Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[DestroyYouAlot]

Here's the sticky points for me:

a) The paladin acquiesed to the surrender and interrogation of the orc, if only by his silence. If he objected to taking the orc prisoner, he should have voiced this objection before they started pumping it for information. Accepting the surrender is am implied contract, no one is going to surrender if they believe they are going to be summarily executed. That's kind of what it means. Once the paladin goes along with this, he can't then decide he feels like chopping necks. And this goes doubly once they start interrogating the thing - again, the implied exchange is information for not-having-your-head-chopped-off-by-the-angry-paladin.

Whether taking a captive and then executing them, especially after questioning, is a "good" act may be debatable - it really does depend on the nature of the captive (in this case, whether orcs in this setting are simply violent humanoids with a chance for redemption, or Tolkien-y constructs of pure evil), the state of the region where they are (is imprisonment possible and/or feasible, what kind of governent is in place and are they known for treating captives fairly), and - perhaps most importantly - what's at stake (is letting an orc go or holding them captive simply going to be an inconvenience, or it's going to jeopardize the last hope to Save the World), and a host of other factors besides.

What's not really debatable is that this is an un-paladin-worthy act - a paladin has to hold themselves to a higher standard, even when it's inconvenient or possibly dangerous. Moreover, whatever the position on the good-and-evil axis, this sort of deal-breaking (implied as the deal may be) is unquestionably chaotic.

b) The paladin, after adventuring and fighting with her comrades, presumably adding her strength to theirs in their endeavours and utilizing their strength to advance her pursuit of Good and Justice, has a certain obligation to obey the rule of law within the party. Whether they should have let the orc go, or killed it, or what, was up to the party at large, and she doesn't have the moral authority to suddenly go rogue and ignore their decisions (especially when their concerns for clemency for a prisoner and a chance for redemption are in conflict with her desire to slay and execute). This is, without a doubt, a chaotic deed. Riding the orc down and re-capturing it would not have been an irrevocable act (they could then come to an agreement as to the fate of the captive), but you can't take back a beheading. (I'm pretty sure I read a Hallmark card to that effect, once.)

Really, the role of the Paladin needs to be examined between DM and player before play begins, and - more importantly - the code of the order the paladin belongs to needs to be spelled out. Two different orders serving the same god could have completely different obligations, let alone orders serving two different gods. (For example, in the FR campaign I run, a paladin of Chauntea will have a much more relaxed attitude towards "questionable" acts by other party members, and be more inclined to "lead by example", then - for example - a paladin of Tyr, or Helm.)

 

[tonse]

None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment. There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations. People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.

Wow,someone seems to have a little chip on his shoulder.

 

[diaglo]

Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.

i like my cows. if you want to attack my style of play why didn't you just say so.

 

[pawsplay]

Paladins are the sword arms for good/justice, its stupid to saddle them with transporting villains around for due process,

Not true. At the very least jurisdiction was important, as the Church maintained only it had the right to try clergy.

 

[tonym]

Disagree. For the paladin to have the authority to execute the orc, she must take the position that the party are the rightful authority in the region. That's a reasonable stance to take. However, once the party strikes a deal with the orc to spare his life, the paladin is then bound by that agreement. If the paladin refused the terms of the deal, the time to say so was before it was struck.

The paladin has probably taken an oath to kill evil beings. But the paladin has probably 'not' taken an oath to the party, or at least taken an oath to the party that overrides her oath to kill evil.

As much as the party may feel that the paladin must obey their spontaneously negotiated agreements, she will only doso insofar as those agreements do not conflict with the extremely serious oaths that she took towards becoming a paladin.

That particular paladin clearly takes her oaths very seriously. I bet every character in that party lives only several seconds away from being attacked by that paladin.

For example, if the party found an evil gem and one of the PCs decided to become evil so they could use its cool powers, the paladin would likely kill them, no matter what the party said...even if the other PCs agreed amongst themselves to let the evil PC go free in exchange for information, the character's bag of holding, or whatever else.

Tony M

 

[Benimoto]

The paladin has probably taken an oath to kill evil beings. But the paladin has probably 'not' taken an oath to the party, or at least taken an oath to the party that overrides her oath to kill evil.

As much as the party may feel that the paladin must obey their spontaneously negotiated agreements, she will only doso insofar as those agreements do not conflict with the extremely serious oaths that she took towards becoming a paladin.

That particular paladin clearly takes her oaths very seriously. I bet every character in that party lives only several seconds away from being attacked by that paladin.

For example, if the party found an evil gem and one of the PCs decided to become evil so they could use its cool powers, the paladin would likely kill them, no matter what the party said...even if the other PCs agreed amongst themselves to let the evil PC go free in exchange for information, the character's bag of holding, or whatever else.

Tony M

But the point that I and a few other people in the thread have raised is that kind of "I'll do what I think is right no matter what you guys want" attitude is actually chaotic. Part of being a paladin is being lawful, and being lawful means being loyal, particularly to your friends, and respecting their decisions. If the paladin is several seconds away from attacking any of the party members, then the paladin isn't being trustworthy or reliable to them.

 

[TheNovaLord]

I like alignments. Its just too little words to set as a starting block set in stone (or adamantium in the case of paladins as its very strong).

when people wander of about epic in-character discussions about ethics and such makes me wonder why they play D&D and not some more high brow/intellectual sort of 'game' or non-game. They are vast amounts of rpg's out there, leaves us our hp, AC and alignments.

Why have detect evil if u aren't meant to combat it? I guess with the OP post we dont about the campaign specifics and exact conversations / 'deal or no deal' set with the orc

Alignment works as long as the campaign/lays down what is what and everyone sticks to it (or not i guess if u r CN or CE!)

JohnD

 

[Thanatos]

But the point that I and a few other people in the thread have raised is that kind of "I'll do what I think is right no matter what you guys want" attitude is actually chaotic. Part of being a paladin is being lawful, and being lawful means being loyal, particularly to your friends, and respecting their decisions. If the paladin is several seconds away from attacking any of the party members, then the paladin isn't being trustworthy or reliable to them.

I agree, your "I'll do..." statement is very chaotic, however I don't agree thats what the Paladin likely was saying. "I'll follow my code no matter what you guys want." is probably more accurate and that is not a chaotic attitude, that is lawful.

You can respect a decision made by a party member and not consider yourself bound to it if it violates your code, because to do so would be to sacrifice your entire class. Just because you can't agree to abide by party decisions that would cause you to forfeit your class, doesn't mean you are being disloyal.

When I've played a Paladin it was, God & Code, Country, Locale, Party with respect to obeying the laws & principles required of Paladinhood. The party knew I had to answer to a higher calling and code then themselves and often did things without my characters knowledge so I was placed in the prediciment of becoming a weak fighter.

Depends on the alignement of the party, if they are all chaotic neutral, a Paladin could be seconds from attacking them for some of their actions and decisions and it has nothing to do with trustworthyness or reliability -- it has to do with poor player planning and party makeup. Everyone has to work on compromises with a Paladin in the party, the problem is, the Paladin can't compromise as much as everyone else.

When I read the OP's post, he didn't mention alot of things. He clearly stated what HIS intent was (and that he didn't get to do what he intended to do), but it doesn't clearly state what the party knew or even if the Paladin agreed to it or knew what was going on. Just because a prisoner was taken, I don't agree that was silent consent to allow that prisoner to escape to slaughter another day once his information had been imparted.

Some more information would go a long way to making it more clear as to what was really going on from a wider perspective and not just how the OP was interpreting what the Paladin was thinking/agreed to.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Wow,someone seems to have a little chip on his shoulder.

Not really, its a crappy rule that causes WAY too many arguments in all but the best run games (where its unnecessary to begin with), and its time to be ditched. If not liking a poorly thought out game rule constitutes a "chip" then yes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I like alignments. Its just too little words to set as a starting block set in stone (or adamantium in the case of paladins as its very strong).

when people wander of about epic in-character discussions about ethics and such makes me wonder why they play D&D and not some more high brow/intellectual sort of 'game' or non-game. They are vast amounts of rpg's out there, leaves us our hp, AC and alignments.

Because D&D/d20 is pretty solid rules set that is easy to learn and works well for a game of fantasy RP'ing? I use 2 out of 3. /shrug.