Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Numion]

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.

Nevertheless, she was required to punish the orc. The PHB Code says a Paladin must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." The fact that the orc was pitiful etc.. is of no consequence.

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

Wasn't this orc put to sleep / knocked out ? It's not like your group needed someone to wave white flags - you'll get prisoners anyway.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Talk AND Die!

Wasn't this orc put to sleep / knocked out ? It's not like your group needed someone to wave white flags - you'll get prisoners anyway.

No doubt, but they might be reluctant to talk once they awaken ... if they assume we'll simply kill them afterward.

-Samir

 

[Numion]

No doubt, but they might be reluctant to talk once they awaken ... if they assume we'll simply kill them afterward.

That is inconvenient. However, being a Paladin is not supposed to be easy. The Code requires punishment, and quite often with folks the PCs encounter in froentier areas the punishment is death. A Paladin cannot break his / her code just for convenience (i.e. getting information).

I, as a Paladin player, would be upfront to the orc that death penalty is coming - give us the information and we'll at least give you a proper burial. Or then just Speak With Dead after the fact

 

[The Thayan Menace]

A Dark Place ....

Nevertheless, she was required to punish the orc. The PHB Code says a Paladin must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Does that really justify murdering an unarmed orc prisoner during parley ... and acting only on circumstantial evidence (at best)?

This sort of two-dimensional (LG) zealotry seems impractical as well as immoral.

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Oh Well ....

I, as a Paladin player, would be upfront to the orc that death penalty is coming - give us the information and we'll at least give you a proper burial. Or then just Speak With Dead after the fact.

We're probably going to settle for something like this in the future, which is a real shame ... and not very heroic. Still, I suppose it's better than party fratricide.

Too bad I didn't know about Wyndess' penchant for summary executions beforehand ... then perhaps our conflict could have been avoided.

Then again, she also could have been more forthright about her moral duty to execute all bandits before simply going ballistic on us.

-Samir

 

[Numion]

Does that really justify murdering an unarmed orc prisoner during parley ... and acting only on circumstantial evidence (at best)?

This sort of two-dimensional (LG) zealotry seems impractical as well as immoral.

I'm just going by the information you gave. You identified the orc as a bandit. A Tyrran Paladin is by the FR books a judge, jury and executioner in lawless areas. Most likely in the nearest civilized area the punishment for banditry is death.

So, you had a criminal, judge, jury and an executioner in the same place. A punishment was dealt. Why do you call execution a murder?

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Hang That Judge!

I'm just going by the information you gave. You identified the orc as a bandit. A Tyrran Paladin is by the FR books a judge, jury and executioner in lawless areas. Most likely in the nearest civilized area the punishment for banditry is death.

So, you had a criminal, judge, jury and an executioner in the same place. A punishment was dealt. Why do you call execution a murder?

Although the orc did attack us (i.e., armed adventurers who ambushed him) ... we never saw him threaten an innocent or see any evidence that he had killed anyone.

The ogre citadel where he came from contained the wreckage of wagons, but we never saw anything that resembled human remains ... or any evidence of slaughtered caravaneers; no bones, blood, bodies, graves, and/or pyres ... nothing ....

In the end, the paladin slaughtered an unarmed dirtbag for theft and protecting himself from our assault.

Oh wait, he was evil ... I guess that makes it okay.

-Samir

 

[Numion]

Although the orc did attack us (i.e., armed adventurers who ambushed him) ... we never saw him threaten an innocent or see any evidence that he had killed anyone.

Waittasecond. Are you now saying that you attacked the orcs for no reason? I mean, if there was a justification for you (and the Paladin) to attack (try to kill) the orcs in the first place, surely there was a justification for executing that last one too. Namely, whatever reason that made you try to kill them in the first place.

Oh wait, he was evil ... I guess that makes it okay.

It certainly don't make it worse.

 

[delericho]

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.

It's a shame you're ducking the real question here, because it's a very key issue. If killing == murder == evil, then under no circumstances can the paladin work for any agency that supports the death penalty and, in fact, is bound to see to it that any state that employs said penalty is either brought down or reformed to remove said penalty, and further to ensure that all those involved in the imposition or execution of said penalty themselves face punishment for their evil.

Which, I'm sorry to say, I consider utter nonsense.

Adventurers murder in battle because it's (typically) a survival issue.

That's moral relativism. If killing == murder == evil, then the paladin cannot kill opponents in battle, and must use only non-lethal means. Furthermore, she can associate only with those who use non-lethal means.

Or, just possibly, your definition of murder is incorrect.

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 justice assigns the death penalty to his crimes, then killing him while fleeing that justice is not murder, it's just a poor and inefficient way to carry out the sentence. In my next post I'll be discussing your comments on 'field trials', where I will expand on this further. (I bet you can't wait )

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

Yes, it is my opinion. I shall now proceed to back it up:

Scenario: For months, the civilised world has been being terrorised by a vile and terrible menace. He has inflicted untold harm on hundreds of innocents. Eventually, he is run to ground by the forces of good. He pleads for mercy, and receives it, yet remains unrepentant. He is taken before the rightful authorities, and sentenced to death.

However, before his execution is carried out he escapes. He then proceeds to kill one of the close friends of the paladin who brought him to justice, before engaging in another spree of destruction and violence. Eventually, the paladin catches him again, and again he pleads for mercy. Again, he gets it. He still remains unrepentant. He is taken before the rightful authorities, who re-affirm the outstanding sentence of death.

And again, before execution is performed, he escapes. Another of the paladin's friends dies. More innocents suffer. Again, the paladin catches him. Again, he pleads for mercy. Again he remains unrepentant.

And so it goes on. According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the paladin can never simply refuse mercy and perform the rightfully ordered sentence of death.

Of course, the paladin is also bound by his code to protect the innocent, and by not carrying out the sentence, he's failing in that duty when he could succeed. So, the paladin will eventually fall from grace.

So, yes, the example in the Book of Exalted Deeds is just stupid. My opinion, and not the objective measure. It just happens to be right.

 

[Klaus]

Klling =/= Evil. Purposefully making someone suffer before killing = Evil (a paladin would carry on a death sentence in the most expedient and painless way possible, such as beheading... See Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones for how I view a paladin's opinion on death sentences).

The paladin from the OP's example is only in question (for me) when it comes to the "Must Act With Honor" clause of the Paladin Code. If she, by remaining silent, allowed the party speaker to give the impression that she agreed with letting the prisoner go in return for information, she'd be guilty of 'Dishonor', which could entail, say, 24 hours without paladin powers.