Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!
- Thread starter The Thayan Menace
- Start date
- Status
BLACKDIRGE
Adventurer
Quoth the DM...
I haven't made a ruling, and I don't plan to. This is the first instance of questionable behavior by the paladin, and I consider it a pretty minor infraction, more LN than anything else.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the paladin and the group had prior knowledge that the orc bandits had been slaughtering merchant caravans, i.e. slaughtering innocents, which was the reason for the paladin's lack of mercy. I will certainly keep an eye on our paladin, and if her actions continue to be more in line with the Lawful axis of her alignment rather than the good axis, I will talk with the player. But, honestly, knowing the player, I don't see this becoming an issue.
BD
Thanatos said:
I haven't made a ruling, and I don't plan to. This is the first instance of questionable behavior by the paladin, and I consider it a pretty minor infraction, more LN than anything else.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the paladin and the group had prior knowledge that the orc bandits had been slaughtering merchant caravans, i.e. slaughtering innocents, which was the reason for the paladin's lack of mercy. I will certainly keep an eye on our paladin, and if her actions continue to be more in line with the Lawful axis of her alignment rather than the good axis, I will talk with the player. But, honestly, knowing the player, I don't see this becoming an issue.
BD
BLACKDIRGE said:
Ahh so you are the DM in question.
I don't know...as a DM I would think you should mention any infraction done so the character knows you consider her actions inappropriate, however minor.
I still disagree it was a lack of mercy on her part, but, it is your campaign
Hopefully it will all work out okay.
Once again dipping into the RW, the chivalric code, inspiriation for the paladin's code, had a strong clause regarding mercy. It was one of the higher virtues and was, in some sense, the quintessential knightly quality.
HOWEVER, the requirement for mercy was usually interpreted to mean that mercy need be extended to Christians only. A pagan, a Muslim, atheist, lapsed Christian or other non-Christian could be dealt with as the mood struck- mercy to those persons was optional. It is quite unlikely that most knights would see anything wrong with slaying a known satanist, regardless of conditions.
And, once again, other similar codes can be found in other religious fighting orders of the RW, and once again, those codes limit required mercy to the true believers. Non-believers gambled with their lives when relying on the mercy of such holy knights.
There were limits, however, even to this "open season" on evildoers. There is a concept called the "City of Refuge" in which a city may grant refuge to a person who has comitted an evil act- even murder- and that person could not be brought to justice by those outside the city. Essentially, the criminal's life was spared, but he was doomed to live within the boundaries of the city the rest of his days. And if he comitted a crime within his City of Refuge, all bets were off. While it was a law that was religious in origin, it was commonly adopted as a traditional "law" in many European countries.
Similarly, some faiths could also offer "Sanctuary" to those who sought it. Again, this was conditional, and usually only extended to members of the same faith.
The analogue to this concept in D&D would be found in that phrase in the PHB on p105:
As long as that paladin considers you evil, your life is in her hands. Such a one might require a concrete act of good (or in this case, genuine repentance)- and remember, they can tell- to suspend a judgement of death.
HOWEVER, the requirement for mercy was usually interpreted to mean that mercy need be extended to Christians only. A pagan, a Muslim, atheist, lapsed Christian or other non-Christian could be dealt with as the mood struck- mercy to those persons was optional. It is quite unlikely that most knights would see anything wrong with slaying a known satanist, regardless of conditions.
And, once again, other similar codes can be found in other religious fighting orders of the RW, and once again, those codes limit required mercy to the true believers. Non-believers gambled with their lives when relying on the mercy of such holy knights.
There were limits, however, even to this "open season" on evildoers. There is a concept called the "City of Refuge" in which a city may grant refuge to a person who has comitted an evil act- even murder- and that person could not be brought to justice by those outside the city. Essentially, the criminal's life was spared, but he was doomed to live within the boundaries of the city the rest of his days. And if he comitted a crime within his City of Refuge, all bets were off. While it was a law that was religious in origin, it was commonly adopted as a traditional "law" in many European countries.
Similarly, some faiths could also offer "Sanctuary" to those who sought it. Again, this was conditional, and usually only extended to members of the same faith.
The analogue to this concept in D&D would be found in that phrase in the PHB on p105:
As long as that paladin considers you evil, your life is in her hands. Such a one might require a concrete act of good (or in this case, genuine repentance)- and remember, they can tell- to suspend a judgement of death.
The Thayan Menace
First Post
Clarification:
Granted, bandits are certainly capable of killing ... but all I remember was references to banditry, not slaughter of innocents.
-Samir
I'm not saying that you are wrong, however I am saying that I do not remember ANY specific references to dead merchants.BLACKDIRGE said:
Granted, bandits are certainly capable of killing ... but all I remember was references to banditry, not slaughter of innocents.
-Samir
ThoughtBubble
First Post
The Thayan Menace said:
This is the important bit here.
I'd seriously reccomend talkign about this instead of trying to establish rules for things like "Who gets to quesiton prisoners". All setting up hard rules to avoid the situation will accomplilsh is some hard feelings about being boxed in unfairly. It won't even solve the issue, which is that your awesome moment got stepped on. It'll just stop you from ever participating in an interrogation again.
Would it have been easier to say "Hey, I'm having a cool moment here, I just did something noble and good. Could you let it go?"
robertsconley
Hero
The Thayan Menace said:
The only bearing a creature being unarmed to a paladin is that you have it under control or under your power. Among many things it means that as a traditional paladin you don't torture it and if it deserves death then you do it cleanly.
As far as evidence goes, that where detect evil comes in. However in this case even simple logic tell us that the Orc is one of the Ogre's brigands. Letting the Orc loose means a return back to either banditry or at the very least his tribe both of which have a great possibility of causing future evil.
Zealotry is not automatically immoral either. The problem with zealotry it is a strong passion capable of clouding judgement. Doesn't mean it always clouds judgement but a person needs to be aware of this.
And I don't consider the paladin's actions to be one of a zealot. She let the party have it way with little arguement (not none mine you) until something occur that violated her code and then she took action.
Rob Conley
wayne62682
First Post
Disclaimer: I have not read through the entire thread as of typing this post
The paladin was not wrong IMO. Assuming that you are playing a "standard" D&D game, evil means evil, and there's no gray area (this is something I disagree with but it's how D&D works by default). Orcs are "often Chaotic Evil". Paladins destroy evil without mercy wherever it's found. Thus, paladins destroy evil Orcs without mercy.
YOUR character said that he'd let the Orc live; in my book if I was playing a paladin that means that my companion is letting his good heart get the better of him by allowing this evil filth to live, and it's my duty as a warrior of good to eliminate evil. If that was my paladin, I would have slaughtered the orc and then give your character a sermon about the road to hell being paved with good intentions (i.e. if you let evil go they'll return later). If this was a lawless area, then a paladin is allowed to dispense justice as he or she deems fit.
The paladin was not wrong IMO. Assuming that you are playing a "standard" D&D game, evil means evil, and there's no gray area (this is something I disagree with but it's how D&D works by default). Orcs are "often Chaotic Evil". Paladins destroy evil without mercy wherever it's found. Thus, paladins destroy evil Orcs without mercy.
YOUR character said that he'd let the Orc live; in my book if I was playing a paladin that means that my companion is letting his good heart get the better of him by allowing this evil filth to live, and it's my duty as a warrior of good to eliminate evil. If that was my paladin, I would have slaughtered the orc and then give your character a sermon about the road to hell being paved with good intentions (i.e. if you let evil go they'll return later). If this was a lawless area, then a paladin is allowed to dispense justice as he or she deems fit.
- Status
Similar Threads
