Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gilladian" data-source="post: 6015067" data-attributes="member: 2093">First let me say that I'm addressing my answer with the following specifics;1) in my campaign alignment is a guide, not a straightjacket; only clerics and paladins MUST follow a code, which includes alignment.2) I'm all for letting players rationalize what they decide to do within that framework.a character (such as a paladin, knight or cleric) who is lawful and represents the law of his realm, would have the right to judge the guilt of the giants, and decide their fate. If he had reason to believe the giants would commit more evil, then properly executing them would be justified. If he instead believed they could and would keep an oath, he could be justified in taking their word that they would leave if paroled. a character who did NOT have the right to make such judgements might feel obligated to take them back to the dwarves and let them judge whether to keep the giants as slaves, or execute them as criminals, or take their oath and free them. a chaotic character or group would probably execute them simply because it is the &quot;simplest&quot; solution with the fewest likely repercussions later. Feudal law, which is what I'm trying to loosely emulate in my campaign world, is pretty free and easy with &quot;right to judge&quot; by the nobility; so I figure at least one PC in most any party will end up feeling that they have authority to judge the giants.So basically; let the PCs decide what they have the right to do, and then play out the results.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gilladian, post: 6015067, member: 2093"] First let me say that I'm addressing my answer with the following specifics; 1) in my campaign alignment is a guide, not a straightjacket; only clerics and paladins MUST follow a code, which includes alignment. 2) I'm all for letting players rationalize what they decide to do within that framework. a character (such as a paladin, knight or cleric) who is lawful and represents the law of his realm, would have the right to judge the guilt of the giants, and decide their fate. If he had reason to believe the giants would commit more evil, then properly executing them would be justified. If he instead believed they could and would keep an oath, he could be justified in taking their word that they would leave if paroled. a character who did NOT have the right to make such judgements might feel obligated to take them back to the dwarves and let them judge whether to keep the giants as slaves, or execute them as criminals, or take their oath and free them. a chaotic character or group would probably execute them simply because it is the "simplest" solution with the fewest likely repercussions later. Feudal law, which is what I'm trying to loosely emulate in my campaign world, is pretty free and easy with "right to judge" by the nobility; so I figure at least one PC in most any party will end up feeling that they have authority to judge the giants. So basically; let the PCs decide what they have the right to do, and then play out the results. [/QUOTE]

Verification