Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[delericho]

We're not arguing the orc here, we're arguing the paladin. Running down an unarmed and therefore helpless opponent from the back of a horse isn't mandated punishment, it's slaughter. See above for the weakness of the 'because he's eeeeeeevil' argument; the paladin must adhere to a higher standard.

No, the mandated punishment assigned by the paladin was death. The orc fled that justice, which necessitated other action be taken.

An LG character would either a)administer a field trial according to the Harpers' edicts, likely resulting in the orc's execution for banditry...

No due process (a component of the Lawful axis), however in the field, no mercy (part of the Good axis), therefore an alignment violation. Had the paladin held a field trial and proceeded to a judgement, the case'd be different.

You cannot have due process in a field trial. There is no impartial judge, and no-one to speak for the accused. There is no opportunity for any evidence to be gathered to defend the accused. Furthermore, the orc was not informed of his right to counsel before questioning, and neither was he informed of a right to remain silent or to not incriminate himself. Everyone present was convinced of the orc's guilt. Quite simply, any trial that could be conducted would be a sham, and a mockery of the justice that the paladin claims to uphold.

And it's meaningless anyway. The orc is guilty. The paladin knows the orc is guilty. And, in fact, the orc has confessed: he's admitted to being a part of the ogres band, and to being a part of raiding parties. Justice therefore empowers the paladin to proceed to sentencing, and then to carry out the sentence. Which, oddly enough, is what the paladin in question did. Only the actions of her fellow party member resulted in the orc fleeing that justice, which in turn led to the paladin chasing the orc down and cutting him down.

Context is everything if the orc was slated to be executed (and there's no indication that he was), then there's a number of ways the paladin could have carried out the sentence. Forcing a living, thinking creature, evil or not, to die in misery and terror is hardly justice, nor is quite literally stabbing them in the back. there were lawful and good option available, and the paladin chose to just walk the path of slaughter and expediency. such an act may be suitable for Conan, but not Charlegmane.

The alternative was for the paladin to ride down the orc, recapture him, and then, once he'd woken up from being knocked out again proceeding to kill an unarmed and bound prisoner. The orc still dies, helpless and in terror. The terror is just prolonged. Hurrah for mercy!

Again, not going into social justice or (effectively) murder by the state, had the paladin carried out the execution after due process (however brioef and appropriate), this wouldn't be an issue.

The paladin cannot provide due process in the field. It simply cannot be done in a fair and impartial manner. See above.

Had a lawful field trial been carried out, then the orc wouldn't have run, negating the issue.

Because no-one ever flees a sentence imposed after a full trial.

Had a lawful field trial been carried out, then the orc wouldn't have run, negating the issue. As it stands, the paladin would have been in alignment if they re-captured the orc then proceeded onward, fulfilling the obligations of the lawful and good axis.

I see. So, provided the party put their heads together and collectively agree that they all think the orc is guilty, they're in the clear? But if they don't conduct a sham of a trial and mockery of justice then they paladin is violating her code and her alignment?

Or is there some way that they can conduct an impartial trial for this orc?

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Clarifications:

Are you now saying that you attacked the orcs for no reason?

Not quite ... we were told that the ogre citadel was preying on caravans and probably contained magical treasure from the hoard of Vorbyx. Harpers tipped us off, and in exchange we agreed to end the citadel's banditry on the Glister Road.

For the record ... I was the one who suggested ambushing the orc's search party before attacking the citadel, in order to thin out their forces.

I used a sleep spell during the combat and we ended up with a prisoner. After gaining his full cooperation, I was prepared to let him go because:

01. He told us vital information.
02. He was pitiful, and I was feeling merciful.
03. He was not a significant threat.
04. The ogres had press-ganged him into service.
05. We planned on slaying the ogre leaders (i.e., the real threat) anyway.
06. He could have spread tales of our military prowess and/or honor.

Now ... I did not have the illusion that our ogre and orc opponents were "good" creatures. However, I also did not see them as evil incarnate. Killing them in battle was just mercenary business.

However, executing a pathetic orc mook in cold blood was excessive.

Was he a killer of caravaneers who had invaded his territory? Who knows? However ... at the time of questioning, he really seemed no worse than us.

-Samir

 

[Abraxas]

I had no intention of deceiving the paladin in any way shape or form. However, I was operating under the assumption that killing a useful snitch (and a mook at that) is bad form ... and I never expected her to attack an unarmed prisoner.

During your interrogation of the orc did you suggest to it you may let it go?
If you did, was it in a language that the paladin understood?

I did not know that she had a problem with our Q&A strategy until she flipped out on us.

What level are your characters and how long have they been adventuring together? How often have they taken prisoners and let them go? Has the group faced orcs before, taken prisoners and let them go?

Furthermore, I did not release a great "evil" into the world. I released a pathetic coward who had given us good intel ... information we later used to assault a genuine threat.

However, you wouldn't really know it was good intel until after the assault. When you and another player made the decision to let the orc go how sure were you that it wasn't going to go warn the ogres before you got there?

Let's face it, killing an orc in the Thar is like spitting in the ocean. Taking out the ogre citadel was our real concern. To me, the paladin's bloodlust seemed pointless, stupid, and dishonorable.

This sounds like a player conflict - its possible the paladins player thought that releasing the orc was stupid, posed a pointless risk if it warned the ogres, and was in fact Duty bound to kill the orc. I'm curious, have you talked to the paladins player to find out what he was thinking?

My criticisms of the paladin were both moral and pragmatic:

01. The orc was pathetic and weak (our DM did an amazing job of portraying this, by the way). I actually pitied the poor swine, and so did Mival.

02. If we earn a reputation for summary executions, few opponents will ever surrender to us or talk without serious coercion.

Did you sense motive to determine if the orc was possibly just putting on an act?
How will you earn that reputation? Someone would have to know it was your group that took out the orc bandits anbd then know that after getting any useful information from prisoners - you kill them. By the way, how many of the creatures at the ogre stronghold did the party take prisoner?

Bogg (CG) and Wade (CG) had not cast their vote yet, but they seemed fairly surprised (as were the rest of us) when Wyndess unexpectedly demanded the orc's death.

and

The paladin received no consequences, that I'm aware of

Was the DM also surprised by the players decision for the paladin? If not, there may be somethings that the player and DM have worked out that you just don't know about.

Although the orc did attack us (i.e., armed adventurers who ambushed him) ... we never saw him threaten an innocent or see any evidence that he had killed anyone.

The ogre citadel where he came from contained the wreckage of wagons, but we never saw anything that resembled human remains ... or any evidence of slaughtered caravaneers; no bones, blood, bodies, graves, and/or pyres ... nothing ....

In the end, the paladin slaughtered an unarmed dirtbag for theft and protecting himself from our assault.

Oh wait, he was evil ... I guess that makes it okay.

Do you actually believe that this orc just fell in with a bad crowd, really wanted to be good, and avoided killing anyone while being forced to be a bandit because of circumstances?
Seriously though, had the characters run into people who said their wagons were stolen by orc bandits, but no one was killed. Had thay investigated the sites where the wagons were taken?

And last, would you have your character give the psion character grief about killing helpless orcs if he would have used an area effect power that caught and killed the sleeping orc before you could have interrogated it (or just grief about losing a possible information source).


You and the other players should talk and find out where everybody stands on this stuff - and it might be a good idea to think about how youu are determining what and what isn't honorable/heroic - beacuase that seems to be where the conflict is coming from.

Good gaming

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Discernment:

I'll admit ... although the orc mook's summary execution did not sit well with me at the time, I'm not as sore about it now. Also, I realize that there are many ways to look at this matter ... and still fall within the guidelines of ethical behavior.

I'm taking the following steps:

01. I'm allowing the paladin to take responsibility for ALL interrogations; if necessary, I can translate ... or play good/bad cop.

02. I'm learning more divinatory magicks to compensate for fewer willing informants.
03. I'm encouraging the paladin's PC to learn speak with dead.

04. I'm starting a metagame discussion on PC expertise, so we can work out party duties without stepping on each other's toes.

Once again, I NEVER intended to compromise the paladin's code. Now that I have a better idea of what sets her off, then perhaps this unpleasantness can be avoided in the future.

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Play-By-Play (x3)

During your interrogation of the orc did you suggest to it you may let it go?
If you did, was it in a language that the paladin understood?

Yes (but not explicitly), near the end of our Q&A. Yes.

What level are your characters and how long have they been adventuring together? How often have they taken prisoners and let them go? Has the group faced orcs before, taken prisoners and let them go?

We're 6th level. We have only adventured as a complete party twice. We've released human mercenaries (who surrendered to us) once before ... and they were guarding slaves.

However, you wouldn't really know it was good intel until after the assault. When you and another player made the decision to let the orc go how sure were you that it wasn't going to go warn the ogres before you got there?

True, however we didn't think one squealing orc would make much difference. He also took off in the opposite direction of the citadel.

I was under the impression that his masters would kill him for incompetence, so he was trying to put as much distance between him and them as possible ... in case our assault would fail.

Still ... I'll admit, I was never 100% sure of this.

This sounds like a player conflict - its possible the paladins player thought that releasing the orc was stupid, posed a pointless risk if it warned the ogres, and was in fact Duty bound to kill the orc. I'm curious, have you talked to the paladins player to find out what he was thinking?

It's not a genuine player conflict, but I will work something out with him soon.

Did you sense motive to determine if the orc was possibly just putting on an act?

Yes, and either I failed ... or he was telling the truth.

How will you earn that reputation?

One day at a time.

Was the DM also surprised by the players decision for the paladin? If not, there may be somethings that the player and DM have worked out that you just don't know about.

You may be on to something here; still ... I'm not sure of this.

Do you actually believe that this orc just fell in with a bad crowd, really wanted to be good, and avoided killing anyone while being forced to be a bandit because of circumstances?

No ... I just thought he was a pathetic merc.

Seriously though, had the characters run into people who said their wagons were stolen by orc bandits, but no one was killed. Had thay investigated the sites where the wagons were taken?

Good points, and no on both counts.

And last, would you have your character give the psion character grief about killing helpless orcs if he would have used an area effect power that caught and killed the sleeping orc before you could have interrogated it (or just grief about losing a possible information source).

Nope, but it's not quite the same as running down a fleeing (and highly cooperative) coward who's begging for mercy.

You and the other players should talk and find out where everybody stands on this stuff - and it might be a good idea to think about how youu are determining what and what isn't honorable/heroic - beacuase that seems to be where the conflict is coming from.

True dat, Dog ... true dat ....

-Samir

 

[grimslade]

Not a pally problem but a player respect problem

THis is starting to become clearer.
The paladin is just ducky. The player of the paladin is just ducky.
Some things that stick out to me:
1)The altercation between the OP and Pally over speaking unknown languages. THe OP
encourages the pally to take a swing if he/she has the stones.
2) There was no surrender. No plan. No spoken consensus. There was the OP apparently
deciding unilateraly and getting upset when an unconsulted PC takes a different tack.
3) The party is commissioned to wipe out the bandit threat by the local authority. They have
been given the rights of High Justice.
4) The OP feels bad about the Pally killing one orc alone but has no compunction about ambush
killing a group of orcs.

The paladin of tyr did her job. Hoorah. This party needs to get some consensus on how they will act in the future and respect each member of the party.
Do not taunt party members for objecting when they feel disrespected.
Do not unilateraly decide things with out a clear plan of action.

I get the sense that the paladin was feeling marginalized from the get-go and saw her duty as clear. Everything I pick up from the OPs posts are negative about the character, i.e. the altercation over languages, calling her a 'foreign rube'. The paladin did what paladins do without being swayed by bully.

 

[Abraxas]

Sounds like things will work out. Let us know if you find out there was something in the paladins background that makes this event less surprising.

IME when there is a paladin in the party the other players have to cut that player some slack in his character decisions - if for no other reason than that the character can actually lose abilitites if played in a way that the DM doesn't agree with. It usually isn't the player just being difficult, its the player trying to play his character and follow some perceived (right or wrong) unwritten rules of behavior that are controlled by another person (the DM).

Good Gaming

 

[Once a Fool]

A paladin without mercy is a future blackguard. Mercy is the chief characteristic of a good alignment. Any character who has not yet learned that, only wants to be good, at best.

Alhandra, the PHB example, is on track to fall, unless she learns better.

Why? Because GOOD does not want to vanquish EVIL, it wants to CONVERT it. If GOOD does not convert EVIL, because it has vanquished it, GOOD has FAILED.

For my current campaign, I lifted the paladin code from the NIV Bible

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

Replace "Love" with "A paladin" (because, I think, even in the midevial French Romances, a paladin was, in fact, a lover) and we have a very interesting code.

"...it keeps no record of wrongs...always trusts...always hopes...Love never fails."

Now, the last line is the crux of it, of course. Love never fails to convert, if the paladin perseveres. The code does not allow for failure in that.

...But, I also believe that a paladin's code exists to give a paladin guidelines, until they can figure out on their own what it's supposed to mean. In my campaign, a paladin showing no mercy to a helpless prisoner of war would have major ramifications, though they might not be recognizable as such for quite some time. At the very least, the darker powers that be would certainly mark the paladin as a potential candidate for the blackguard class. Then they would take care to be persuasive.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Additional Clarification:

There was the OP apparently deciding unilateraly and getting upset when an unconsulted PC takes a different tack.

To be accurate: both Nigel and Mival openly defended the orc, Bogg and Wade were undecided ... but receptive to his release, and Wyndess was the one who just wanted to kill him.

We conducted the interrogation openly; no party member attempted to hide anything from one another.

Furthermore ... we had released cooperative mercs before, I did not assume that she would want to execute this one. I had no idea that any in-depth consultation was necessary (i.e., until after she began making threats).

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

More:

Sounds like things will work out. Let us know if you find out there was something in the paladins background that makes this event less surprising.

Guaranteed. Also, if you're curious about her background ... feel free to pick up a copy of it HERE.

IME when there is a paladin in the party the other players have to cut that player some slack in his character decisions - if for no other reason than that the character can actually lose abilitites if played in a way that the DM doesn't agree with. It usually isn't the player just being difficult, its the player trying to play his character and follow some perceived (right or wrong) unwritten rules of behavior that are controlled by another person (the DM).

True enough, and I'll admit ... I've adventured with very few paladins. I did play one once, but he leaned more towards the Good side of his Alignment axis than his Lawful side (which is the way I tend to play ALL my LG characters).

Good Gaming

You know it. Thanks for the feedback.

-Samir