Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[The Thayan Menace]

True Dat!

Methinks too many Paladins thesedays are graduates of the Dirty Harry finishing school ...

... with advanced degrees from Judge Dredd University.

-Samir

 

[Thurbane]

Given those answers I might be a little more sympathetic to the Paladin's actions, but it would still earn him an official caution if it were in my game. However, comparing different campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges - there are few universal truths or absolutes; even the strict code of the Paladin is open for some interpretation.

 

[Numion]

Although the road to the Nine Hells may be paved with good intentions, I'll wager that lack of mercy is a first-class flight (esp. if Nigel frags you).

There is that famous quote from PHB: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy, is lawful good", or something to that effect. Can't fault paladin players for lack of mercy since the PHB is so clear on the subject.

 

[Hussar]

I don't have the linkie handy, but Fargoth has a bloody fantastic essay on paladin's and alignment. Very good read.

 

[sckeener]

There is that famous quote from PHB: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy, is lawful good", or something to that effect. Can't fault paladin players for lack of mercy since the PHB is so clear on the subject.

Yes. Yes I can. Ignoring mercy is falling on the lawful side of the LG. I can still fault the paladin for not being good. Doing it once might not be enough to switch the LG to LN, but I'd say a paladin that ignores mercy would eventually not be a paladin.

The full quote is

Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.​

There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy. Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault. What we have here is one sided murder.

 

[Halivar]

There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy. Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault. What we have here is one sided murder.

If we're going to have an argument on semantics, I'll have to point out that the orc, itself, is not the embodiment of evil itself, and thus not what she is "fighting." If the evil she is fighting is the orcish-raiding-thingy as a whole, she should do it mercilessly, such as by running down fleeing, unarmed orcs that register on her detect evil.

 

[Numion]

There were no innocents around and she wasn't fighting evil without mercy. Fighting implies two or more people engaged in assault. What we have here is one sided murder.

The 'innocent' part refers to those the Orc would've murdered after let loose - a Paladin also has responsibility to protect those innocents that happen to be outside his current field of vision.

And how do you figure mercy could enter into the equation during combat? By definition you can't grant mercy unless the other side is at your .. mercy. I'd say the only time you can grant mercy is when the other side is already defeated / surrendered in combat and under your power.

 

[grimslade]

Due Process, Miranda and the Medieval Knight

It looks like the OP has talked with his DM to try and create an immersive game with a great deal of buy in from the players. Ground rules will be brought up and each character will be able to know where the boundaries are. So excellent job to the OP on fostering a good gaming group.

Of course there is the side argument of paladin opinion that is swarming.
If we play the D&D paladin by the RAW, the orc dying is no problemo. This is provided that the paladin Detected Evil or ensured that the orc in question had participated in the caravan raids. The Judge Dredd appellation is appropriate. Paladins Smite Evil. Whether the orc faces Gruumsh with a sword thrust through his back or from the front is up to the orc. There is no stipulation in the Paladin Code to not smite cowardly evil. D&D is based on there being absolutes. There is good. There is evil. Paladins can detect the presence of evil, so as to destroy it. EVIL is evil, not a shopkeeper who overcharges. Evil is palpable and definite
If you are playing in a campaign that is made of shades of grey and downplays alignment, then all of this needs to be reworked. A paladin is a class that works in a black/white world. It needs serious modification to work in a less defined morality.

Also, the assertion that there were no innocents to be protected is bunk. The orc was a member of a bandit gang that had been razing caravans. The innocents are future caravans. This not a case of using minimal force to diffuse a situation. The party is going to wipe out the bandit ogres. They are not going to simply walk into the camp and ask them to disperse. I don't understand how we are making the distinction between ambushing orc bandits with extreme predjudice and executing orc bandits? The real discussion between the the OP and the paladin is that the paladin's smiting the orc diminished the OP's merciful gesture. That is roleplaying gold and I wish them the best with it.

 

[tonym]

...I know it's a cliché, but true respect is earned ... not given.
-Samir

I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.

A paladin has earned automatic respect the day they became a paladin, not when you say they do. Paladins get this respect at 0 xp, right out the gate.

To make a real-world parallel, in D&D-land a paladin is like a priest and a police officer combined. Or a rabbi and a firefighter. Personally, I don't need such people to "earn" my respect. I automatically respect them for their occupation in life.

The paladin is a tool of her god. She has sacrificed her Free Will to help people, even to the point of sacrificing her life if need be. In D&D-land, that garners automatic respect from other PCs, peasants, merchants and so forth. This is not difficult to imagine.

You chose to run a CN character who can change his behavior whenever it suits him, so naturally your PC must "earn" respect. The paladin, however, deserves respect from everybody.

Evil people and self-centered jerks are exceptions, of course; so, yes, if you are roleplaying a self-centered jerk, then yes, you can withold your PC's respect for a paladin.

Nonetheless, the paladin still deserves respect, up until the moment they lose their paladinhood.

Tony M

 

[Jim Hague]

If we're going to have an argument on semantics, I'll have to point out that the orc, itself, is not the embodiment of evil itself, and thus not what she is "fighting." If the evil she is fighting is the orcish-raiding-thingy as a whole, she should do it mercilessly, such as by running down fleeing, unarmed orcs that register on her detect evil.

Yup, because running down an unarmed, fleeing opponent is honorable and righteous, right? It's not like stabbing an opponent in the back and...

Ah, wait, I already made these arguments, didn't I? And we've gotten clarification that the orc a) presented no threat, b) wasn't endangering any innocents and c) was far less of a threat than the ogres behind the whole thing. Of course, the idea of 'future innocents' has been thoroughly debunked; ever see Minority Report? The idea of 'precrime' (as it's being used here) is hardly just, or even righteous; it's presumptuous. It's trading justice for expediency, and worse, wasting time on a small evil when there's real evil out that the party could have been dealing with.

And it is murder, Halivar. Cutting down a helpless opponent qualifies, despite all the semantic wriggling to the contrary. It's behavior far more suited to a blackguard than a paladin. Do we need to post definitions of commonly understood words like 'murder' and 'mercy'...again? Along with the Lawful and Good alignment definitions? Because reading all of that, the paladin acted out of alignment, and frankly deserves an infraction. Walking the Paladinic path is even tougher and more restrictive than LG normally is - and should be enforced as such.