D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[TheSword]

Ah from the post that raised it, it seemed like they were in your game and unhappy how as a DM you ruled on his character.

@Flamestrike does it matter how Helldritch DMs in his games?

 

[Maxperson]

So to start with I don't like Paladin PCs. Did not like them in 1Eor 3E, 5E is a little better but they still have that silly oath. They are great for that knucklehead NPC.

We have an oath of devotion Paladin in a game I am DM ing. His Deity is Tyr. He is Lawful good, the rest of the party is Chaotic (CN fighter, CG warlock/rogue and CN Barbarian). As an aside I am not a fan of CN players either but that is another topic.

Well there is constantly friction in the party as to how to handle things. For example they typically want to kill prisoners after interogating and promising to let them go, they have no problem lying and well acting Chaotic. The Paladin tries to role play his character with his oath but it is causing a lot of friction. It came to a head in the last game when they let a stone Giant go after they got done arguing with him. The two CN characters wanted to kill him because they thought he would come back and attack them. the Paladin stood his ground and said no way and drew a line in the sand, the CG warlock rogue sided with the Palidin but would have been fine with "looking the other way" if the Paladin did not make a big deal out of it. OF course they were ambushed by said giant and friends later that session. It could have been a TPK, and would have but I played the Giants poorly in battle, making some bad decisions and the party scraped out of it (barely).

I am really having trouble with this because I think in real life those characters would just part ways - the Paladin can't accept such behavior and the others can't stand the goody-goody Paladin. Of course in the real world parting ways means an end to our game. If it wasn't for his oath I think he would just relent and basically look at alignment as a guideline or belief instead of a code to live by.

If it helps, Gary Gygax said that it was LG for PC execute prisoners who were evil, even if they converted to LG(as that would make sure they didn't backslide). So...

I couldn't find the one where he said executing after conversion was okay, but I did find this one.


"I offer the following:

The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature of the Evil victors and that of the survivors. Enlistment would be for those of like alignment, slaughter for those opposite the victors' predisposition to order or disorder. Enslavement is an option for any sort of Evil desiring workers.

Cheers,
Gary "

 

[Oofta]

Thats not MY vision of Orcs, thats THE vision of Orcs. As I tried to explain to you, and as JC and co came out a week later in a timely post and confirmed for the both of us.

And by refusing to engage in genocide, I dont have 'blood on my hands'. Should the descendants of those Orcs grow up to be monsters, that blood is on their hands.

Id be extremely uncomfortable playing in a game where 'genocide' is the morally good choice, and 'refusing genocide' is a morally bad choice, because it 'leaves you with blood on your hands.'

You do you though. If you want to HR Orcs as fundamentally evil creatures lacking in free will, go nuts.

Again with the genocide. Why always go from "orcs evil" straight to genocide all the freakin' time? Only people who have a problem with orcs being always evil are the ones who repeatedly go there.

Besides, whether orcs are always evil or not is explicitly the DM's choice as mentioned in the MM section under alignment. The assumption in the MM is that they are evil unless the DM decides otherwise, no amount of capitalizing and underlining is going to change that. It may not be true in FR, Eberron or your campaign.

But seriously. Going from 0 to genocide is just ... old.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Again with the genocide. Why always go from "orcs evil" straight to genocide all the freakin' time? Only people who have a problem with orcs being always evil are the ones who repeatedly go there.

Besides, whether orcs are always evil or not is explicitly the DM's choice as mentioned in the MM section under alignment. The assumption in the MM is that they are evil unless the DM decides otherwise, no amount of capitalizing and underlining is going to change that. It may not be true in FR, Eberron or your campaign.

But seriously. Going from 0 to genocide is just ... old.

Well, first I think we need to look at what racism is and it's place in our reality.

1. The world is made of atoms. However, if I only look at atoms, we will never see find table, chairs, or pairs of glasses. Those things may not exist in reality in the way I perceive them. Nevertheless, I do perceive something, and it functions like a chair, table, or pair of spectacles. By interpreting that information and acting appropriately according to my perception, memory, and testimony of others, I can exist in the world that I perceive.

2. Dictionary definitions are subjective. However, most definitions attempt to point at something - whether physical or conceptual.

3. Racism exists: both as the belief that one race is superior to another and in the Mariam Webster sense. They exist in the mind as beliefs. Beliefs exist. I have them. You have them. Everyone else has them, too.

4. Moralities are also beliefs. Like all beliefs, they need not exist outside the mind in order to exist inside the mind.

5. I consider milk tasteless. Others love it. However, tasteless and love are attributes not of the milk, but of the individual who has a belief about milk.

6. Different people have different opinions as what they consider racist - just like finding milk tasteless or pleasant. The sense of something being racist is an attribute of the individual, not the object.

7. Therefore, something cannot be racist. It can only be considered racist.

8. The fact something cannot be racist (once again, in the Merriam Webster sense) and can only be considered racist is not an excuse to intentionally offend or harm others. Humans exist in societies. Those societies require cooperation to sustain themselves. Collapse will likely result in the loss of human life and well-being, which I consider a bad thing.


@Flamestrike's belief assigns orcs the attribute racist. You don't. It's that simple. @Flamestrike's belief has nothing to do with orcs and everything to do with @Flamestrike's perception of reality. The attribute "racist" is an attribute of @Flamestrike's belief as assign to orcs, not an attribute of idea of orcs itself.

 

[Oofta]

Well, first I think we need to look at what racism is and it's place in our reality.

1. The world is made of atoms. However, if I only look at atoms, we will never see find table, chairs, or pairs of glasses. Those things may not exist in reality in the way I perceive them. Nevertheless, I do perceive something, and it functions like a chair, table, or pair of spectacles. By interpreting that information and acting appropriately according to my perception, memory, and testimony of others, I can exist in the world that I perceive.

2. Dictionary definitions are subjective. However, most definitions attempt to point at something - whether physical or conceptual.

3. Racism exists: both as the belief that one race is superior to another and in the Mariam Webster sense. They exist in the mind as beliefs. Beliefs exist. I have them. You have them. Everyone else has them, too.

4. Moralities are also beliefs. Like all beliefs, they need not exist outside the mind in order to exist inside the mind.

5. I consider milk tasteless. Others love it. However, tasteless and love are attributes not of the milk, but of the individual who has a belief about milk.

6. Different people have different opinions as what they consider racist - just like finding milk tasteless or pleasant. The sense of something being racist is an attribute of the individual, not the object.

7. Therefore, something cannot be racist. It can only be considered racist.

8. The fact something cannot be racist (once again, in the Merriam Webster sense) and can only be considered racist is not an excuse to intentionally offend or harm others. Humans exist in societies. Those societies require cooperation to sustain themselves. Collapse will likely result in the loss of human life and well-being, which I consider a bad thing.


@Flamestrike's belief assigns orcs the attribute racist. You don't. It's that simple. @Flamestrike's belief has nothing to do with orcs and everything to do with @Flamestrike's perception of reality. The attribute "racist" is an attribute of @Flamestrike's belief, not orcs.

So back to the "real world racism bad so fantasy monsters being evil is racist"? Could have sworn I remember people insisting that no one has ever done that.

I have no issue with people running orcs however they want. Sometimes I want easily identifiable bad guys because it's a game, just like most "action" fiction has easily identifiable bad guys.

 

[Maxperson]

Please let's take a moment to examine the Tenets of the Oath of Devotion

• Honesty: Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
• Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
• Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
• Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
• Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

Emphasis added.

So the real, actual problem here is the rest of the party PROMISING TO LET THEM GO and then reneging.

It's a lot more than that.

Showing mercy to your foes(even tempered with wisdom) does not equal killing all the evil ones after they surrender. That's not mercy, tempered by wisdom.

Treat others with fairness. It's blatantly unfair to murder the prisoners who surrendered.

Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm refers purely to the Paladin. HE has to cause the least amount of harm, not anyone who might let go. The Paladin doesn't get to assume possible harm in the future by the prisoners and count that toward this portion of the oath. It's blatantly dishonorable to murder a helpless prisoner.

 

[TheSword]

It's a lot more than that.

Showing mercy to your foes(even tempered with wisdom) does not equal killing all the evil ones after they surrender. That's not mercy, tempered by wisdom.

Treat others with fairness. It's blatantly unfair to murder the prisoners who surrendered.

Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm refers purely to the Paladin. HE has to cause the least amount of harm, not anyone who might let go. The Paladin doesn't get to assume possible harm in the future by the prisoners and count that toward this portion of the oath. It's blatantly dishonorable to murder a helpless prisoner.

If the prisoner is a criminal accused of a capital crime, and the Paladin has been deputized to resolve the crime... or the criminal is outlawed and therefore not entitled to legal protection as is the case in most adventurers... then how is it unfair.

 

[Maxperson]

If the prisoner is a criminal accused of a capital crime, and the Paladin has been deputized to resolve the crime... or the criminal is outlawed and therefore not entitled to legal protection as is the case in most adventurers... then how is it unfair.

It's about as fair as coming up with a few exceptions to what I said and trying to apply those exceptions in a general way.

Oh, and using "not entitled to legal protection" as an excuse to murder is evil.

 

[auburn2]

Treat others with fairness. It's blatantly unfair to murder the prisoners who surrendered.

I would disagree with this completely. Fairness means in accordance with the rules or equitable. In particular with respect to equitable if said prisoners would kill you in a similar postion then it is only "fair" that you kill them.

I understand the arguement that it is inherently evil to murder prisoners who surrendered (although I do not agree with it in all cases). I do not agree ever that it is "unfair".

Also for people that say killing prisoners is absolutely always evil I have a few questions:
1. Are good characters similarly duty bound to try to revive an enemy that fell in combat. RAW they are not "dead" until they fail three saves. So as the last Goblin that ambushed you is struck down should you not render aid on any that are not already dead? When you play good characters do you do this after every battle?

2. To expand on #1 - If you are not required to render aid then presumably some of them are going to pass three saves and thereby live on their own ... what do you do about that. A LG character obviously can't leave the evil Goblins to continue raiding, looting etc and he can't kill such helpless creatures. So this a quandry, while he may not have to help them live, some are going to live anyway and they would need to at least take those that survive on their own prisoner. So after every battle do you wait to see who revives on his own so you can take them prisoner and turn over to the authorities?

3. What about Vampires you capturred, or Vampires that are defeated and regnerating in their coffins? Is it evil to kill such helpless beings? If Strahd surrenders to you in the final battle is a good character duty-bound not to kill him?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So back to the "real world racism bad so fantasy monsters being evil is racist"? Could have sworn I remember people insisting that no one has ever done that.

I have no issue with people running orcs however they want. Sometimes I want easily identifiable bad guys because it's a game, just like most "action" fiction has easily identifiable bad guys.

Most action movies don’t have a whole race as the easily identifiable bad guy anymore for a reason.
And again...no one but you is bringing up your home game.
A change to the default alignment of orcs doesn’t affect your home game in any way.