Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Hypersmurf]

Ignoring the group's consensus that was made on behalf of all to do your own thing is Chaotic--it is the quintessential act of rejecting legitimate authority, equivalent to flouting a law but on a different social scale. Allowing them to make it realising that you could get away with technically not being bound by it and intending to renege on it by the letter of the law is Lawful Evil.

So does pursuing a Chaotic end via Lawful means make it a Neutral act?

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So does pursuing a Chaotic end via Lawful means make it a Neutral act?

-Hyp.

I would say that the Paladin is probably in an either/or here. But if the Paladin was actually intentionally doing both at once, that could be entertaining and may indeed balance out to a Neutral Evil act. It depends on the intention of the Paladin, really. The only thing that seems clear is that it was not simultaneously both Lawful and Good.

 

[Thanatos]

Ignoring the group's consensus that was made on behalf of all to do your own thing is Chaotic--it is the quintessential act of rejecting legitimate authority, equivalent to flouting a law but on a different social scale. Allowing them to make it realising that you could get away with technically not being bound by it and intending to renege on it by the letter of the law is Lawful Evil.

Except there was no group consensus, the paladin acted before it was made. What part of this do you not get? The OP said no decision has been made. Why do you keep ignoring that?

And no, just because the rest of the group makes a decision the paladin feels is in conflict with her code, that does not make her obligated to follow it. That doesn't make her act chaotic. "Legitimate Authority" might be subject to interpretation, as she may consider herself the "legitimate authority" in that lawless land.

And again, we come back to the point no decision was made by the party when she acted. Hence she did not renege or twist the letter of the law. She did so before they decided, perhaps she believes in regards to dispensing justice, she is the law over the partys decisions. The OP said it was in Thar, a lawless land.

In any event, if party decision conflicts with her code, she has to uphold her code first. That is not chaotic or evil or in any way twisting stuff to be lawful evil.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only thing that seems clear is that it was not simultaneously both Lawful and Good.

Well, not every action a Paladin takes needs to be. They need to be non-Evil, and they should generally be non-Chaotic, but there's no penalty to a Paladin even for choosing a Neutral act over a Good one (as long as he doesn't violate his code or actually become non-Good as a result).

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, not every action a Paladin takes needs to be. They need to be non-Evil, and they should generally be non-Chaotic, but there's no penalty to a Paladin even for choosing a Neutral act over a Good one (as long as he doesn't violate his code or actually become non-Good as a result).

-Hyp.

That's true. However, if the act wasn't Chaotic but was instead a deliberate plot to manipulate the party for her own ends, then the act was Evil (though the 'Lawful' tag on that might slip to Neutral Evil).

 

[Rystil Arden]

Except there was no group consensus, the paladin acted before it was made. What part of this do you not get? The OP said no decision has been made. Why do you keep ignoring that?

And no, just because the rest of the group makes a decision the paladin feels is in conflict with her code, that does not make her obligated to follow it. That doesn't make her act chaotic. "Legitimate Authority" might be subject to interpretation, as she may consider herself the "legitimate authority" in that lawless land.

And again, we come back to the point no decision was made by the party when she acted. Hence she did not renege or twist the letter of the law. She did so before they decided, perhaps she believes in regards to dispensing justice, she is the law over the partys decisions. The OP said it was in Thar, a lawless land.

In any event, if party decision conflicts with her code, she has to uphold her code first. That is not chaotic or evil or in any way twisting stuff to be lawful evil.

So are you saying that I could create the following Paladin:

She claims is that she herself is the only legitimate authority and that therefore she is infallible. Also, she is the ultimate arbiter as to whether another being must be destroyed. In general, she kills most people she meets who are not 'in need' (since she must help them) because she finds fault in them and considers them to be dangerous and non-innocent, but she always does it in an aboveboard manner with honour (no lying, cheating, or poison use). Also, her exception to those 'in need' is broken for Chaotic or Evil people, of course. Even if they are legitimately in need, if they are Chaotic or Evil (including Chaotic Good), they are never helped, as they will use the aid for Chaotic or Evil ends. In fact, they are killed, as by virtue of being Chaotic or Evil, they are automatically dangerous enemies who put innocents in harms way by virtue of being alive.

So in summary, here is how she reacts to other characters:

CE: Kill instantly. Evil and chaotic. Threatens innocents.
NE: Kill instantly. Evil. Threatens innocents.
LE: Kill instantly. Evil. Threatens innocents.
CN: Kill instantly. Chaotic. Is a loose cannon that threatens innocents.
N: Will probably kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they ever threatened innocents through self-interest, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this). If they are in need, she helps.
LN: Might kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they ever threatened innocents through self-interest or strict application of laws, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this). If they are in need, she helps.
CG: Will probably kill whether or not they are in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Their Chaotic acts are likely to threaten innocents.
NG: Might kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they ever threatened innocents through looking at the big picture and ignoring the fine details of the law in that particular case, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this). If they are in need, she helps.
LG: Might kill if they are not in need, but dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they ever threatened innocents through zealous slaughter of those who don't meet their standards, for instance, they die (she has Zone of Truth to determine this). If they are in need, she helps. A special case--other paladins: They will almost always need to be killed unless they serve her or otherwise prove that they follow her code exactly because she is the ultimate arbiter of legitimate justice, and so therefore, if they don't follow her, they are dispensing illegitimate justice and killing innocents.

Whew, a mouthful!

 

[delericho]

The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds

MERCY
For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme — respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.

A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.​

Just one of many reasons why I hate that book. The above quote is certainly accurate, if Good = Stupidity.

While within the bounds of civilisation, the paladin will feel bound to accept the surrender of foes, and turn them over to the legitimate authorities for trial and punishment (unless the legitimate authorities are manifestly corrupt or grossly incompetent). And note that if the villain has repeatedly escaped from captivity to continue his evil deeds, the paladin may justly feel that the authorities are incompetent, and that the burden of administering justice does fall to her. At which point, if the just punishment is deemed to be execution, the paladin is free to carry out the sentence.

However, while in the wild (read: typical adventuring environment), the ability to transport captives to the legitimate authorities is curtailed. What's more, the paladin can consider herself to BE the legitimate authorities.

True, the paladin is still required to treat prisoners with appropriate care and respect. She's still not permitted to torture prisoners, nor may she withhold such essentials as food, water and sleep while the prisoner remains alive and in custody. However, the paladin is free to dispense justice, acting in this regard as judge, jury and (if appropriate) executioner.

Of course, the paladin must be careful to be even-handed in the dispensation of justice. She cannot simply summarily execute all captured foes, without at least giving them the ability to defend their actions somehow. It is, after all, possible that those 'orc raiders' who have so 'terrorised' the town were, in fact, being falsely accused. Finally, if an execution is warranted, the paladin should conduct it as quickly, cleanly and painlessly as possible. The issue here is again one of justice, rather than revenge - an execution may be called for, but that doesn't mean it should be conducted with anything other than sorrow.

 

[quetzyl]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the most important actor in this drama: the orc! It seems to me that the orc must have been given some reason to believe that it would survive, otherwise why would the orc have told them anything. That means either the party tricked the orc into giving up information, or they promised it freedom and the paladin went against the oath of the party. Either way, I consider this kind of behavior dubious for a paladin. If the orc is so evil that it must be executed, then the execution should be carried out quickly and humanely. I consider that allowing the rest of your party to interrogate the prisoner first, then gutting them, is placing expediency above morality, and if done repeatedly could be grounds for atonement. In my view it doesn't matter what the precise circumstances of who promised what to whom; if you interogate a prisoner, and they answer your questions that entitles them to merciful treatment.

Cheers,
quetzyl

 

[Abraxas]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the most important actor in this drama: the orc! It seems to me that the orc must have been given some reason to believe that it would survive, otherwise why would the orc have told them anything.

Or, the orc was scared out of its wits by the group that "slaughtered" its comrrades and was hoping, and had decided on its own, that by giving up information it would be allowed to live.


By the way, what are the other PC's alignments?

 

[Janx]

Rich Burlew has some good comments on Paladins and being at odds with the party:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

The last 5 paragraphs or so in particular. Go read it, then come back here. I'll wait.


My interpretation is that for the good of the game, players do not have a right to blatantly stir up conflict within the party. Nor, do they have the right to tell another player how to act.

Now at some point in this encounter with the prisoner orc. The questioner seemed to take the lead. And he made a decision. The paladin disagreed with that decision. And brought it up. The issue could have been left there, but then the paladin went and killed the orc, apparently against the wishes of the party (the OP is now far away from screen...to validate all details). At that point, the paladin chose an action that was more conflicting with the party. What could have been left as a simple "role-played" disagreement that can be glossed over, now starts moving into the real and definite conflict with the other players.



The paladin class's design doesn't help matters. It has Detect Evil. If I'm a paladin, and I Detect Evil on you, and you come up as evil...well, it's pretty clear that you're a bad guy. And bad guys are meant to be destroyed. The problem is, nobody else has this ability. And there's no real world equivalent. So everybody else feels the need to prove he's evil. A paladin has no such compunction, because it's a done deal.

Case in point, I've got a paladin I'm playing as a cross-bow shooting, "I see demons" buddhist warrior priest. He interprets his detect evil ability as seeing demons within people. They're not possesed, effectively they are demons. Generally, the only cure is to kill them. He doesn't boss the party around in telling them what's right and what's wrong. He merely is confident in his actions to kill evil when he sees it. However, even that collides with the Sorceror PC who's on an Exalted Deeds trip. The feats in there hurt fellow PCs who don't follow the strict limitations set by those feats that the Sorceror took. Now that violates the "one player telling another how to play his PC" rule.

Overall, you've got to play your PC (paladin included) as able to roll with the party. If they want to do something that you don't, bring it up as an objection. If over-ruled, try to find a way to go along with it anyway. You can always bring it back up later, if the start trending too far off the path.