Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[robertsconley]

Here are some quotes from Elisabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion which I consider the best written protrayal of a D&D paladin.

"Most of them had thought, ... being a holy warrior meant gaining vast arcane plowers -- they would be invincible against any foe. .... Although paladins much be skilled at fighting, that was the least of their abilities. A quest may involved no fighting at all, or against beings that no steel could pierce."

"Paladins show that courage is possible." ... "It is easy enough to find reasons to give into evil. War is ugly ... We don't argue that war is better than peace; we [paladins] are not as stupid as that. But it is not peace when cruelty reigns, when stronger men steal from farmers and craftworkers, when the child can be enslaved or the old thrown out to starve, and no one lifts a hand. That is not peace: that is conquest and evil. We start no quarrels in peaceful lands; we never display weaponskill to gain applause. But we are Gird's [a patron saint] cudgel dare greater force to break evil's grasp on the innocent. Some we can do that without fighting, without killing and that is best."

[ed note: this is in response to a question on why paladin are so likable, high charisma]

"It't important ... We come to a town, perhaps, where nothing has gone right for a dozen years. Perhaps there is a grange [church] of Gird, perhaps not. But the people are frightened and they've lost turst in each other, in themselves. We may lead them to danger; some will be killed or wounded. Being likeable helps them trust us."

On Detect Evil

"A paladin can sense good and evil directly, now you may think that that makes everything simple: on the one side are bad people and you kill them, and over here are the good people, and they cheer for you." <laughter ensues> "But that's not how it works. Normally you will experience people much as you do now -- liking some, and not liking others. Most people - including us -- are mixtures, neither wholly evil nor wholly good. But if you are close to someone intent on evil, you will know that evil is near and be able to locate it."

The discussion end with this

"Realize that like any other gift, it is a tool and you must learn to use it carefully. or it can slip in your hand."

 

[Storyteller01]

The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds

MERCY
For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme — respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.

A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.​

Stated before I did, although the illustration with that statement might help as well. The one where a paladin (looks like a female half orc) has two succubi at sword point.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

I work in security. Does this mean I get to flog kids who were caught breaking into a building as opposed to calling the police. By current standards, I'd be facing jail time.

D&D is based in a dark age/pre-renaissance setting, but much of what goes on is usually based on modern ideology. Even with that taken out of the equation, judgements had to be handed down by officials (the village elder, mayor, king, etc) unless the parties in question were out in the woods, all alone...

Did the paladin ever specifically state in an oath, or have it stated to them via a higher order, that they could pass judgement and punishment while out in the field?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Are you certain?

My Core books have Orcs as 'Often Chaotic Evil'.

Definition of an 'Often' alignment?

"The creature tends towards the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."

So the orc in a Core D&D adventure has a 40-50% chance of being Chaotic Evil. Now, it may be that most of the other 50-60% are, say, Neutral Evil... but that's not guaranteed!

Pick a random core orc, and you can't say "He's evil"; all you can say are "About even odds he's Chaotic Evil".

That's 50-60% of all random orcs who might be NE, LE, or not evil at all.

And even those who are Chaotic Evil tend that way, but not strongly. They're not irredeemable, like a vampire or a fiend.

-Hyp.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

The "Faithbringer"

For example, in the FR campaign I run, a paladin of Chauntea will have a much more relaxed attitude towards "questionable" acts by other party members, and be more inclined to "lead by example", then - for example - a paladin of Tyr, or Helm.

By the way, our paladin is Tyrran ... although she venerates the entire Triad.

-Samir

 

[Zapak Vim]

As the previous post said, orcs are NOT always psychoticand evil etc. demons are, but orcs are not. from my reading of the MM, orcs evil is a cultural thing not an inherent part of Orkyness.
IMC that paladin would be in the poo with the gods and would definitely be required to atone or repent of his/her deed.

And yes the morality implied in the description of 'good' in the rules is a far cry from standard morality in medieval tiems but as the BOED says, Playing an exalted character or a paladin is supposed ot be difficult. they are supposed to have a far higher standard than the rest of the society they are in. So what if the mainstream society considers it to be OK to exterminate orcs including the defenceless and children. paladins get all those special powers because their job is very difficult.

Of course the Paladins player should know all this in advance. its the DMs responsibility to explain alignment stuff to the players, especially to paladins and good clerics.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Score - Paladin 0 Orc 1

The paladin did nothing evil, however she acted WAY out in Chaos land - loss of powers, atonement before regaining and minor geas. Though she did kill evil she did so in a way that violated the "Laws of War" (don't believe they exist, just ask a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine). The following is a real world explaination of my opinion.
Definition of a combatant:
Any individual that is in a position to physical, harm, maim, or hinder the mission of a combat unit or soldier.
When a person is no longer in a position to harm another, through injury or inaction, that person is no longer a combatant, they become a non-combatant or prisoner. If a prisoner is released by proper authority (and in this case they were) and then mistreated, the person committing the autrocity is liable for prosecution under the "war crimes" act of the Geneva convention.
Using this as my guide I can stand of firm ground saying the paladin should "hang" for her inappropriate behaviour. A sly cleric would also say that part of the reparations to atone would be supporting the family of the slain victim and ensure the are well cared for. Raising orcs in a "non-evil" envirnoment and offering support to the widows is also a great role-playing hook.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Further Clarification:

I don't see where it says the Orc surrendered, just that one was left alive. I also don't see any info that the party had discussed letting the captive live - other than the one character who was prepared to cut the orc loose with a warning.

01. The orc prisoner was knocked out with a sleep spell and subdual damage from a cudgel.
02. He woke up in captivity.

03. The party discussed its concerns before (and during) questioning ... in the Damaran tongue.
04. The paladin did not voice any objections at this point.
05. Nigel and Mival then conversed in Aragrakh, regarding interrogation strategy.
06. The paladin was angered by our "clandestine" discussion, but said nothing about the orc or the Q&A session.
07. Without knowing our reason for speaking Aragrakh, she verbally threatened me for talking " ... behind her back."
08. I stood my ground, and asked if she was prepared to strike me down. She backed off.

09. We resumed the interrogation without protest; the orc told us everything he knew about the citadel.

10. The paladin did not take action against the orc ... until we were about to release him.

-Samir

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

you know i have been known to give a lot of leway but yeah shes acting very controlingas a dm i could make this one fall hard sad to say but for me looks like shes on her way down whats that saying about the road to hell being paved and all that,...would love the hear your dm's take on this

 

[robertsconley]

Pick a random core orc, and you can't say "He's evil"; all you can say are "About even odds he's Chaotic Evil".

Sure that handy dandy Detect Evil remember. In the example given the paladin had more than enough rounds to get through read on the orc.

And even those who are Chaotic Evil tend that way, but not strongly. They're not irredeemable, like a vampire or a fiend.

In theory perhaps but in traditional D&D Orcs as whole are chaotic evil forming nations bent on the destruction of the good lands surrounding them. Since we now know the setting is Forgotten Realms that uses Orcs mostly in their traditional sense, along with the fact it was Orc Soldier in the service of Ogre bandit preying on the locals make the paladin's action correct in the context of upholding the good.

When released that Orc will return to his tribe or troop and continue to prey on Glister Road. Whatever the judgement of the party leader releasing the Orc is a mistake and only goes to strengthen evil.

Now could of the paladin handled the situation better with the party? Maybe, the paladin is only human you know. However I wasn't there.
Perhaps the paladin fealt it was better to keep silent rather than just create party disenssion. One thing tho the paladin didn't need Detect Evil to know when something was going down that she wouldn't like when several of the party started speaking in a language that she couldn't understand.

I been role-playing since 78 both table-top and live-action I had this done to my paladin characters, seen it done to other paladin characers, and done it to other paladin characters. It call "Don't let the paladin know" manueveur. Only in this case the paladin mostly played it cool until the end when she took matters in her own hand.

Understand she doesn't answer to the party she answers to good and good alone. Her lawfulness come from her commitment to follow that call regardless of the consquences to herself. In this case the good graces of her felllow party members.