Act of evil? Or just taking out the trash?

[mlund]

I think this paladin's acts are despicable. It is a clear case of overreacting: killing someone because he insults you.

This is a false argument that keeps coming up.

While the Paladin in question may have been insulted, that did not result in the criminal being killed. The criminal in question, while under the flag of quarter, promised to escape justice and visit death upon innocents.

If the police were to work this way, there'd be deaths every day in the city.

Again, there's a major problem here because Paladins are not police officers AND they don't live in a world with a modern criminal justice system. Largely they are judge, jury, and executioner in a world that doesn't bother imprisoning normal felons or malcontents. You whipped them, cut off their extremities, banished them, or executed them outright. Dungeons were for torturing and holding political prisoners - not rapists, traitors, thieves, and murderers.

As a side note, i find that this kind of reaction is often borne from a lack of immersion from the player.

Of course, I also see valid circumstance in which this kind of reaction is often borne from significant immersion from the player: "If a dangerous man and capital offender made death threats against my family in a frontier setting, he wouldn't make it to the court hourse for his hanging," - etc.

In other words, as uninvolved players often we see threats from defeated villains as cheap theater and our character's loved ones and NPC fodder for later drama. To our characters, on the other hand, such jeopardy could be considered murderous acts being directed against the most important, irreplaceable people in their lives.

I think that if you're able to put yourselves into the shoes of the paladin, you won't brush the idea off of ceasing that torture

I don't think the majority of people living in our time have the stomach for killing a man face-to-face - even in the middle of a life-or-death melee combat. If they kill it is typically in a panicked rush to survive. It is presumed, however, that Paladin and Fighter characters are well acquainted with maiming and killing other people at melee range when it is necessary.

- Marty Lund

 

[Skyscraper]

It's a combat-oriented fantasy game, so perhaps the player in question doesn't really give a fig about "immersing" himself. Maybe he thought the whole bring-em-back-alive quest was boring, and he was amusing himself between fights by going Schwarzenegger on the prisoner. We don't know these people's gaming/story preferences, so it's altogether possible that the OP is wasting his time setting up ethical dilemmas, complicated intra-church scheming, etc., when his players don't care and just want to kill monsters.

Sure. Let's assume for argument's sake that we are the ones playing, with our mindset; we can then provide our opinions on the matter, since anyway we don't know what goes on in the mind of the paladin player. In other words, we're having fun discussing moral questions without knowing if the paladin player cares at all, but we're having fun still. This is what EnWorld is all about

Sky

 

[Skyscraper]

This is a false argument that keeps coming up.

While the Paladin in question may have been insulted, that did not result in the criminal being killed. The criminal in question, while under the flag of quarter, promised to escape justice and visit death upon innocents.

Are you saying a prisoner, hands bound and being brought to justice, stating "I'll kill you and your family", is enough to torture and kill him? A couple of punches in the face ought to shut him up, if you want to get physical. Cutting his legs and dragging him for two days in agony until he dies is frickin' psycho in my book.

Again, there's a major problem here because Paladins are not police officers AND they don't live in a world with a modern criminal justice system. Largely they are judge, jury, and executioner in a world that doesn't bother imprisoning normal felons or malcontents. You whipped them, cut off their extremities, banished them, or executed them outright. Dungeons were for torturing and holding political prisoners - not rapists, traitors, thieves, and murderers.

Good point. At least in a medieval-inspired world, which is a default premise for many D&D worlds i admit.

Still, D&D also has other basic premises for its game-worlds as proposed by this edition and prior editions alike, which include the definiton of alignment and what is good and what is lawful. I assume you'll agree that the act carried out by the paladin in this case falls under neither the good or lawful definitions. However, the paladin is stated by the OP as being a paladin of Bahamut and is assumed to be lawful good. Or at least, his order is assumed to be lawful good if you allow the paladin character to derail from that alignment himself.

Since there is nothing in the D&D rules or in the OP's post to suggest that summary execution of a prisoner by torture is acceptable, i believe that the statement that the paladin's acts are just are unsupported.

Of course, I also see valid circumstance in which this kind of reaction is often borne from significant immersion from the player: "If a dangerous man and capital offender made death threats against my family in a frontier setting, he wouldn't make it to the court hourse for his hanging," - etc.

I agree. If this is the case, i retract my comment. However, for having played D&D for quite a long time now, what i've seen more often is the "i torture and kill the prisoner, oh and pass me the soda bottle please" kind of comment, wherein the player is obviously not considering what it means to actually carry out what he's saying. As you mention later, most people in our low-violence western society don't have the stomach to kill (or torture) someone, and saying that their PC does exactly that to a helpless victim is borne from ignorance of what it means IMO.

In other words, as uninvolved players often we see threats from defeated villains as cheap theater and our character's loved ones and NPC fodder for later drama. To our characters, on the other hand, such jeopardy could be considered murderous acts being directed against the most important, irreplaceable people in their lives.

What jeopardy? The guy is going to be put in prison or die after having been tried (assuming there's a trial). Of course he'll threaten everyone and his mother. He'll try to offer a bribe, then he'll tell the guy that he has powerful friends that will kill him and his children and burn down his house. The guy is DESPERATE, as he should be. Threats of murder are just another way by which the guy is trying to get himself out of his predicament. As a member of an order that brings law and order to your people, this should be your everyday bread-and-butter.

I don't think the majority of people living in our time have the stomach for killing a man face-to-face - even in the middle of a life-or-death melee combat. If they kill it is typically in a panicked rush to survive. It is presumed, however, that Paladin and Fighter characters are well acquainted with maiming and killing other people at melee range when it is necessary.

This is quite true.

Sky

 

[mlund]

Are you saying a prisoner, hands bound and being brought to justice, stating "I'll kill you and your family", is enough to torture and kill him? A couple of punches in the face ought to shut him up, if you want to get physical. Cutting his legs and dragging him for two days in agony until he dies is frickin' psycho in my book.

The exact quote from the original poster is as follows:

"The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends)."

Also, I'd note that they fought an Encounter with this guy before he asked for quarter. Unless he was a Level X Solo he had friends / allies that could go toe-to-toe with adventurers for at least a few rounds.

Also, the DM posted part of the information the PCs have been given about this criminal: "He has publicly and brutally put to death anyone who would dare refute his claims."

So he's a dangerous criminal (with dangerous allies) who has committed brutal, public murders against innocents who has merely had verbal disagreements with him. He has stated that more of his allies that escaped capture will dismember and murder the Paladin's loved ones.

The Paladin executes the murderous criminal and makes a public example out of him - an act that presumably would intimidate those thinking of acting like him from doing so - including those "powerful friends" that were going to visit "death and dismemberment" to the Paladin's loved ones. He also eliminates the possibility that the criminal might be able to communicate with or be rescued by his allies during his march through various towns and his trial - eliminating any further chances to hatch such a plot.

Excessive? Probably.
Irrational? Doesn't seem so.
Unreasonable? That's arguable.

Still, D&D also has other basic premises for its game-worlds as proposed by this edition and prior editions alike, which include the definiton of alignment and what is good and what is lawful. I assume you'll agree that the act carried out by the paladin in this case falls under neither the good or lawful definitions.

The actions certainly weren't works of mercy, but Good doesn't have to show boundless mercy in D&D. Lawful Good, in particular, tends to show less individual mercy because it puts more emphasis on the costs and benefits of such actions against their impact on society as a whole. A Good character might let a thief go in hopes of sincere repentance while a Lawful Good character might take his thieving hand because setting him back out upon the populace does a disservice to the innocent villagers and such.

Bahamut, in particular, is not a deity with Mercy listed anywhere in his portfolio. In fact, the heavy burdens of Honor and Justice are often perceived to be quite merciless.

I do no believe the act was the best example of Good or Law.
I wouldn't file it neatly away under Evil or Chaos either.

- Marty Lund

 

[Skyscraper]

"The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends)."

"You're a SOB! Your mother had every man of the kingdom between her legs! Your god is a FAKE! He eats right out of my dog's bung hole! Your entire faith is horse crap! When i'm free of my bounds, i'll get you. Oh, how i'll get you. And don't worry, i will get away. I have powerful friends, you know. I'll tie you up and torture you for days. You'll beg for mercy, but you'll get none from me. I'll leave you for a couple of hours in a dark, damp cell while you cry in desperation and agony, only to return with your kid sister. I'll make you watch while i..." (And so on.)

Do we agree on the approximate content of what such a person is likely to be saying?

Is that worth killing him? People who are whackos and say that kind of thing abound, by the way. Even nowadays.

If the paladin was out to exact vengeance or justice on this individual by executing him, he should have done it at the outset. If he decides to bring him back as a prisoner, i assume there is a reason. The thing that makes the paladin change his mind about killing him is this guy's threats/insults. Again, i don't think you kill someone for that. If you state that the paladin kills him because the guy is a murderer, i contest that: he would have killed him beforehand if that was the reason.

Also, I'd note that they fought an Encounter with this guy before he asked for quarter. Unless he was a Level X Solo he had friends / allies that could go toe-to-toe with adventurers for at least a few rounds.

Again, why not kill him right away? Why wait?

Also, the DM posted part of the information the PCs have been given about this criminal: "He has publicly and brutally put to death anyone who would dare refute his claims."

So he's a dangerous criminal (with dangerous allies) who has committed brutal, public murders against innocents who has merely had verbal disagreements with him. He has stated that more of his allies that escaped capture will dismember and murder the Paladin's loved ones.

I don't argue that the prisoner is a SOB himself. Just that losing your temper and killing someone because he insults or threatens you is overreacting. If you want to kill him at the outset, do it.

The Paladin executes the murderous criminal and makes a public example out of him - an act that presumably would intimidate those thinking of acting like him from doing so - including those "powerful friends" that were going to visit "death and dismemberment" to the Paladin's loved ones. He also eliminates the possibility that the criminal might be able to communicate with or be rescued by his allies during his march through various towns and his trial - eliminating any further chances to hatch such a plot.

He was sent to take care of the murderer. Why did he chose to bring him back as a prisoner if he wanted to kill him? Wait: killing and all that stuff didn't warrant to kill the criminal, but insulting and threatening the paladin, does? This is a case of the paladin putting his pride before anything else.

Excessive? Probably.
Irrational? Doesn't seem so.
Unreasonable? That's arguable.

Obviously argualbe, since we're arguing about it

I believe it is clearly excessive and unreasonable, as you may have surmised.

The actions certainly weren't works of mercy, but Good doesn't have to show boundless mercy in D&D. Lawful Good, in particular, tends to show less individual mercy because it puts more emphasis on the costs and benefits of such actions against their impact on society as a whole. A Good character might let a thief go in hopes of sincere repentance while a Lawful Good character might take his thieving hand because setting him back out upon the populace does a disservice to the innocent villagers and such.

I don't think that cutting out a hand is a good measure. It might be lawful neutral or lawful evil, but it's certainly not good.

"The end justifies the means". That is a lawful evil principle. It initially comes from Machiavel, thus the expression "machiavelic". If you are ready to exact vengeance in any way to uphold the law, you are acting in a lawful evil manner. If your ideals are so important that you wish them to be upheld by everyone, you'll conquer under the banner of those ideals, imposing them to all. That is lawful evil.

You appear to be supporting your arguments based on how law was upheld during the real-world dark ages, e.g. cutting out the hand of the robber, executing and torturing prisoners, etc... Although that gives an example of how harsh conditions were back then, we are far from what is lawful good:

(PHB p. 19): If you’re lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.

I don't see honor in death through torture of one who was captured.

Bahamut, in particular, is not a deity with Mercy listed anywhere in his portfolio. In fact, the heavy burdens of Honor and Justice are often perceived to be quite merciless.

Lawful evil is merciless in the face of law. Lawful good is not. It is not because you defend justice that you defend it at all costs.

At a quick glance, i do not see mercy listed in any god's description. However, i assume we'll agree that mercy is a trait that would fall under the good alignment, as far as alignments are defined in D&D - because we are talking about the game of D&D here where alignments are defined. Cutting a hand is not good, even if it was done by the law-enforcing men during the dark ages. (Why would you say that cutting hands of robbers is not done by western societies' justice systems anymore, by the way?)

Fun conversation by the way.

Sky

 

[mlund]

Do we agree on the approximate content of what such a person is likely to be saying?

No, not really. I'd say if he was talking about "powerful friends" it'd be more the kind of threats you'd expect a Mafia Capo to be dropping on a cop running him in - about how the Don or the rest of the family is going to find out what you did and bad, bad things are going to happen to your wife and kids. "Have you ever seen what a big, bad man can do to a little girl?" etc.

Is that worth killing him? People who are whackos and say that kind of thing abound, by the way. Even nowadays.

In a frontier-type setting where the guy is just going to hang anyway and the Paladin's authority figure already gave him the authority to slay this man in the first place? Yeah, it might very well be worth killing him.

If the paladin was out to exact vengeance or justice on this individual by executing him, he should have done it at the outset. If he decides to bring him back as a prisoner, i assume there is a reason.

As I already noted in this thread: the villain asked for quarter and was given an honorable surrender. He then grossly violated the required conduct of an honorable surrender.

I don't think that cutting out a hand is a good measure. It might be lawful neutral or lawful evil, but it's certainly not good.

By that logic any punishment meted out that "feels icky," isn't a "good measure." In medieval societies punishments are typically corporal, while in many modern societies corporal punishment is no longer practiced - often times to the detriment of the convict and society, might I add.

That is lawful evil.

In 4th Edition we've got Chaotic Evil, Evil, Unaligned, Good, and Lawful Good to choose from. We don't have Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil to work with.

You appear to be supporting your arguments based on how law was upheld during the real-world dark ages, e.g. cutting out the hand of the robber, executing and torturing prisoners, etc... Although that gives an example of how harsh conditions were back then, we are far from what is lawful good:

(PHB p. 19): If you’re lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.

I don't see honor in death through torture of one who was captured.

I also don't see a violation of anything in the description of Lawful Good here either. "Believing in the value of life," does not prohibit the taking of life in defense of others or meting out Justice. As I've already established, the "Points of Light" setting does not provide the necessary underpinnings for a modern criminal justice system. Bad guys don't normally go to prison here, and many of them escape justice entirely. Criminal justice isn't going to be pretty.

Moreover, I certainly see where honor enters into this equation. Violating the rules of an honorable surrender, a flag of truce, or the hospitality of a home are often grievous offenses in many cultures - exactly because they depend on trust in order to save lives. In a world without truces, cease-fires, and honorable surrenders would be a sea of carnage - so those who jeopardize those traditions are dealt with severely among orders such as knights and military officers.

Bahamut's portfolio, in particular, is one in which suggests such conduct is considered especially heinous.

Lawful evil is merciless in the face of law. Lawful good is not. It is not because you defend justice that you defend it at all costs.

Actually, Lawful Evil was exploitative of the law, not merciless. It granted mercy or cruelty to whatever extent the law allowed to the advantage or satisfaction of the character in question. Inevitables (Lawful Neutral extraplanars) were merciless and relentless back in 3rd edition.

Cutting a hand is not good, even if it was done by the law-enforcing men during the dark ages. (Why would you say that cutting hands of robbers is not done by western societies' justice systems anymore, by the way?)

Modern morality and criminal justice != D&D morality or criminal justice

That aside, modern societies refrain from maiming people because they send them to Correctional Institutions aimed at returning the robber to society as a rehabilitated and productive member of society. Chopping off a hand generally cuts down on productivity. Modern societies are ostensibly productive and technologically advanced enough to actually support Correctional Institutions and police those released to deter recurring offenses. Medieval societies are not.

(Of course, both the success and the "mercy" of these modern Correctional Institutions is subject to debate. "Don't drop the soap," shouldn't be the part that inspires deterrence.)

- Marty Lund

 

[Skyscraper]

Modern morality and criminal justice != D&D morality or criminal justice

I think this is one point where we disgree and pretty much everything stems from there.

A moral code for me is something that is not flexible depending on the setting once you define it. Good is good, as per definition in the PHB. You uphold life, etc... Whether you transpose that moral code in modern life or D&D, it remains the same.

Then there are the circumstances that occur and that might make moral decisions harder. If hard circumstances push you to accomplish extreme acts in the name of justice, those extreme acts may be evil. The fact that the actions are triggered by hard circumstances may attenuate their scope, but they remain evil nonetheless.

Cutting out a person's hand might be necessary to carry out justice in hard circumstances, but it remains an evil act IMO.

Sky

 

[Ravingdork]

So he's a dangerous criminal (with dangerous allies) who has committed brutal, public murders against innocents who has merely had verbal disagreements with him. He has stated that more of his allies that escaped capture will dismember and murder the Paladin's loved ones.

The Paladin executes the murderous criminal and makes a public example out of him - an act that presumably would intimidate those thinking of acting like him from doing so - including those "powerful friends" that were going to visit "death and dismemberment" to the Paladin's loved ones. He also eliminates the possibility that the criminal might be able to communicate with or be rescued by his allies during his march through various towns and his trial - eliminating any further chances to hatch such a plot.

...

The actions certainly weren't works of mercy, but Good doesn't have to show boundless mercy in D&D. Lawful Good, in particular, tends to show less individual mercy because it puts more emphasis on the costs and benefits of such actions against their impact on society as a whole. A Good character might let a thief go in hopes of sincere repentance while a Lawful Good character might take his thieving hand because setting him back out upon the populace does a disservice to the innocent villagers and such.

Bahamut, in particular, is not a deity with Mercy listed anywhere in his portfolio. In fact, the heavy burdens of Honor and Justice are often perceived to be quite merciless.

This is so eerily similar to the argument the paladin player made to me when I finally got around to talking to him (out of game) it's freaky!

 

[mlund]

A moral code for me is something that is not flexible depending on the setting once you define it. Good is good, as per definition in the PHB. You uphold life, etc... Whether you transpose that moral code in modern life or D&D, it remains the same.

See, while my own beliefs about what is Good and what is Evil overlap with the D&D system to some extent, they certainly differ. When running D&D I'll apply D&D's system, not my own. I don't apply D&D game rules about Good and Evil to determine what is Good and Evil in Real Life either.

Then there are the circumstances that occur and that might make moral decisions harder. If hard circumstances push you to accomplish extreme acts in the name of justice, those extreme acts may be evil.

Actually, I'd argue that the circumstances actually determine whether or not an action is evil. Cutting a man's leg off to save him from a bear trap can be a good thing. Cutting a man's leg off to save yourself the walk to get help to pry the trap open and save his leg and his life is a wicked act.

Avoiding maiming the man has moral value. It isn't as high a value as saving the man's life, though. So the consequences, motivation, and availability of alternatives all determine the morality of the act in question. Maiming the man is undesirable, but it may be necessary to preserve a higher moral value, and thus not evil.

Theft in a society with a wealth-based economy causes a far different sort of harm than theft in a society with a sustenance-based economy. In one the thief violates a man's right to property. In the other a thief threatens entire families with death by starvation. If both societies value innocent life above all, would you not expect the one in which theft threatens innocent life to respond with a much harsher punishment than the one in which theft has little or no threat to innocent life?

Good and Lawful Good are distinct from each other in 4th Edition in that Lawful Good believes that ordered societies and laws will provide significant benefits to their citizens - including preserving the lives and freedoms that Good characters and Lawful Good characters both value. Because of this, Lawful Good characters often interpret assaults on law and order within their society as assaults against the continued survival of innocents.

Both alignments share their primary values, but the Lawful Good outlook perceived consequences and contexts that the Good outlook may not necessarily acknowledge.

Good: "The man destroyed part of an aqueduct."
Lawful Good: "Execute him."
Good: "But he destroyed a building, not a person."
Lawful Good: "Tell that to the people in the city that aqueduct provides water to while they are suffering from plague, starvation, and thirst this summer while the aqueduct is under construction."
Good: "Oh ..."

At the same time, Good characters will probably have keener vision when it comes to the undesirable elements that crop up in an ordered society - including the curtailment of liberties, the inevitability of bureaucratic corruption, etc. Lawful Good characters are vulnerable to falling into the mentality of "the Status Quo is still a net positive - don't rock the boat."

- Marty Lund

 

[Ravingdork]

It's a combat-oriented fantasy game, so perhaps the player in question doesn't really give a fig about "immersing" himself. Maybe he thought the whole bring-em-back-alive quest was boring, and he was amusing himself between fights by going Schwarzenegger on the prisoner...so it's altogether possible that the OP is wasting his time setting up ethical dilemmas, complicated intra-church scheming, etc., when his players don't care and just want to kill monsters.

God, I certainly hope not!