Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Jim Hague]

I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.

Because, remember, folks, there's only one way to play things.

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.

There are so many logical faults in this argument, I'm not sure where to begin. Respect is only earned, not just automatically given...unless you'd care to say that a character just gets respect, despite roleplaying, because of their class? Because if you were to make that argument, it discounts not only roleplaying, but the god the given character follows, the attitudes of other PCs, game world presumptions...

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.

Except that you're applying a real world (morally relativistic) idea to a morally absolute gameworld. Apples and oranges. You can make this assumption for yourself, but don't present it as objective fact.

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.

This assumption was debunked above. Especially if the paladin has sacrificed their will, they'd better toe the line as far as the cathechism of their given religion goes...and has been pointed out, Tyr is not without mercy...which the paladin displayed none of.

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.

Logical fallacy. Again.

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

Because, y'know, there's only one way to play a paladin and only one 'proper' way to react to them. You know this is a ridiculous strawman you've made, right? It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Halivar]

And it is murder, Halivar. Cutting down a helpless opponent qualifies, despite all the semantic wriggling to the contrary.

You and I play different paladin's with very evidently different codes of conduct. But that's cool, because, as you said, there is no one way to play a paladin. If you want to, say, play an Apostle of Peace who grants mercy to anyone who throws down and weapons and promises to be good, I'm cool with that. For me, my paladins like to run down helpless orcs and stab them in the back, because their code tells them that the innocent townspeople must be protected at all costs. My table has room for both paladins. Yours doesn't, and that's okay, too.

Logical fallacy. Again

You know this is a ridiculous strawman you've made, right?

This isn't a high school debate class. Nobody cares about rhetorical devices or any of that nonsense.

 

[Jim Hague]

You and I play different paladin's with very evidently different codes of conduct. But that's cool, because, as you said, there is no one way to play a paladin. If you want to, say, play an Apostle of Peace who grants mercy to anyone who throws down and weapons and promises to be good, I'm cool with that. For me, my paladins like to run down helpless orcs and stab them in the back, because their code tells them that the innocent townspeople must be protected at all costs. My table has room for both paladins. Yours doesn't, and that's okay, too.

Excepting that running down a helpless opponent and backstabbing them is a pretty clear violation of the Good alignment, and possibly the Lawful axis as well, depending. Of course, you also point out that you play a paladin that enjoys the simple art of murder, which is definitely out of alignment. You want to play a dishonorable, backstabbing murderer and call him a paladin, that's your table...but it ain't in alignment and it ain't RAW.

And for this argument, to remind, there are no innocent townspeople. It's a blasted heath, a wasteland that some caravans got ambushed in. The fortress the evildoers were striking from was destroyed, and the orc represented zero threat...and there were bigger problems to deal with.

This isn't a high school debate class. Nobody cares about rhetorical devices or any of that nonsense.

So you don't actually have a refutation or contrary argument? Very well.

 

[Numion]

And it is murder, Halivar. Cutting down a helpless opponent qualifies, despite all the semantic wriggling to the contrary.

The fact that the target is helpless doesn't make it murder. Killing a helpless target was, in this case, justified. It is called an execution.

 

[Jim Hague]

The fact that the target is helpless doesn't make it murder. Killing a helpless target was, in this case, justified. It is called an execution.

Which is murder. I quote, since it seems to be unclear:

murder[mur-der]
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object) 4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Emphasis mine. I do believe running down a helpless opponent and stabbing them in the back is pretty much considered a barbaric act in civilized society - even an idealized fantasy society like the Realms.

 

[Numion]

5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Emphasis mine. I do believe running down a helpless opponent and stabbing them in the back is pretty much considered a barbaric act in civilized society - even an idealized fantasy society like the Realms.

Well, the Paladin would've executed the orc with one swipe to the neck, had the Orc stayed still. Considering that in this case it was the orc that messed up the clean execution, I'll say there are no grounds to call the Paladins actions inhumane.

Thus there is no basis for calling it murder.

 

[Halivar]

You want to play a dishonorable, backstabbing murderer and call him a paladin, that's your table...but it ain't in alignment and it ain't RAW.

Yes, it is RAW. See previous posts. Since we're playing high-school debate, I'll have to point out that your loaded terminology is a clear use of judgemental language and appeal to emotion.

And for this argument, to remind, there are no innocent townspeople.

You're right. Replace "innocent townspeople" with "innocent merchants" and we're square. Thanks for pointing that out.

So you don't actually have a refutation or contrary argument? Very well.

Argumentum a silentio. You do not get to say "very well," as if you've proven your point.

BTW, an orc isn't a human, so how can you treat it inhumanely? You're real-world terms don't work in a fantasy setting.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

I had to deal with this issue in my campaign when I switched to GURPS in the late 80's. It is easier if you remember that most important two traits of a traditional paladin is faith and being the champion of a god. From those two all else follows.

So you can have a paladin in a shades of grey campaign if you have a god that is truly good. It just happens in a shade of grey campaign. Paladins are that much more alone as they deal not only with evil but all the not so quite so evil friends of the bad guy.

In my campaign the demons were those divine powers (lesser and greater) that revolted against how the world was ordered when it was created. The remaining divine powers warred with the demons eventually imprisoning them in the abyss. The surviving divine powers became the dieties of the post war world. The problem was that some of the surviving divine powers became either obsessive, bent, or driven borderline insane by their experiences during the demon war. So while nearly every "god/goddess" hates demons some are nearly just as bad.

One example is the story of the goddess Delaquain and goddess Sarrath. Shortly after the war was won there were still surviving mortal worshippers of demons in the southern jungles. Each picked a local tribe and created a joint nation to hunt them down. Sarrath prized order, disipline, control, and above all destruction of demon worshipper at any cost and Delaquain prized, strength, determination, compassion, and conversion of the demon worshipper to the worship of the gods rather than destruction.

Well the story ended when Sarrath followers being disgusted at the "weakness" of Delaquain followers. They attacked and made slaves out of them to aid the war effort in the way Sarrath wanted. Delaquain consider their compact broken and eventually sent a prophet to lead them to freedom in another land.

Flash forward a couple of hundred years to the main area of my campaign where the City of Eastgate was created as a colony of Delaquain's followers. A hundred years ago it was conquered by barbarians who are now the overlords of the city. For various reasons the church of Sarrath was invited into Eastgate and became allies of one of the barbarian noble factions. So Eastgate is ruled by a mix of barbarian, Sarrath's followers, and Delaquain's followers.

In my latest game one of the party members is a Lion of Delaquain, an equivalent of a D&D paladin with a similar code. The player been having a lot of fun and had fun with several situations that played up to his paladinhood. In the most recent game he and the party were returning to Eastgate escorting a lady. Along they way their caravan got hit by a orc raid. The fight was tough and but several members of the caravan were kidnapped. This being GURPS they couldn't just heal up and go after the Orcs. So they knew of a nearby keep that was run by the Overlord of Eastgate that they could use for refuge and refit.

Now most of the players in this game are new to GURPS and my campaign so they don't really know how messy I make the cultural and social aspect of my fantasy campaign. They get to the keep and as per custom present themselves to the lord in charge. Which happens to be a Myrmidon (paladin) of Sarrath!. The look on the paladin player was priceless. The conversation went something like this.

Me: The guards waves you into the main hall as the seneshal goes into a door.
Party: <talk among themselves about how long it going to take to get everyone healed and refitted>
Me: Ok, you see a man come out of the corrider dressed in the colors of the Overlord.
<rolling>
Me: Albrecht<the paladin>, make a roll. Notes that he makes his Sense "Evil" awareness check.
Me: Ok Albrecht you are getting a sense that this man approaching you is evil but it is not demonic in nature.
<Albrecht looking startled>
Albrecht: I am looking at him
Me: He is wearing a symbol of Sarrath
<The player looks poleaxed>
Player 2: <whispers> aren't you supposed to kill these guys or something?
Albrecht: I..I.. can't he is the lord of this place and working for the Overlord.
<The Myrmidon walks up and looks at Albrecht>
Myrmidon: So I understand that you <slight pause> lost a caravan to Orcs?

The ensuing conversation gave new meaning to the concept of strained.

 

[Jim Hague]

Yes, it is RAW. See previous posts. Since we're playing high-school debate, I'll have to point out that your loaded terminology is a clear use of judgemental language and appeal to emotion.

Afraid not - I posted the Lawful and Good alignment axes earlier, but since it seems we're down to pedantry, here we go again:

SRD: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

SRD: "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

So, let's break this down - running down an unarmed opponent isn't 'honorable' in any sense of the word. An orc isn't a mindless monster (therefore qualifying as 'sentient'), and hacking them to bits from behind is hardly respectful of life, especially when said orc is, effectively, harmless. Glad that's settled. Let's move on.

You're right. Replace "innocent townspeople" with "innocent merchants" and we're square. Thanks for pointing that out.

And has been pointed out, the orcs weren't a threat - their ogre masters were. The fortress they'd been raiding from had been destroyed, and there was no imminent threat. the argument of 'future' crime could easily be extended to anyone - heck, that paladin might fall, someday, let's kill him now!

Argumentum a silentio. You do not get to say "very well," as if you've proven your point.

Since you haven't provided a counterargument that holds up, actually, I do.

BTW, an orc isn't a human, so how can you treat it inhumanely? You're real-world terms don't work in a fantasy setting.

*yaaaaawn* Ad absurdum won't hold water either. Sorry.

 

[tonym]

...murder...blah blah blah

If wrongness was a weapon, you'd be the Death Star.

No matter how much you try to paint the killing of an orc bandit as murder, you are wrong wrong wrong.

The only teensy, tiny way you could have a shred of being right would be if the DM stripped the paladin of his paladinhood. If that happened, you would be right in that DM's oddball campaign world only.

But look! You are wrong there, too!

Face it. The RAW not only allow that paladin to kill that fleeing orc, they also allow her to burn it at a stake, strangle it to death, or tie it to a tree and evicerate it.

There is no rule saying a paladin can't kill monsters any way he or she feels like killing them, nor does the rules care which direction the monster faces, whether or not it carries a weapon, has children, or might reform one day and become a LG shopkeeper. The rules don't care, so it is up to the player of the paladin and their DM how much the paladin should care.

Clearly YOU care. But you are neither the DM nor the player of that paladin.

Summary: The paladin did nothing wrong.

Tony M