Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Rystil Arden]

no, no one said she claimed she was infallible. I reiterate, in a lawless place like Thar, a paladin is likely the legitimate authority.



I don't know about "ultimate arbiter" -- but if its evil, her code is clear.



Are most people she meets evil monsters? then probably so. Fault is completely different then being evil in alignment.




No, the code doesn't say anything about "chaotic" people. Just evil...you are trying to lump something else in there that should not be. One of these things is not like the other. This has no bearing on the issue in any event, its another of your "What If's" like if there were 2 paladins in the party.



Thats just nonsense. You're making up slanted examples up to try and show your right. You have no idea how this character behaves towards other characters of other alignments and trying to show you do with skewed examples is silly when I can do the same thing right back showing my point.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

It does not mention killing evil either It just says 'punish those who harm or threaten innocents'.

 

[Thanatos]

Yes, I am sure you think you are very clever. Now you are using "well technically..." in your arguements.

However, the paladin obviously felt/believed/whatever just punishment was killing the orc. Thats what we are talking about.

You keep trying to change the scope of the discussion.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes, I am sure you think you are very clever. Now you are using "well technically..." in your arguements.

However, the paladin obviously felt/believed/whatever just punishment was killing the orc. Thats what we are talking about.

You keep trying to change the scope of the discussion.

No, I don't think I'm trying to 'be clever' here. Please stop making accusations. I know that we both agree that not all Paladins are the same, but I don't quite agree with some of your other logic, so in trying to understand your thought process, since I know it is hard to recognise the other person's thought process over the internet, I'm trying to figure out if you would allow this other paladin I suggested. I definitely don't think that the Paladin in the original post is following the criteria I raised earlier--it's a new example that as far as I can tell is allowable by your logic. If the answer is 'Yes', that you would allow it, then I finally do understand what you're getting at and can admit that II agree to disagree with it. If you say 'No', then I still can't understand your reasoning completely yet.

 

[delericho]

I believe there are a few posts in the anti-hero thread that put Batman in the Anti-hero. IMHO I think anti-heros paladins shouldn't be paladins...maybe corrupt avengers (heroes of horror).

I'm inclined to agree. Batman certainly is not a paladin and, depending on the incarnation, probably isn't Lawful Good. I would further argue that the "respects legitimate authority" clause of the paladin's code DOES preclude vigilante actions.

I mean in the early days of Batman he killed criminals.

However, I don't agree that this in itself is a bar to either Lawful Good alignment or even paladinhood. Context is crucial here.

True, though it doesn't mean the paladin couldn't hold on to him until they get to civilization. It means that the paladin viewed the inconvenience of having a prisoner as more trouble than taking a life.

If the villain's actions are such that the just punishment for those actions is execution, then the paladin is free to execute the criminal. She's bringing justice in that situation. Notions of due process, fair trials, and the like exist in our society in an attempt to ensure justice, but they're only one means of doing this. (Naturally, the paladin must be extremely careful to ensure that it is justice that she is bringing. But that's not the same as saying she must always cart a villain back to 'civilisation' for trial an execution.)

Besides, what gives the courts in the 'civilised' lands the right to stand in judgement over those who live beyond the frontier? There is no law in these places, and so can be no crimes. Yet there still exists the concept of justice (moral justice if nothing else, quite separate from notions of law). Is the paladin to say to travellers who have been viciously attacked in these regions, "sorry, there's nothing I can do. There's no law here, so no court to try your oppressors."? No, he should bring justice to the oppressed, even in regions where 'law' hasn't reached.

(Actually, this thread reminds me of the Zogonia comic in Dragon #347 - "A trial? For an orc?")

 

[sckeener]

Besides, what gives the courts in the 'civilised' lands the right to stand in judgement over those who live beyond the frontier? There is no law in these places, and so can be no crimes. Yet there still exists the concept of justice (moral justice if nothing else, quite separate from notions of law). Is the paladin to say to travellers who have been viciously attacked in these regions, "sorry, there's nothing I can do. There's no law here, so no court to try your oppressors."? No, he should bring justice to the oppressed, even in regions where 'law' hasn't reached.

(Actually, this thread reminds me of the Zogonia comic in Dragon #347 - "A trial? For an orc?")

I agree. In fact, the last bit about the travellers goes right to the code. However in this case there were no innocents around. The paladin was going to kill 'gollum' the orc.

“What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature [Frodo declares] when he had a chance!”

“Pity? [Gandalf replies] It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that [Bilbo] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”

“I am sorry” said Frodo. “But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.”

“You have not seen him,” Gandalf broke in.

“No, and I don’t want to,” said Frodo. “. . . Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.”

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or Ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many — yours not least.”​

I love that list bit about even the very wise cannot see all ends.

 

[Sejs]

I work in security. Does this mean I get to flog kids who were caught breaking into a building as opposed to calling the police. By current standards, I'd be facing jail time.

I think we're both saying the same thing, Storyteller. That by modern standards and with the present-day justice system, yeah, you'd be in trouble. 1500s spain? Not so much.

D&D is based in a dark age/pre-renaissance setting, but much of what goes on is usually based on modern ideology. Even with that taken out of the equation, judgements had to be handed down by officials (the village elder, mayor, king, etc) unless the parties in question were out in the woods, all alone...

Which, in this situation is pretty much what happened, on both counts. Sent by an official authority to go deal with a threat, and they're currently off in the middleof nowhere.

Did the paladin ever specifically state in an oath, or have it stated to them via a higher order, that they could pass judgement and punishment while out in the field?

You'd have to ask the OP that. But for your standard, generic holy roller paladin it's a pretty good bet they did indeed do just that. Empowered by the authority of their church to go forth and smite evil in the name of the light. That's a lot of what paladins do.

And even if they havn't it still doesn't matter. The fact that they are a paladin in the first place is pretty much lisence from the Unnamed Universal Good (tm) to go around detecting, smiting, healing, and summoning horses. Part of the idea is that you don't just sprout paladin abilities, you get them because something out there wants you to have them and if you abuse them you don't get them anymore. Or does 'higher authority' have to be implicitly human in agency?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The paladin class's design doesn't help matters. It has Detect Evil. If I'm a paladin, and I Detect Evil on you, and you come up as evil...well, it's pretty clear that you're a bad guy. And bad guys are meant to be destroyed. The problem is, nobody else has this ability. And there's no real world equivalent. So everybody else feels the need to prove he's evil. A paladin has no such compunction, because it's a done deal.

But is everyone who has an evil alignment worthy of immediate execution?

Even more problematically - is everyone who has an evil aura worthy of immediate execution?

-Hyp.

 

[Thanatos]

No, I don't think I'm trying to 'be clever' here. Please stop making accusations.

I'm not making an accusation. Consider how the context of that post could be taken. Looked like you were trying to be lawyerly and clever to me, and succeeding.

I know that we both agree that not all Paladins are the same, but I don't quite agree with some of your other logic, so in trying to understand your thought process, since I know it is hard to recognise the other person's thought process over the internet, I'm trying to figure out if you would allow this other paladin I suggested. I definitely don't think that the Paladin in the original post is following the criteria I raised earlier--it's a new example that as far as I can tell is allowable by your logic. If the answer is 'Yes', that you would allow it, then I finally do understand what you're getting at and can admit that II agree to disagree with it. If you say 'No', then I still can't understand your reasoning completely yet.

Okay...now that MAKES alot more sense to me. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out why you were responding the way you were. No, it didn't occur to me to ask, sometimes I miss simple stuff like that...

The problem that I have with your examples are they aren't universal, lacking some context to put them in perspective, as well as I think they were biased examples. Not all campaigns bask in moral dilemma for paladins and many DM's just do their best to keep it simple.

If there were 2 Paladins in the party, well they consider themselves brothers & sisters in arms, they very well could have had different conclusions about what to do in a given situation. I don't think a paladin would stop the actions of another paladin unless they directly conflicted with that paladins code. Then they would be forced to discuss a solution to whatever the problem was that was acceptable by the requirements of their codes.

Nor do I think a paladin would help people who were evil. Chaotic yes, but not evil. Even if they were in need, unless the paladin felt his actions had the possibility of opening up redemption to those beings. Thats going to depend on the campaign and the paladin though, because not all paladin codes are equal since faith plays a part in that (in that how a Tyrran paladin vs a Helm paladin might react to such things very differently).

Furthermore, while I think the paladin in our OP had to chase the orc down and kill it, I don't necessairly think it was a good act to kill an unarmed and fleeing opponent, but a necessary one (I would call it a neutral action) -- lawful in regards to necessary punishment (justice): yes. The only realistic punishment (death) available in that lawless land: yes. In keeping with the Paladins Code: yes (just because an enemy has chosen to run away doesn't give them a free pass).

Hopefully that gives you some idea where I am coming from.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I'm inclined to agree. Batman certainly is not a paladin and, depending on the incarnation, probably isn't Lawful Good. I would further argue that the "respects legitimate authority" clause of the paladin's code DOES preclude vigilante actions.

When the police put a giant bat-spotlight on their roof to signal they want Batman's help and he comes to help them when they call, it's hard to say that he doesn't respect legitimate authority.

In many ways, Batman isn't really a vigilante because he never attempts to dole out justice on his own. He stops crimes in progress and even gather evidence on criminals to stop crimes before they happen. However, he doesn't make it his business to decide how criminals should be punished. Batman stories all end with him handing the criminal over to the police to be tried and punished (or not) according to Gotham's justice system. He doesn't keep his own private prison or beat up criminals to 'teach them a lesson'. (Well, not usually.)

How can you get more respectful of authority than that?

Maybe Batman has too much chaos in him to be a paladin. It's certainly arguable. However, one consistent character trait has been a strong respect for the legal system. Even though he knows it's corrupt and imperfect, he has a lot of respect for the institutions of society. It's just that for the time being they are inefficient, and so need him to act outside the system.
[/quote]

 

[Conaill]

On a side note: In the generic D&D-World orcs aren't exactly soldiers but a race of psychos intent on slaughtering anybody else. When this is finished, they will happily kill other orcs. Absolutely irredeemable. So no, I don't buy the "Prisoner of War-Argument".

Alignment: Often chaotic evil


Doesn't sound like "absolutely irredeemable" to me at al...