Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Thanatos]

If the Paladin had killed the orc before allowing the other PCs to negotiate with the orc for its life and freedom for information--even slaughtering it while they tried to talk, there wouldn't be a problem.

Well we agree here.

By failing to do so, the Paladin allowed an agreement to be made and then went against it. Thus, in this way, the actual victims of the Paladin's Evil act were the other PCs.

An agreement was not made by the OP's own admission. They interrogated the orc before reaching a conclusion as to his ultimate fate, thus there was no evil act. Did you read the OP's followup posts where he states that?

Seems like she did the smart thing in regards to keeping her character from being put in the dilemma of being forced to decide whether to do what the party wanted or what her code demands. Still, not smart in how it was sprung on the players.

If one of the other PCs who made the agreement was also a Paladin, for instance, he would have to turn the killer paladin into the authorities and/or beat her up to stop the killing or else fail to uphold the code by going against his word by failing to act to prevent it.

This has no bearing on anything and really shows nothing. I would disagree and say in your little skit that both of the paladins would be likely agree that the orc had to be killed. Its still moot since no agreement was made and there were not two paladins in the party.

It is the lack of respect for anyone but herself and the willingness to act alone regardless of the effect to the other PCs that makes this act either chaotic or evil, depending on the modus operandi and how it was carried out. Breaking the consensus to do what you want is Chaotic unless the person you are ignoring is your vassal or subordinate.

Following her code is not a lack of respect for herself. And acting out, regardless of the other pc's when it concerns her code is demanded of her and that is not chaotic or evil. I'm sorry, but following the dictates of her code, no matter how you try to slice and portray it, is not chaotic of evil. Even if it goes against the consensus of the party, she is bound to her code first. Thats what being a paladin is all about -- being held to a divine standard over a non-divine one.

Except there was no consensus. Aside from that, if the consensus went against her code, she would still have to follow her code anyway or risk losing her abilities.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Thanatos--I don't think anyone except you on this thread is trying to argue that killing the orc was required to avoid violating the code and losing her powers. Most of the others are saying it was allowable by the code, which is a legitimate argument. You should read Dross's post--it has some nice succinct insights.

 

[Thanatos]

Oh my god, would you care to nitpick more? LOL

Please. replace all the words I used with required with allowed :rolls eyes:

Required by the code is an equally legitimate argument.

I read it. I don't see the same thing you obviously do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Seems like she did the smart thing in regards to keeping her character from being put in the dilemma of being forced to decide whether to do what the party wanted or what her code demands.

Easier to obtain forgiveness than permission?

Sounds like downright lawyerin' to me!

As an analogy, a paladin's code requires he not lie. Can he get away with prevarication?

I'd think that any time a paladin has to defend his actions with "Well, technically...", he's in violation of the spirit of his code, even if he's within the letter... and I'd think, to a paladin, it's the spirit of the code that's important.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thanatos--I don't think anyone except you on this thread is trying to argue that killing the orc was required to avoid violating the code and losing her powers.

I've certainly seen it fervently argued in the past that the paladin must destroy anything that detects as evil, or be in violation of the code.

"Evil ping? Paladin smash!"

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Oh my god, would you care to nitpick more? LOL

Please. replace all the words I used with required with allowed :rolls eyes:

Required by the code is an equally legitimate argument.

I read it. I don't see the same thing you obviously do.

No, that's important. Most of your argument in that last post was that the paladin was required to kill the orc by her code and that therefore it was not an evil or chaotic act to blatantly ignore everyone but herself.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I've certainly seen it fervently argued in the past that the paladin must destroy anything that detects as evil, or be in violation of the code.

"Evil ping? Paladin smash!"

-Hyp.

I have too. I've just been happy to not really see it in this thread--once the thread gets to that point, it usually quickly degenerates and I lose interest. I agree with you on this one and think that the Xena argument is an apropos one.

 

[Thanatos]

Well it usually is where parties are concerned.

LOL -- I don't think it sounds like lawyering though.

I have no idea if the player thought that way or not. But what matters is the characters motivations. So far, we've only gotten information from the OP, not the actual player.

I agree mostly though...the spirit of the code is more important then the letter, but I think both have to be followed, Tying in the tenats of whatever faith the paladin follows though, means not all paladins will make the same exact decisions.

 

[Thanatos]

No, that's important. Most of your argument in that last post was that the paladin was required to kill the orc by her code and that therefore it was not an evil or chaotic act to blatantly ignore everyone but herself.

No, its not important. Whether required or allowed, she felt/believed/whatever that was the course of action she had to take.

Also, ignoring your party members to do something is not a blatently evil or chaotic act.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, its not important. Whether required or allowed, she felt/believed/whatever that was the course of action she had to take.

Also, ignoring your party members to do something is not a blatently evil or chaotic act.

Ignoring the group's consensus that was made on behalf of all to do your own thing is Chaotic--it is the quintessential act of rejecting legitimate authority, equivalent to flouting a law but on a different social scale. Allowing them to make it realising that you could get away with technically not being bound by it and intending to renege on it by the letter of the law is Lawful Evil.