Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Wolfwood2]

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.

Can we stipulate though, that while the paladin's code allows such an action it does not require it? That if a pladin feels it is appropriate, he/she certainly has the free will to offer mercy to a defeated opponent?

That's what's gotten to me, the notion that's appeared in this thread a few times that the paladin had no choice but to slay the orc and that mercy and forgiveness would be a violation of the code.

Neither answer is contrary to the notions of goodness. It's just that each is weighted towards a different aspect of goodness. One towards mercy and the other towards protecting innocents. Paladins aren'ty supposed to all think and act alike. There should be plenty of ethical dilemmas where two paladins will come up with two different answers.

It's also fair that the other player characters, or even the other players, may be disgusted and repulsed by the choice, even if it was within the boundries of lawful good behavior. (Certainly other players can't be expected to check alignment rules before having an emotional reaction to in-game events.)

 

[Halivar]

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

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid logical construct. But that's a moot point, because I never used it. What did you think it meant (that is, what was wrong with what I said)? What does the word "humane" mean to a murderous orc? How does one treat a murderous orc? Does a murderous orc have rights? If you meant to say that the questions are absurd, you are correct; in a fantasy world, everything is absurd.

Can we stipulate though, that while the paladin's code allows such an action it does not require it? That if a paladin feels it is appropriate, he/she certainly has the free will to offer mercy to a defeated opponent?

I absolutely agree, excepting cases where the opponent has a guaranteed certainty of harming innocents in the future (i.e. vampires that live off of blood, demons who are irredeemably evil, etc.).

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

Except that I've quoted the definition of murder and the RAW, and they do indeed seem to agree with me. Of course, you're stooping to PAs at this point to prop up your argument, so let's move on...

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.

Ok, once again:

murder[mur-der]
–noun
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Evisceration, burning at the stake, etc. are all rather brutal and inhumane. So, I'm afraid, you're mistaken. Moving on and repeating for you:

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, by your argument, the paladin can rampantly violate the altruism and respect(eviscerating, burning at the stake and obviously taking pleasure in doing so by your implication) part of the axis, and we don't need to get into the honor portion. I'm not sure how you run paladins in your gameworld, but they don't seem to be Lawful Good.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

I am actually somewhat frightened by this line of reasoning. Even though my friends and acquaintances tell me that I'm a bit too 'Good' and the D&D alignment tests always give me a Good alignment, according to you I am evil because I don't automatically respect someone in real life for being a clergy member? I don't think I can continue a conversation on this topic too much here, as you've very neatly edged the line on the whole religion thing, but suffice it to say that your reasoning chills me in that it reminds me of things I won't bring up.

 

[tonym]

Can we stipulate though, that while the paladin's code allows such an action it does not require it? That if a pladin feels it is appropriate, he/she certainly has the free will to offer mercy to a defeated opponent?

Oh yes. Although paladins have surrendered a portion of their free will, a player often gets to make many decisions regarding mercy. The rules are intentionally vague to encourage this.

Although mercy is an important component of a paladin, the amount of mercy is the paladin-player's call, generally. A paladin can be virtually mericless to monsters and still be a paladin, or a paladin can be so merciful that he becomes a major pain to the rest of the party by not killing things.

Variety is the essence of d20!

I would hope a player would be consistent, though, and not have their paladin acting both merciful and merciless, back and forth, without any logic behind their decisions.

Some DMs insist every paladin must act exactly the same--usually like Sir Galahad but with 21st-century morality. Gamers should avoid running paladins under such DMs, IMO. Those DMs tend to be control freaks who are always on the look-out for a chance to strip away paladin powers.

"Ha! You didn't give coins to the beggar child! You lose your powers until you atone!"

Or..."Ha! The bandit orc was facing away from you when you killed him! You disgust me! You should have tried to reform him! After all, maybe he only watched the other bandits slaughter merchants, but didn't participate for some reason! You lose your powers until you atone!" Running a paladin under a DM like that is much like running a robot.

A stupid robot.

I think most people running paladins are people who want to run exceptionally GOOD characters, and how they run their paladins reflects that most of the time.

I think it is mean of a person, whether a DM or player, to tell somebody who is running a paladin that he isn't running his paladin good enough.

It's like telling the player of the wizard that he is running his wizard too stupid, and that his actions do not reflect a high intelligence. It's just mean.

People run a paladin to have fun, and people who ruin fun are jerks, IMO.

No offense to any jerks reading this, but come on, stop trying to tell other people how to roleplay their character.

Tony M

 

[nerfherder]

I think it is mean of a person, whether a DM or player, to tell somebody who is running a paladin that he isn't running his paladin good enough.

It's like telling the player of the wizard that he is running his wizard too stupid, and that his actions do not reflect a high intelligence. It's just mean.

People run a paladin to have fun, and people who ruin fun are jerks, IMO.

No offense to any jerks reading this, but come on, stop trying to tell other people how to roleplay their character.

Except that there is a definition of good in the rules, and the mechanics of the Paladin class require a character to follow that definition or lose its powers. As a DM I would remind the player of the definition of Lawful and Good and their Paladin code, and what happens if they act in an evil manner or transgress their code. Then I would let them decide what they want to do.

Cheers,
Liam

P.S. there's no need for the "no offense to any jerks" comment.

 

[Rystil Arden]

People run a paladin to have fun, and people who ruin fun are jerks, IMO.

No offense to any jerks reading this, but come on, stop trying to tell other people how to roleplay their character.

Tony M

Except that people who run paladins like the ones you describe who are trying to force the other players to defer to them, do what they say, and give them respect are ruining the other players' fun. And as you say, people who ruin fun are jerks. Since the paladin player is possibly ruining everyone else's fun at the table, whereas the people who try to not let the paladin dominate and rule the entire table are at most ruining the paladin's fun, by the utilitarian measurement of 'jerkness' proposed by your criterion, the paladin's player is the bad guy here.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Wow, just wow. I waded through all of this, and one thing kept occurring to me.

Everyone is slapping modern thought on the actions of a medieval situation.

Ever heard the phrase: "get medieval on their asses!"

Yeah, that's because certian things were acceptable back then that aren't now.

Here we have a bunch of people, on this board, who roleplay breaking and entering thieves who murder people in their own homes for shiney stuff and to strut around the tavern later.

But when you come to a Paladin, he should wrap himself in nerf and never harm anyone, and not let any harm, even hurt feelings, come to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

The very same people who roleplay savage thugs who sneak into others homes and murder them, want to now apply modern thought to ONE class.



Here's a real quick fix, that'll shut all of you up.

Drop alignment, use alliegence, and make sure each Paladin has a code to follow. When he's about to do something, he gets a warning.

Or, just drop the paladin altogether, since it seems to offend so many people.

 

[nerfherder]

Here's a real quick fix, that'll shut all of you up.

Drop alignment, use alliegence, and make sure each Paladin has a code to follow. When he's about to do something, he gets a warning.

Or, just drop the paladin altogether, since it seems to offend so many people.

That's not RAW, but it would make a fine house rule.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Thurbane]

I respectfully inform you of your wrongness.

I respectfully inform you of yours. You cannot stipulate to a (player) character who they do and no not respect, especially by vocation.

For instance, why should a CG, freedom loving Sorcerer, show insta-respect to some "jackbooted enforcer" of Lawful ideals? He would be much more likely to respect a CG Ranger who enforces the ideals of liberty and freedom.

Just because someone has chosen a calling that has a strict code, doesn't mean they are instantly worthy of respect. I'm sure there are assassin and thieves guilds that work by a strict code of conduct, it doesn't mean a character would respect them, either.

Oh, and for the record, IRL I don't auto respect cops or religious types either.