly through his neck)
Paladin: May the gods forgive you in the afterlife...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your logic is most certainly flawed when one takes it to its logical conclusion. Take a more similar example: stopping a criminal. A Paladin walks down the road and sees a petty crook robbing some people. He decides that its not worth his time and continues without stopping to help them only later to learn that they were murdered by said bandit. The Paladin is guilty of a crime of ethics and morality through inaction.
No. The paladin is guilty of exactly nothing as far as the alignment rules are considered. He elected to not act. Not acting is a neutral action.
However, his code demands that he help those in need, meaning that despite his inaction being neutral, he falls for electing to ignore the robbery. Not because of the alignment of the action, but because of his Code of Conduct.
Lets take a more extreme example to further illustrate your flawed argument. I have a level 20 Paladin and an evil sorcerer who I can easily defeat is about to destroy some small town. I have a Macguffin/the power to stop this person, but when I get there and he begs for mercy, I let him go, thinking that he can be redeemed... he proceeds to destroy the town. The Paladin is guilty. Plain and simple. You would be hard pressed to find a GM that WOULDN’T make said Paladin fall. Or how about this, the Paladin simply didn’t bother to get up and stop the sorcerer. Still guilty.
You are wrong. You need to bench your real-world logic, and start thinking within the system. The system has very clear-cut rules on alignment, it must have, since there are classes that interact with alignment, like paladin.
The paladin in your example is, again, not guilty of anything other than inaction. Again, he falls, because his code of conducts bids him protect the innocent people the best he can, but his falling has nothing to do with the ALIGNMENT OF HIS ACTION. Which is NEUTRAL.
Inaction as agreed upon by most philosophers, is a choice within itself. Ever hear of Bystander Syndrome? If a Paladin ever gets a case of this, he falls. Plain and simple. This is different than your dagger example in that the Paladin knew that this was certainly a possibility and chose it anyway. There is no logical reason why a Paladin should believe giving alms to a beggar would lead to murder, nor should anyone.
I'm not sure why you feel compelled to take these inconsequential observations into consideration here, but again, I encourage you to think within the system. Alignment != modern day ethics. It is a very easy system, that only requires that someone bother reading it, in order to understand.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
-Nearyn
EDIT: in response to
EDIT: Want a more extreme example? According to your logic, you are not responsible for another person's actions even if you have the power to do something. "You are not responsible for the actions of ANYONE other than yourself." is what you say, but if I am a Paladin and see a person clubbing baby seals or burning down an orphanage, and I decide to choose inaction, you can be sure I am going to be shifted to an evil alignment when said person clubs another seal or torches another building.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am saying you are not responsible for another person's actions, even if you have the power to do something. That is EXACTLY what I am saying.
And no, you will not be shifted to an evil alignment, unless your GM misunderstands the alignment rules, or house-rules changes to neutrality.
It would depend more on their deity than anything else. If she is a Paladin of Torag or Iomedae, then she would probably kill them for their crimes. If she is a Paladin of Sarenrae or Sheylin, then she would probably take them into custody to answer for their crimes (and repent, make amends, etc.).
As always, just my two coppers...
-Doomn