Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Jim Hague]

I disagree with your definition of murder. By that definition, the execution of an unrepentant mass-murderer is itself murder, despite the fact that his crimes have earned that sentence several times over, despite the fact that he hasn't shown the slightest remorse, and despite the fact that he would commit the same crimes again given the opportunity.

It's murder - the taking of a life. The question is, is it justifiable murder? I say no. I won't go into the concepts of social justice and murder-by-the-state here, since it's against the rules, but it's still murder by the most basic definition. Adventurers murder in battle because it's (typically) a survival issue. Running down an unarmed and fleeing opponent is a whole 'nother matter entirely, and has little to do with justice; you can't even justify it as revenge. It's simply murder.

If the orcs crimes are such that the appropriate and just response is death, then the mere fact that the orc is (currently) helpless doesn't change that.

Context is everything, especially in this case.

I don't find the road of LG stupid in the slightest. That example from the Book of Exalted Deeds, on the other hand, very definately is.

That's your opinion, which is hardly the objective measure here. Just because you disagree hardly qualifies it as 'stupid'.

 

[painandgreed]

It's murder - the taking of a life. The question is, is it justifiable murder?

Nitpick: Killing is the taking of life. An unlawful (and therfore unjustified) killing is murder.

The question does come down to if the killing was unlawful or not. Some say yes. Some say no. I still find your explaination lacking. The previous posted prisoner dilema where one can never execute a prisoner being one point*. Two, as I explained earlier, I find reasoning that this is is unjustified as being self-defeating to the genre and game.**

Even then, it would be a neutral/chaotic action, and there's nothing in the code about punishment for a non-lawful action, only evil ones.

*Not to mention holding them in captivity or any sort of punishment, because under the same reasoning, it seems like that would be described as torture.

**Actually, I just prohibit paladins while DMing and never play one so these issues just don't interfer with the game at all.

 

[Jim Hague]

Nitpick: Killing is the taking of life. An unlawful (and therfore unjustified) killing is murder.

The question does come down to if the killing was unlawful or not. Some say yes. Some say no. I still find your explaination lacking. The previous posted prisoner dilema where one can never execute a prisoner being one point*. Two, as I explained earlier, I find reasoning that this is is unjustified as being self-defeating to the genre and game.**

Explain why. The paladin is meant to be the paragon of rightful law and honor; running down an unarmed opponent from the back of a horse is slaughter, not justice.

Even then, it would be a neutral/chaotic action, and there's nothing in the code about punishment for a non-lawful action, only evil ones.

Unlawful killing, by your own admission, therefore murder, by your definition, therefore evil. Thus an infraction and the paladin in question is in the wrong.

 

[Sejs]

Explain why. The paladin is meant to be the paragon of rightful law and honor; running down an unarmed opponent from the back of a horse is slaughter, not justice.

Again going back to the question of does losing = innocence. The paladin wasn't running down Pollyanna the School Marm, she was running down an orcish bandit whose presence is the whole reason they were dispatched to the region in the first place. The orc's execution is justice, and the only reason he had to be run down was because he was being let go. His release was counter to what would be the mandated punishment for his crimes.

So yeah, it was justice. Granted, it was sloppy in its administration, but that wasn't the paladin's fault.

Unlawful killing, by your own admission, therefore murder, by your definition, therefore evil. Thus an infraction and the paladin in question is in the wrong.

I'll just toss together a few quotes from the original poster here:

In our last game, our party slaughtered a company of orc soldiers and left one alive for questioning.
01. We were adventuring in the Thar (FRCS) ... a lawless land crawling with savage humanoids.
02. We were employed by the Harpers to end ogre banditry on the Glister Road.
03. The orc captive was indeed affiliated with a citadel of ogre bandits.

Are the Harpers, a large organization dedicated to the betterment of all and the opposition of evil, to be considered a legitimate authority? If so, then it wasn't an unlawful killing and hence wasn't murder. If not, then killing any of the orcs from the group of ogre-bandit-employed company was murder, and the paladin was hosed from the get-go.

 

[Jim Hague]

Again going back to the question of does losing = innocence. The paladin wasn't running down Pollyanna the School Marm, she was running down an orcish bandit whose presence is the whole reason they were dispatched to the region in the first place. The orc's execution is justice, and the only reason he had to be run down was because he was being let go. His release was counter to what would be the mandated punishment for his crimes.

We're not arguing the orc here, we're arguing the paladin. Running down an unarmed and therefore helpless opponent from the back of a horse isn't mandated punishment, it's slaughter. See above for the weakness of the 'because he's eeeeeeevil' argument; the paladin must adhere to a higher standard.

So yeah, it was justice. Granted, it was sloppy in its administration, but that wasn't the paladin's fault.

On the contrary, it's entirely the paladin's fault, and an alignment violation to boot, by definition.

I'll just toss together a few quotes from the original poster here:

In our last game, our party slaughtered a company of orc soldiers and left one alive for questioning. We were adventuring in the Thar (FRCS) ... a lawless land crawling with savage humanoids. We were employed by the Harpers to end ogre banditry on the Glister Road. The orc captive was indeed affiliated with a citadel of ogre bandits.

Therefore legitimate authority could be reached by the party. An LG character would either a)administer a field trial according to the Harpers' edicts, likely resulting in the orc's execution for banditry, or b)haul the orc back for Harper justice. Notice how riding down an unarmed opponent doesn't come in there.

Are the Harpers, a large organization dedicated to the betterment of all and the opposition of evil, to be considered a legitimate authority? If so, then it wasn't an unlawful killing and hence wasn't murder. If not, then killing any of the orcs from the group of ogre-bandit-employed company was murder, and the paladin was hosed from the get-go.

It's not the death of the orc, it's the manner in which that came about - and I continue to maintain that running the unarmed orc down is slaughter, not justice. No due process (a component of the Lawful axis), however in the field, no mercy (part of the Good axis), therefore an alignment violation. Had the paladin held a field trial and proceeded to a judgement, the case'd be different. They didn't, and chose expediency over justice. Fault to the paladin.

 

[Klaus]

Strip away all flavor text. Here´s the Paladin´s Code of Conduct, as per the SRD:

"Code of Conduct: 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."

To summarize:
- Must not commit an Evil act;
- Must respect legitimate authority;
- Must Act With Honor, which includes (but is not limited to):
- Must not lie.
- Must not cheat.
- Must not use poison.
- Must help those in need.
- Such help may not be used for Chaotic acts.
- Such help may not be used for Evil acts.
- Must punish those that harm or threaten innocents.

If the paladin gave her word (or, by omission, consented to the party giving their words), she was bound by honor to respect that word.

Running down an unarmed foe that she knows is guilty of murder (being evil =/= being a murderer) is not an Evil act, unless she caused suffering on purpose.

Note that the paladin code commands one to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Nowhere does it say the paladin must kill evil creatures.

 

[Sejs]

We're not arguing the orc here, we're arguing the paladin.

Well, to be fair, we're arguing both. Can't really have one without the other in the situation we're examining.

Running down an unarmed and therefore helpless opponent from the back of a horse isn't mandated punishment, it's slaughter.

You'll have to excuse me, but you're splitting emotional hairs here. The orc's actions as a bandit slated him to be executed, whether he had a battleaxe in his hand at the time or not. The fact that he was errantly let go and had to be chased also doesn't change the fact. Ultimatly they come down to the same thing - orc gets killed because of his banditing. Saying he was slaughtered versus he was executed doesn't change the core of the issue.

See above for the weakness of the 'because he's eeeeeeevil' argument; the paladin must adhere to a higher standard.

Just for my own reference, are we talking about your Unknown Soldier comment, or the thing earlier on the weakness of the Detect/Smite without further investigation? Because frankly I agree with both comments, that neither are acceptable ways for a paladin to act (though neither apply here), and that being a paladin requires a good deal of thought before action. Hair-triggered, dimwitted paladins don't remain paladins for very long.

On the contrary, it's entirely the paladin's fault, and an alignment violation to boot, by definition.

Wait, it's the paladin's fault that the orc was let go? How so? I think we're speaking to different points here. Unless I miss my mark, you're talking about the paladin running down the orc, etc as the fault in question. I'm saying that the orc being released in the first place, and thus necessitating the running down at all, was not the paladin's fault.

Therefore legitimate authority could be reached by the party. An LG character would either a)administer a field trial according to the Harpers' edicts, likely resulting in the orc's execution for banditry, or b)haul the orc back for Harper justice. Notice how riding down an unarmed opponent doesn't come in there.

Okay, we're agreeing that the Harpers qualify as legitimate authority, then. Great start.

That being said, why would they have to go back and re-contact the Harpers? The fact that the party had been sent to deal with the situation caused by these bandits says that the authority had already been reached and that appropriate response had been metted out in the form of sending the party to deal with it. Going back to hold trial for the sub-components of the bandits they're sent to dispatch would be pointless - the answer would be 'yes, execute him, that's why we sent you there in the first place'. As for a field trial, it was already administered: you're a combatant, you're hostile, and you admit to being part of the bandit problem we're here for. Case closed, trial over.

It's not the death of the orc, it's the manner in which that came about - and I continue to maintain that running the unarmed orc down is slaughter, not justice. No due process (a component of the Lawful axis), however in the field, no mercy (part of the Good axis), therefore an alignment violation. Had the paladin held a field trial and proceeded to a judgement, the case'd be different. They didn't, and chose expediency over justice. Fault to the paladin.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree. I believe the logic by which you reached your conclusion is faulted, primarily along emotional lines.

 

[Jim Hague]

That's an excellent summary, Claudio; thanks! I wonder, though...would travelers and adventurers going through this region qualify as 'innocents'? If so, are they expected to defend themselves and not rely on the Harpers' hirelings to protect them, and therefore be outside the Paladin's purview?

 

[Jim Hague]

Well, to be fair, we're arguing both. Can't really have one without the other in the situation we're examining.

On the contrary, that thin line is exactly what's being argued; the devil's in the details.

You'll have to excuse me, but you're splitting emotional hairs here. The orc's actions as a bandit slated him to be executed, whether he had a battleaxe in his hand at the time or not. The fact that he was errantly let go and had to be chased also doesn't change the fact. Ultimatly they come down to the same thing - orc gets killed because of his banditing. Saying he was slaughtered versus he was executed doesn't change the core of the issue.

Context is everything if the orc was slated to be executed (and there's no indication that he was), then there's a number of ways the paladin could have carried out the sentence. Forcing a living, thinking creature, evil or not, to die in misery and terror is hardly justice, nor is quite literally stabbing them in the back. there were lawful and good option available, and the paladin chose to just walk the path of slaughter and expediency. such an act may be suitable for Conan, but not Charlegmane.

Just for my own reference, are we talking about your Unknown Soldier comment, or the thing earlier on the weakness of the Detect/Smite without further investigation? Because frankly I agree with both comments, that neither are acceptable ways for a paladin to act (though neither apply here), and that being a paladin requires a good deal of thought before action. Hair-triggered, dimwitted paladins don't remain paladins for very long.

Both. The crux of the issue is the choice the paladin made - the ride down the fleeing orc, instead of carrying out a lawful sentence for banditry. The end result is the same - the bandit orc is dead - but it's carrying out the action in a given way that tips things here. Again, not going into social justice or (effectively) murder by the state, had the paladin carried out the execution after due process (however brioef and appropriate), this wouldn't be an issue. Blackguards stab opponents in the back; paladins don't.

Wait, it's the paladin's fault that the orc was let go? How so? I think we're speaking to different points here. Unless I miss my mark, you're talking about the paladin running down the orc, etc as the fault in question. I'm saying that the orc being released in the first place, and thus necessitating the running down at all, was not the paladin's fault.

Had a lawful field trial been carried out, then the orc wouldn't have run, negating the issue. As it stands, the paladin would have been in alignment if they re-captured the orc then[ proceeded onward, fulfilling the obligations of the lawful and good axis.

e're agreeing that the Harpers qualify as legitimate authority, then. Great start.

As a good-aligned authority backed up with the blessing of civil authorities, I don't see any way they could be viewed as anything but the represenatives of legitimate authority for a paladin.

That being said, why would they have to go back and re-contact the Harpers? The fact that the party had been sent to deal with the situation caused by these bandits says that the authority had already been reached and that appropriate response had been metted out in the form of sending the party to deal with it. Going back to hold trial for the sub-components of the bandits they're sent to dispatch would be pointless - the answer would be 'yes, execute him, that's why we sent you there in the first place'. As for a field trial, it was already administered: you're a combatant, you're hostile, and you admit to being part of the bandit problem we're here for. Case closed, trial over.

Thing is, the field trial wasn't administered - the orc was knocked out once (already opening up that possibility for the paladin to do so again), interrogated, then cut and ran. Fleeing isn't a hostile action; it presents no threat to innocents or the party. It'd have been simple enough to recapture the orc, pronounce sentence and give the orc an opportunity to repent or be executed. Instead, the paladin ran down the fleeing, unarmed opponent and killed them. It's details, yes, but those details are the important issue here - there were other options besides slaughter, and the paladin chose to ignore them in the name of expediency.

That said, I wouldn't have the paladin fall for this - but depending on the god in question, there's likely to be a divine eybrow raised and like as not a stern talking to or temporary loss of powers as to make an example. Best of all, that leads to more roleplaying for the group, instead of party strife.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If the paladin gave her word (or, by omission, consented to the party giving their words), she was bound by honor to respect that word.

IMO the big problem with the Paladin's behavior is either he has willingly givien his own word implicitly or he is allowing others to appear to give his word on his behalf. So either he himself being dishonorable or he is making his own friends appear dishonorable.

That is not enough to violate the Code in my book. However it does mean he is not merely failing to be a good role model, but encouraging the appearance of dishonorable behavior in general.

If I were DM I would warn the player that playing it that close to the line is likely to backfire in the long run. However I would give him some slack to explore this Retribution Paladin.

Having had a Paladin PC myself, I have had the "pleasures" of sitting at the table with 8 other players and being given 17 million different ways of roleplaying a paladin that would be immensely superior to my own. Yes, I have read The Song of Roland just like you all. Piss off. I know what I am doing.

So I would cut the player some slack. But he should be warned that there is a potential problem in the long run. His Paladin is just not setting a good example is certain respects.

BTW this "needs legal authority" argument is bogus. IRL we had the concept of "outlaw". Being an outlaw literally means being outside the law. Killing an outlaw is simply not recognized as a crime. Bandits and other raiders are generally outlaws by a blanket proclamation by the king or other ruling authority.