Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Sejs]

To which my orc-killing paladin replies, "I'm a paladin, not a lawyer."

After all, all lawyers are inherently LE.

Heh, well, nah to be fair they're supposed to all be LN. You just get some who are LE and get away with it because they stick to the L. The other lawyers pick up on their true colors pretty quickly, though, and man do they not like it.


sejs "why yes, my wife is a lawyer, why do you ask?" ooi.

 

[sckeener]

This is the biggest load of crap for how a good character should act I ever heard. Because it make the character lawful STUPID. You have detect EVIL for crying out loud. Blind obidence to this tenet can cause greater evil down the line.

The paladin could have just insisted that the orc be taken back to some authority (unless he is part of the law enforcement/justice for country.) If the orc had betrayed them, he could have killed him. I'm not saying the paladin shouldn't want more justice. I am just saying that he acted as if he was the judge, jury, and executioner for someone that was entirely defenseless. Just because you can detect evil does not mean you have a right to kill all evil. I am not sure what the metaphysical scales are in D&D core since evil is defined by actions. If someone was evil all there life and then decides to be good, does that out way their actions? As far as player characters go, the player has to start acting the alignment, so wouldn't an evil player still detect as evil for awhile until his actions changed his alignment?

Also since alignment is based on actions that means all evil sentient beings are born good.

Mercy is for those who can be redeemed i.e. have the capacity of changing their alignment.
Mercy means that you don't torture and give evil enemies a clean and quick death.

The whole assumption that all of the sentient creatures in standard D&D are capable of choices about their alignment. Some are but for many they are instrinctly good or instrinctly evil. That is the nature of the game.

That depends on the setting....for say Eberron that would not be true.

 

[Thanatos]

Abiding by the party's decision would not threaten the paladin's status, so that argument is moot. Furthermore, the 'party's decision' here is something to consider: isn't the paladin part of the party? As such, didn't she have the opportunity to influence that decision? What's more, if she felt so strongly about it, why didn't she simply veto the decision? All it would have taken is a statement that "if you don't kill this orc, I will".

I know some DM's who would disagree with your opinion regarding that -- but, I agree it's a moot argument. We don't know if she had any influence or anything to say in the decision or not, the OP didn't extrapolate on that. I don't see anything in the code which would prevent her from getting information from the orc firs tand then giving him a quick, painless death. That apparently seemed to be her course of action, contrary to what the OP wanted to do.

No, the paladin stayed silent because it was convenient to let the orc think he was going to live. When she had no further use for it, she reneged on the deal she struck (or, by not opposing, consented to). And that's chaotic.

We don't know she stayed silent or was even aware of the intent of the OP to let the orc go. I also don't agree that 'silence' equals consent. So, until I see a post saying she agreed to let the orc go and then killed it, I don't see her as reneging on the deal and performing a chaotic act.

Now, why is it that in-party alignment differences always seem to be seconds away from violence? If the relationships within the party are so strained that that's the case, how can they possibly hold together long-term? (I see this frequently in paladin threads. I see it frequently in threads where one party member has knifed another in his sleep over some trivial matter. It's crazy. To survive long-term, a party simply must trust one another, probably with their lives, and that doesn't really allow one or more members to be "seconds from attacking" one another, no matter their alignments.)

I see this quite frequently too and I agree, its crazy. This party doesn't need to be together if they are going to be at odds with each other, because otherwise it will fall apart at some critical juncture when the stress is high. But, I've always heard that to have a paladin in your party, you have to have a certain type of party make-up (with regards to alignment/outlook) or it can lead to alot of internal strife. It was never a problem in the group I played a paladin in.

If more information becomes available, I may revise my assessment, as happened in two of the "Is this fair" threads. However, given the scenario as presented, the paladin took a distinctly chaotic (and non-good) act. In itself, that doesn't matter too much, but a pattern of such actions calls for an alignment shift, and the fall from grace that goes with it.

I agree here as well and reserve the right to revise my assessment if more information appears. But, I disagree, given the information presented, the paladin did exactly what she was supposed to and should reap no concequences for her actions in regards to her paladinhood, though in all probability, there should be some serious party discussion going on.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Did the paladin agree to the terms of the deal with the orc?
Was the orc evil in alignment?
The code states that paladin's punish those who harm or threaten innocents, did the orc do that previously?
Was it against the legitimate authorities laws to kill the orc?

If the paladin didn't agree to the terms of the deal, knew the orc was evil and had harmed, had a history of harming and/or threating innocents and was not protected by the any governing laws -- I don't see the paladin as having violated any portion of her code of conduct.

IMO the paladin broke, or at least heavily strained, their Code based on their action towards their allies. The paladin has dishonored her ally, shown she has no respect for their word, and done so over a creature that could have been redeemed in some fasion.

Basically the paladin just told the OP that "Hey, you can make all the promises you want but I personally hold your word in such low regard that I will spit on your oaths in front of your face."

Yeah, I'd go whack-a-mole on this paladin.

 

[Sejs]

The paladin could have just insisted that the orc be taken back to some authority (unless he is part of the law enforcement/justice for country.)

Two points, and I'll admit, I'm a stickler for this one.

First, passing the buck like that is intellectual sloth. It's saying there's this morally uncomfortable question that's come about, I'll hand it off to someone else so as to spare myself any guilt on the matter. A paladin may haul an offender off (see point two), but they could just as easily take up the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner themselves and as above both would be equally right. If the paladin, or anyone really, deals with it themselves, moral courage then comes in the form of living up to those actions and if necessary, taking the reprocussion without complaint.

Secondly, they're pretty much tantamount to the same thing. Carting away badguys so the proper authorities can give them a time out is a very modern concept. In less civilized times, punishment generally came in one of four flavors - execution, maiming, humiliation, and reparation. Taking that orc to the 'proper authorities' would just have them say thanks and then kill the orc themselves. The only difference is some travel time and who holds the sword, in the end.

That depends on the setting....for say Eberron that would not be true.

Granted, though to be fair Eberron does also take pains to point out that not all generally-evil humanoids = badguys ripe for the killin', by making a point to have things like gnolls, orcs, hobgoblins, etc part of normal, functional, semipolite society.

There's the further end of the scale - if a daelkyr said he was sorry and is repenting, would you take it as face value - but that's another matter.

Also since alignment is based on actions that means all evil sentient beings are born good.

Not counting Always X critters who are born with their alignment as is mentioned expressly, still no. That means all evil sentient beings arn't born good, they're born neutral.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am not sure what the metaphysical scales are in D&D core since evil is defined by actions. If someone was evil all there life and then decides to be good, does that out way their actions? As far as player characters go, the player has to start acting the alignment, so wouldn't an evil player still detect as evil for awhile until his actions changed his alignment?

That's the big debate - what does alignment represent?

We take the example of, say, Xena. She's been an evil warlord, and delighted in slaughter.

And then she has a revelation, and realises that Evil Is Not The Way, and declares her intention to Fight The Good Fight.

What is her alignment at this instant? The answer, depending on who you ask, will fall into one of three main categories:

1. Evil. Alignment is a record of past deeds, and her past evil acts dictate her alignment. She may gradually migrate to Good if her future actions begin to outweigh her past.

2. Neutral. She's no longer someone who would perform evil deeds, so she shouldn't radiate evil, but she can't be Good until she's proven herself worthy.

3. Good. Alignment gives us a guideline to how someone will react to a given situation, and with her new resolution, her reactions will be those of a Good person.

The problem is, different people won't agree on what alignment actually tells us...

I'd argue, personally, that the existence of the Helm of Opposite Alignment is evidence for case 3. Alignment reflects your current outlook, not your past deeds.

Someone who performs evil deeds without evil intent might not have an evil alignment. Someone with an evil outlook who never quite gets around to acting on it can still be evil.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanatos]

IMO the paladin broke, or at least heavily strained, their Code based on their action towards their allies. The paladin has dishonored her ally, shown she has no respect for their word, and done so over a creature that could have been redeemed in some fasion.

Where did the paladin break the code? It's either broken or not, you can't strain it. It's a moral code, it breaks not bends. As for showing no respect for his word, we don't know if he said anything regarding it or if she initially stood against it or not. Whether the creature could be redeemed or not is a debate and will differ from DM to DM.

Lets go to the SRD:

Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Additionally, we don't know the details of the agreement, all we know is one of the paladin's ally intended to let the orc go. We don't know if the paladin agreed with that course of action or not, before taking action herself. So, assuming the paladin disrespected or dishonored her allies is a jump. We could speculate either direction though. Maybe the allies disrespected the paladin's code that she HAS to live by, by making a deal with an evil creature against her wishes.

At the bones of it though, the paladin killed an evil creature and the OP gave an incomplete and view of it when asking for opinions.

Basically the paladin just told the OP that "Hey, you can make all the promises you want but I personally hold your word in such low regard that I will spit on your oaths in front of your face."

Yeah, I'd go whack-a-mole on this paladin.

Lets discuss associates.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Emphasis mine.

Could be this paladin and group aren't going to be haning together for long. This is often how that kind of fracture within parties often start.

So you know what the paladin actually said? You were THERE then? Well gods be praised, we can clear up ALL the questions now

How do you know the paladin didn't say, "I am bound to kill this evil creature. Question it all you want, but upon being done I will slay it since there is no proper authority we can turn it into. I understand you wish to let this creature go and have told it so despite my contrary stance, but it is an affront to all I stand for. My code is gods given for me to obey and I cannot abide with its freedom when it has shown it will come back to wreck havoc upon these innocents again when we are not around to protect them." (because remember, these orcs were just slaughtering people previously)

I wasn't there either, shouldn't put words in peoples mouths. If any character said your quote to mine, I'd go play whack-a-mole with that character.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Campaign Specifics: Mysteries of the Moonsea

To clarify:

01. We were adventuring in the Thar (FRCS) ... a lawless land crawling with savage humanoids.
02. We were employed by the Harpers to end ogre banditry on the Glister Road.

03. The orc captive was indeed affiliated with a citadel of ogre bandits.
04. The orc was also clearly a mook.
05. Nonetheless, he provided us with a fairly detailed (and accurate) description of the citadel's forces.

06. The paladin did not protest until we were about to let the orc go.
07. Our party has released captive mercenaries before, after securing their cooperation.

08. My character, Nigel Yarrow, is a CN (CG) wizard from the Moonsea region (i.e., Thentia).
09. Nigel was adopted by a kindly mage, after his mother abandoned him.
10. His best friend is Mival "Ogrebane", the party's half-orc tank. Mival is from Glister.

11. Nigel speaks fluent orc and giant.
12. He understands the corrupt geopolitics of his homeland and acts pragmatically in his dealings with local hoodlums.

I hope these statements help. Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Keep 'em coming!

-Samir (Nigel)

 

[Thanatos]

To clarify:

06. The paladin did not protest until we were about to let the orc go.
07. Our party has released captive mercenaries before, after securing their cooperation.

11. Nigel speaks fluent orc and giant.

Did the paladin (character) know the result was going to be to let the orc go and agree with that course of action? (I'm not one of those that believe silence equals consent).

I guess you could also ask, did the player know the orc was going to be released and did the player say anything to the contrary?

Mercenaries are not always evil, they may just be working for an evil cause and therefore the same rule about no mercy to evil doesn't apply.

Was the conversation with the orc in orcish and does the paladin speak it?

Thanks for supplying some additional information. I think we need a few more tidbits though.

 

[robertsconley]

The paladin could have just insisted that the orc be taken back to some authority (unless he is part of the law enforcement/justice for country.) If the orc had betrayed them, he could have killed him. I'm not saying the paladin shouldn't want more justice. I am just saying that he acted as if he was the judge, jury, and executioner for someone that was entirely defenseless. Just because you can detect evil does not mean you have a right to kill all evil.

Paladins don't answer to local authority first they answer to good first. Now I gave a flippant answer in actual practice you are somewhat right a paladin doesn't go around defying local authority figure be because they aren't in his chain of command. Paladin is lawful as well as good. But the example given was a party on a mission in the middle of nowhere with a evil orc. So the Paladin doesn't just have the right he has to duty to kill that orc before it could do any harm.

I am not sure what the metaphysical scales are in D&D core since evil is defined by actions. If someone was evil all there life and then decides to be good, does that out way their actions? As far as player characters go, the player has to start acting the alignment, so wouldn't an evil player still detect as evil for awhile until his actions changed his alignment?

Also since alignment is based on actions that means all evil sentient beings are born good.

That depends on the setting....for say Eberron that would not be true.

First off in various settings my statments are total baloney. You have read up on what gods, good, evil means for THAT setting.

But I am refering to what is laid out in the CORE books. Alignment is by choice for the PC Races. But monsters that are evil are well... evil. An Orc is a monster in core D&D. There is no reason to let a orc live in a core D&D adventure.

Now if this was say Sovereign Stone or World of Warcraft it is way way different for orcs.

In the original post it start out the party slaughtered a group of ORC SOLDIERS. So this wasn't a hunting party, wasn't a group out gathering stuff. No these orcs are the kinds that goes out and attacks the local farmers and pillages the villages. They are the vanguard of the evil that orc inflict.

The paladin was every bit justified in disagreeing with the party leader's decision and it was entirely within the bounds of his alignment and class to take action and slay the orc. A traditional paladin doesn't answer to anybody but the call of good. And if you are a leader of a party that has a paladin you are fool to think that any compromise can be made if your decision comes into least bit of conflict with the paladin's call to uphold the good.

Traditional Paladins is a great ally to have but they are also a pain in the butt.