Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Rystil Arden]

EDIT: No longer necessary--thanks PS

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its hard to discuss what good is unless we examine what other thinkers (theologians and philosophers alike) have said on the matter.

To be clear, the quotes I was posting weren't meant to be indicative of a RW religion's particular theology or validity, but rather evidence of RW religions resonance with that particular section of the PHB- specifically the definition of a Paladin "without mercy" being LG.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Roman Catholic who believes that such sections of the Bible are more indicative of humans putting their words in God's mouth- its hard to reconcile the merciful God of the NT with the vengeful one of the OT.)

 

[delericho]

Oops. There were two statements in my post, that Batman isn't a paladin, and that the paladin's code precluded vigilante actions. These were intended to be read seperately, but I fear you may have read, and replied to, them together. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

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.

As I said, it depends on the incarnation. Some versions of Batman don't feature the Bat-signal. Most have him acting, at times, whether it is lit or not. Some early incarnations have him killing criminals intentionally. Some even have The Batman using firearms. That's the major reason you can't pin down Batman's alignment - different versions have different alignments.

However, I don't know of any incarnation that would qualify as a paladin, or at least any incarnation not starring Adam West.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In all fairness, most incarnations of Batman in which he uses firearms (such as the Frank Miller Dark Knight) use rubber bullets or other less-than-lethal ammunition.

However, while I don't recall any intentional homicides that occur "on camera", both the original late '30's version and the Dark Knight version were not above threats of death and fairly brutal beatings, and some of his targets were left in states of health in which their demise was a definite possibility. Their survival was not his concern. And in certain cases, his threats of force would be considered outside of the laws governing the use of deadly force. Yes- threatening to drop someone off a skyscraper IS a threat of deadly force.

His penchant for breaking & entering alone calls his lawfulness, and thus his paladin-ness, into question.

IOW, while he respects authority, he will often take "chaotic" actions in order to ensure justice is done.

More likely, he'd be best modeled (in D&D) by a CG UA Urban Ranger.

 

[Numion]

The orc prisoner promised to stop his evil ways while he was blubbering to us. He also specifically begged the "pretty lady" (i.e., the paladin) to spare his life.

Of course he would promise that - he was facing the capital punishment. But how would the paladin know the promise of an evildoer is kept? It would be unjust for the paladin to let evildoers talk themselves out of punishment. The code also requires the paladin to punish evildoers.

Also, whether the orc was a murderer or not is inconsequential. The death penalty is also whats in store for bandits. Not the only punishment possible, but a just one.

 

[delericho]

Of course he would promise that - he was facing the capital punishment. But how would the paladin know the promise of an evildoer is kept? It would be unjust for the paladin to let evildoers talk themselves out of punishment.

Indeed. Even if truly repentant, the orc should be punished for past actions. Indeed, if truly repentant, the orc should accept the necessity of punishment. (However, I would still expect the orc to not want to die... but he might ask to be allowed to serve the party loyally for years in exchange for his life, or agree to accompany them to whatever prison they wish without trouble, or...)

My view on the paladin's actions keeps coming back to whether the orc was promised his life in exchange for information. If the party had promised that, I consider the paladin bound by the promise, whether she personally said she agreed to it, or merely stayed silent. Only by explicitly stating that she could and would not honour such an agreement would I consider her not bound to it. (Still, I would consider the violation a minor chaotic act, and therefore something to watch out for rather than cause for punishment.)

In the scenario as clarified by the OP, the party made no such agreement. The orc spilled all this information in the hope it would buy his life, or perhaps under the mistaken assumption that that would buy his life. Since there was no agreement of immunity for information, though, the party is not bound to it, and neither is the paladin.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Danny, I'm afraid I've had to remove your post above which was looking too closely at real-world religions - it could easily be the thin end of a wedge which derailed and closed this whole thread, and none of us want that, right?

Regards,

 

[Numion]

Another interesting point is that by the Paladins Code, she cannot enter into a deal that lets the orc go unpunished in return for information. The Code requires that a Paladin punishes those that harm (or threaten to harm) innocents. As a bandit the orc fits the bill. So he has to be punished - no amount of pleads, information, surrendering, disarming oneself, running away or sweet talks will save him from punishment, or the paladin is in breach of her Code.

Now, she should've been upfront about this fact, but I think the greater breach of the Code would've been to let the orc go unpunished.

The severity of punishment is another debate - IMHO execution sounds about right for banditry.

 

[delericho]

Another interesting point is that by the Paladins Code, she cannot enter into a deal that lets the orc go unpunished in return for information. The Code requires that a Paladin punishes those that harm (or threaten to harm) innocents.

The code does not, however, require the paladin to punish ALL those who harm innocents. There are a variety of good reasons why the paladin might elect to do otherwise: the evildoer has sincerely repented his ways and will see to his own redemption, the crimes of the evildoer are so long ago that punishment has become essentially meaningless, the paladin chooses instead to show mercy, or whatever.

Consequently, I disagree that the paladin MUST see this orc punished.

As a bandit the orc fits the bill. So he has to be punished - no amount of pleads, information, surrendering, disarming oneself, running away or sweet talks will save him from punishment, or the paladin is in breach of her Code.

Now, she should've been upfront about this fact, but I think the greater breach of the Code would've been to let the orc go unpunished.

As I disagree with the assertion that the paladin MUST punish ALL those who do harm to innocents, I disagree with this assertion.

The severity of punishment is another debate - IMHO execution sounds about right for banditry.

Indeed, the severity of the punishment is not specified. So, even if you assert that the paladin MUST punish the orc, it still falls to the paladin to determine the appropriate course of action. Therefore, death is not mandated. She could have the orc maimed, or castrated, or flogged, or fined, or stripped of his arms and armour and let loose in hostile territory, or...

However, my issue is not with the execution of the orc. Indeed, since the OP has clarified that there was no agreement with the orc to spare his life, I have no issue with the actions of the paladin at all. However, if there HAD been an agreement, my issue is with the paladin then breaking said agreement. Especially since there were plenty of ways for the paladin to act that would violate neither code nor alignment: veto the agreement to begin with (a simple statement that "I will not let this orc live" would suffice), or failing that, find a punishment that did not result in death (the afforementioned flogging, perhaps?).

 

[Wolfwood2]

Of course he would promise that - he was facing the capital punishment. But how would the paladin know the promise of an evildoer is kept? It would be unjust for the paladin to let evildoers talk themselves out of punishment. The code also requires the paladin to punish evildoers.

Well, paladins do get Sense Motive as a class skill. There are game mechanics for determining how sincere someone is being. Possibly the orc could change his mind later, but you could at least get a sense for it it's all fake tears or if there's a chance he might try to change his ways.

As for, "the code also requires", I would refuse to play a paladin under any interpretation of the code that means my paladin isn't able to decide to show mercy and give people second chances, whether they deserve it or not.

That would be unfun.

Also, whether the orc was a murderer or not is inconsequential. The death penalty is also whats in store for bandits. Not the only punishment possible, but a just one.

This is true.

Still, PCs are special people and D&D is a game of high adventure. If the player characters elect to show mercy and try to demonstrate through actions that there is a better way, then they should have a chance at succeeding. Proper punishment is fine, but perhaps if the paladin had shown even a thimbleful of forgiveness she might have created one more good person in the world, rather than merely resulting in one less evil one.

Is riding down and killing a fleeing prisoner what you envision the paragon of fair play and good ideals doing in a fantasy game of high adventure? Because it sure feels wrong to me.