Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3549994" data-attributes="member: 35788">I'd like to argue this point, and of course am going to put up front that I hope these contexts can be taken in a D&amp;D fantasy world and not the modern context of Christianity/Judaism/Islam/etc ... cause that would be violating a board policy.In D&amp;D, I believe (Hence, this is just my opinion, not RAW) the rules are designed to function as black and white as possible, especially regarding the paladin.&nbsp; An act is either right or wrong, regardless of the intent.&nbsp; If a paladin is following a god that promotes non-violence, then killing something is still wrong regardless of whether they intended it or not.&nbsp; Especially in a game like D&amp;D where there are rules established to make sure that death won't occur.&nbsp; You can use non-lethal force or something like a net and guarantee that death won't occur.&nbsp; And, of course this is in D&amp;D, not the real world where there are no such guarantees.&nbsp; I would rule that any paladin who follows a diety where killing an innocent is frown upon (hence, the vast majority of them, right?) is at the very least negligent.&nbsp; They were thoughtless.&nbsp; Misdirected.&nbsp; They were deomonstrating their imperfect humanity, elfdom, dwarfism, etc.Are they still a paladin?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; Was the act wrong?&nbsp; Absolutely - regardless of intent.&nbsp; Should they atone (either through the spell or at the very least by an observable penitent action and change of approach towards violence?&nbsp; In my game, yes.Hint: They might want to take the Justicar PrC or something along those lines that allows them to do nonlethal damage w/o penalties.&nbsp; That PrC even has a paladin multiclassing note attached to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nonlethal Force, post: 3549994, member: 35788"] I'd like to argue this point, and of course am going to put up front that I hope these contexts can be taken in a D&D fantasy world and not the modern context of Christianity/Judaism/Islam/etc ... cause that would be violating a board policy. In D&D, I believe (Hence, this is just my opinion, not RAW) the rules are designed to function as black and white as possible, especially regarding the paladin. An act is either right or wrong, regardless of the intent. If a paladin is following a god that promotes non-violence, then killing something is still wrong regardless of whether they intended it or not. Especially in a game like D&D where there are rules established to make sure that death won't occur. You can use non-lethal force or something like a net and guarantee that death won't occur. And, of course this is in D&D, not the real world where there are no such guarantees. I would rule that any paladin who follows a diety where killing an innocent is frown upon (hence, the vast majority of them, right?) is at the very least negligent. They were thoughtless. Misdirected. They were deomonstrating their imperfect humanity, elfdom, dwarfism, etc. Are they still a paladin? Sure. Was the act wrong? Absolutely - regardless of intent. Should they atone (either through the spell or at the very least by an observable penitent action and change of approach towards violence? In my game, yes. Hint: They might want to take the Justicar PrC or something along those lines that allows them to do nonlethal damage w/o penalties. That PrC even has a paladin multiclassing note attached to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification