Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Mad Mac]

Field Trial? For an Orc Bandit? Yowsers. Some of you people play very different games, apparently. I can't think of any precedent for that sort of action in the real world, in anything close to a medievel time period. Bandits are bandits. You can spare them if you feel like it, but no one is going to pout if someone butchers the whole lot of them, except maybe the bandits.

I have to agree this is a good example of why taking prisoners in D&D is often more trouble than it's worth. I'm not sure I get the emotional response to "stabbing the orc in the back" either. I mean, is the Dark Lord Melkor Evilpants supposed to get a free pass everytime he feels like running?

"Ah, rats. I mean, sure, he just sacrificed the entire village to the mad demongod Zomoulgustar, and he just flayed Bob alive 10 minutes ago, but he's running now, so we'll just have to wait until he gets enough nefarious minions together that he feels confident taking us on again, and hope next time he doesn't pull this strategically invincible "run-away" manuever on us again."

I mean, letting the prisoner go on purpose just so you can run them down...sure, that's cruel and evil. Tricking the prisoner into thinking you'll spare his life if he talks and then killing him, that's dishonourable. But that isn't what happened in the situation as described.

I'm suprised though, that no one considered the possibilty of this poor wittle helpless Orc bandit joining back up with his Ogre bosses and telling them about the party. Could well be a safer bet than just hiding somewhere and hoping he doesn't get killed as a deserter or traitor by the other bandits in the area.

Incidently, I'm kind of a softie as a player and may well have let the orc go. I just don't see why people find the Paladins actions outrageous.

 

[Abraxas]

Y'know, that wasn't funny in Apocalypse Now, and it's really not funny here.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - you didn't find it funny, fine, but you misquoted that the orc was bound and helpless.

Yup, because killing an unarmed opponent out of combat who presents no threat to you isn't honorable; it's cowardice of the highest order.

No, it isn't. It is some peoples duty. Just because you personally find it distasteful doesn't change that.

The paladin had every advantage and the orc had none. Worse, the orc presented no threat to an armed and trained party of adventurers. If the paladin was honorable, they'd have armed the orc and given it a chance to comport itself in battle.

Now this I find funny. Suddenly all is fine if you hand the 1 hd orc a sword and let it square off agianst the 10th level paladin. (No we don't know the actual HD of the orc or level of the paladin, but I doubt it would make a difference). Of course if the orc throws down the sword and refuses to fight you can't do anything either, except haul it around with you until an inopportune time presents itself that lets the orc cause the maximum harm to the party and forces someone to cut it down where it stands.

It'd have still likely been one-sided, but it's not stabbing an opponent who can't defend themselves in the back while riding them down.

Its a sham, and a fairly transparaent one at that. If the character really wanted to make it fair he should take of his armor, wear a blindfold, and have the rest of the party pummel him until the nonlethal damage leaves him with a buffer of hit points no greater than the orc has total.

We obviously have two completely different views on this subject.
I agree we disagree.
Good gaming.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

No prob, but I wish you had left the 2 points at the end that essentially stated that:

1) The question of "old school" LG (absolutely no mercy towards evil) or "new school" LG (mercy is among the most highly valued virtues) should have been decided during the Paladin's creation so that both player and GM would have a solid and mutual understanding of the system by which the Paladin would be judged. This is a question that is absolutely central to the particular PC's core conception.

2) There is no evidence that I've seen that the Paladin assented to the conditions of the surrender other than the cessation of slaying. Silence is not endorsement of the surrender. The Paladin could have already judged the Orc irredemably guilty and given him a death sentence in his head, and the surrender and subseqent questioning was merely a chance for the Orc to get a couple of points in its favor (by confessing) for when it finally judged in the afterlife...which the Paladin saw as an immanent proceeding.

But, see, you're basing his "paladin-ness" on his following the letter of the law, whereas I called him a possible paladin archetype because of his strict, unswerving adherance to a moral and ethical code. This moral and ethical code is, at least in the current run of the Batman comics (exluding old runs and non-canonical stuff like DK), a central theme to his character. Batman solidly places himself above the law, but not above the concept of law and integrity that he struggles to uphold. He has the strictest code of honor of any other superhero (IMO; this brings him into frequent conflict with chaotic heros such as Robin #1 and, more recently, Robin #2), which he not only follows zealously, but expects those around him too, as well.

A strong ethical code is not exclusive to LG.

By placing himself not just outside the law, but above it, he us substituting his personal judgement for that of society's AND is by definition a vigilante.

The way in which he uses force and the threat of deadly force (by dangling a petty crook off of the side of a skyscraper, for instance) is also at odds with of the concept of LG- the threat is far and away disproportionate to the crimes of the threatened person, and could very easily land him in jail for a decade or more per offense.

The main problem I have with the "Paladins kill evil, that's what they do, why do you think they have detect evil as a class skill?" argument, is this: Fine, see evil orc, slay evil orc, that's one thing - what happens the first time the barkeep scans evil? Or the city guard? The commoner on the street? How about the freakin' king? Does the paladin just cut them all down in cold blood, one after the other, because they "felt evil?" And can this be considered even remotely "lawful good" behavior?

I dig, but this is in part a mechanical issue and part another aspect of old school/new school.

The mechanical issue is that, Paladins kill evil, yes, but they also kill non-evil beings who get in their path in combat. What do I mean?

I mean that there is not a single player out there who Detects Evil on every opponent their Paladin faces- it takes time, after all. So the LN guy who is in the Hall of Ineffable Evil just delivering sausages to the garrison of mercenary guards (various alignments- they're just in it for the gold pieces) and the soldiers who got pressed into service by the Mighty Bigbadevilguyicus (he threatened to burn down the village unless each family gave him a son for his army) are all likely to get greased when the Paladin & his allies sweep through.

And, to be fair, Paladins aren't just unthinking killing machines- they are "judges" of a sort. They are constantly weighing the actions of others- Detect Evil doesn't give details. That barkeep may come up "evil" because he shortchanges his patrons and waters his wine (mundane evil- he's a thief)...or he may be a member of a cult trying to bring back Vecna (mundane evil- he's in it because is the local equivalent of the Elk's Lodge)...or he could be that cult's leader (true evil- irredemable and doomed). Because of this, they must weigh wether the evil they witness around them must be tolerated (for now, that is) until he can get to the root cause, or if it is worthy of "immediate cessation."

The Old school/New school aspect is that there have been societies that had one and only one punishment for what they considered to be illegal/bad/evil, that penalty being death, most famously the kingdom ruled by Dracon (from whom we get the term "draconic" when referring to extremely harsh laws or punishments). The theory is that the extreme punishment is not only punishment of the evildoer, but also a deterrent to other would-be evildoers. The good here is viewed as not just punishment, but in prevention of future evil, and places little or no faith in the possibility of redemption.

"New school" good, however, views virtually nobody as unredeemable. There is virtue in allowing someone the chance to redeem themselves fully, and even repeated unjust acts may be forgiven. The consequence, though, killing is almost never justified under most moral/ethical formulations of this type. In extreme versions of this concept, even killing in self-defense is an impermissible violation of the ethical code.

Paladins, then, are seldom truly "New School," but neither are they usually played "Old School"- they are some mix of the two. And again, this is something I feel needs to be discussed between player and DM before a single initiative die is rolled.

 

[Jim Hague]

Field Trial? For an Orc Bandit? Yowsers. Some of you people play very different games, apparently. I can't think of any precedent for that sort of action in the real world, in anything close to a medievel time period. Bandits are bandits. You can spare them if you feel like it, but no one is going to pout if someone butchers the whole lot of them, except maybe the bandits.

Conducting such a trial, however brief, satisfies both the lawful and good axis of alignment. Doing the equivalent of running over a fleeing opponent with your car (or mount) does neither. Read the definition.

I have to agree this is a good example of why taking prisoners in D&D is often more trouble than it's worth. I'm not sure I get the emotional response to "stabbing the orc in the back" either. I mean, is the Dark Lord Melkor Evilpants supposed to get a free pass everytime he feels like running?

"Ah, rats. I mean, sure, he just sacrificed the entire village to the mad demongod Zomoulgustar, and he just flayed Bob alive 10 minutes ago, but he's running now, so we'll just have to wait until he gets enough nefarious minions together that he feels confident taking us on again, and hope next time he doesn't pull this strategically invincible "run-away" manuever on us again."

Does the phrase ad absurdum mean anything to you? There's a significant difference between a fleeing 1 HD orc and a mass murderer/demon worshipper. Eesh. I never said the orc gets a free pass, either, merely that the act was out of alignment for the paladin.

I mean, letting the prisoner go on purpose just so you can run them down...sure, that's cruel and evil. Tricking the prisoner into thinking you'll spare his life if he talks and then killing him, that's dishonourable. But that isn't what happened in the situation as described.

No, but the paladin did just decide to run said orc down, instead of feering a merciful death as would be in keeping with the lawful and good alignments.

I'm suprised though, that no one considered the possibilty of this poor wittle helpless Orc bandit joining back up with his Ogre bosses and telling them about the party. Could well be a safer bet than just hiding somewhere and hoping he doesn't get killed as a deserter or traitor by the other bandits in the area.

Incidently, I'm kind of a softie as a player and may well have let the orc go. I just don't see why people find the Paladins actions outrageous.

Hi, could you cut the snark, please? Most of us are having an entirely civil conversation on the topic without resorting to cheap ad hominem. Thanks.

 

[Numion]

Conducting such a trial, however brief, satisfies both the lawful and good axis of alignment. Doing the equivalent of running over a fleeing opponent with your car (or mount) does neither. Read the definition.

There's nothing more to understand than that the Paladins Code says: "Punish those who harm innocents". In this scenario that was apparent; the orc was a bandit. The Paladin knew exactly what to do - kill the orc. That was a just punishment.

What's your point it was a fleeing opponent? Is fleeing an excuse for avoiding execution? It's just inconvenient to the executor, not in any way related to the justification of the punishment. Or would you say that fleeing from death row is enough to commute the sentence?

 

[Mad Mac]

No, but the paladin did just decide to run said orc down, instead of feering a merciful death as would be in keeping with the lawful and good alignments.

Sorry, but I'm just not getting this. Was the Paladin supposed to lasso the and hogtie the fleeing Orc, hold a "court" session, and then cut his head off? It's not the Paladin's fault that his party didn't secure the prisoner. At which point the Paladin can either ride the Orc down or let him get away. I don't consider either choice out of line for a Paladin.

And the whole court idea just seems out of place to where it would be hurting my suspension of disbelief. How would this work exactly? Do party members serve as jury? Does the Orc get a lawyer? I just don't see it. At most, the Paladin decides to either grant the Orc a quick death, or let him go. There would probably be some discussion with the party, but nothing as formal as some sort of hearing.

 

[Thanatos]

1) The question of "old school" LG (absolutely no mercy towards evil) or "new school" LG (mercy is among the most highly valued virtues) should have been decided during the Paladin's creation so that both player and GM would have a solid and mutual understanding of the system by which the Paladin would be judged. This is a question that is absolutely central to the particular PC's core conception.

2) There is no evidence that I've seen that the Paladin assented to the conditions of the surrender other than the cessation of slaying. Silence is not endorsement of the surrender. The Paladin could have already judged the Orc irredemably guilty and given him a death sentence in his head, and the surrender and subseqent questioning was merely a chance for the Orc to get a couple of points in its favor (by confessing) for when it finally judged in the afterlife...which the Paladin saw as an immanent proceeding.

A strong ethical code is not exclusive to LG.

I dig, but this is in part a mechanical issue and part another aspect of old school/new school.

The mechanical issue is that, Paladins kill evil, yes, but they also kill non-evil beings who get in their path in combat. What do I mean?

And, to be fair, Paladins aren't just unthinking killing machines- they are "judges" of a sort. They are constantly weighing the actions of others- Detect Evil doesn't give details. That barkeep may come up "evil" because he shortchanges his patrons and waters his wine (mundane evil- he's a thief)...or he may be a member of a cult trying to bring back Vecna (mundane evil- he's in it because is the local equivalent of the Elk's Lodge)...or he could be that cult's leader (true evil- irredemable and doomed). Because of this, they must weigh wether the evil they witness around them must be tolerated (for now, that is) until he can get to the root cause, or if it is worthy of "immediate cessation."

The Old school/New school aspect is that there have been societies that had one and only one punishment for what they considered to be illegal/bad/evil, that penalty being death, most famously the kingdom ruled by Dracon (from whom we get the term "draconic" when referring to extremely harsh laws or punishments). The theory is that the extreme punishment is not only punishment of the evildoer, but also a deterrent to other would-be evildoers. The good here is viewed as not just punishment, but in prevention of future evil, and places little or no faith in the possibility of redemption.

Paladins, then, are seldom truly "New School," but neither are they usually played "Old School"- they are some mix of the two. And again, this is something I feel needs to be discussed between player and DM before a single initiative die is rolled.

This is exactly where I was coming from, when I played a paladin, there was no new school, only the old school. Also, QFT.

And raises another good question...how did the DM rule regarding this issue? I'd be interested to know.

Hats off to Danny, who explained it better then I could on my best day.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Play-By-Play (x2)

The paladin was likely "psychotic" because you kept an orc bandit alive during the battle so you could release it later into the world, after you pumped it for information.

I had no intention of deceiving the paladin in any way shape or form. However, I was operating under the assumption that killing a useful snitch (and a mook at that) is bad form ... and I never expected her to attack an unarmed prisoner.

I did not know that she had a problem with our Q&A strategy until she flipped out on us.

Furthermore, I did not release a great "evil" into the world. I released a pathetic coward who had given us good intel ... information we later used to assault a genuine threat.

Let's face it, killing an orc in the Thar is like spitting in the ocean. Taking out the ogre citadel was our real concern. To me, the paladin's bloodlust seemed pointless, stupid, and dishonorable.

My criticisms of the paladin were both moral and pragmatic:

01. The orc was pathetic and weak (our DM did an amazing job of portraying this, by the way). I actually pitied the poor swine, and so did Mival.

02. If we earn a reputation for summary executions, few opponents will ever surrender to us or talk without serious coercion.

You knew the paladin would have a problem with this, so you tried to exclude her from your scheming, but you were not subtle enough.

I honestly had no idea that the paladin was opposed to showing mercy, and I never attempted to trick her into allowing the orc to live.

It looks to me like you caused the problem. Your PC should have explained to the orc immediately that the paladin may execute it following the interrogation. Your PC was cruel and conniving to exploit the orc, knowing it's fate depended entirely upon the paladin.

I did not know that she would attempt to execute him. She had never executed anyone before (that I'm aware of). Furthermore, our party had already established a benchmark of releasing useful mooks if they cooperated with us.

A paladin is an expert in justice; their decisions should me respected by the whole party. A wizard makes decisions about magic, a rogue about traps, and always the party defers to their expertise. Likewise, your evil-nurturing, conflict-causing CN Wizard/Wild Mage should have asked for and respected the paladin's judgment on the fate of the orc.

Your opinion is noted. However ... my mage speaks Orc, has 5 ranks in Bluff, and also has 5 ranks in Knowledge (Moonsea). He's also a native Thentian.

Our paladin is an Aasimar from the Dalelands with absolutely no ranks in Knowledge (Law) or Knowledge (Moonsea). She's a foreign rube, with very little knowledge of the area.

You ran your character as if there wasn't an Expert in Justice in the party...and that was a mistake.

I humbly beg your forgiveness, but please ....

PS: Well...you did say "throw rocks" in the thread title!

Right back at you, brother.

-Samir Asad is Nigel Yarrow (CN)

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Conspiracy?

Notice how it was the only non-good person in the party that wanted to let the evil creature go and tried to thwart justice? I smell conspiracy. ;-)

By the way, Nigel's half-orc friend Mival "Ogrebane" (CG) also wanted to release the orc.

[Mival was orphaned and abandoned when he was very young. Fortunately, he was adopted by a kind-hearted human ranger.]

Bogg (CG) and Wade (CG) had not cast their vote yet, but they seemed fairly surprised (as were the rest of us) when Wyndess unexpectedly demanded the orc's death.

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Truth ....

And raises another good question...how did the DM rule regarding this issue? I'd be interested to know.

The paladin received no consequences, that I'm aware of

Also, to reiterate ... I did not start this thread to prove the paladin's "guilt" and/or see her penalized. I simply want to gain discernment on a hazy issue, and figure out a way for Nigel to logically cope without disrupting the game.

The advice so far has been great. Thank you again for the discourse, folks. Feel free to keep going!

-Samir