Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[tonym]

It's up to the player of the paladin how the paladin would react. Killing and not killing the orc are both correct actions. Clearly the player of the paladin felt their paladin character would not feel bound by the other PC's negotiations and would kill the orc. There is nothing wrong with this.

On the other hand, if the player let the orc go free, there is nothing wrong with that either.

There is more than one way to run a paladin. If the DM doesn't force a strict, narrow interpretation, then a player can choose his or her own interpretation of what constitutes a "paladin"--as long as it jives with the PHB rules.

Killing the orc would only violate the PHB paladin rules if the orc was not evil and the paladin knew it, or if the paladin, with his own voice, promised the orc freedom in exchange for information.

A paladin can be roleplayed many ways nowadays.

Note: I'm assuming the group is NOT playing 1st Edition.

Tony M

 

[Gold Roger]

Yes you are wrong. As Vegepygmy's quote showed, the PHB is explicitly clear on this. It is quite permissable for a paladin to show no mercy to evil. In my view not all paladins are of this school but some are.

The real issue in the situation you described was the PC conflict over how to deal with the prisoner which I'm guessing led to some player vs player heatedness. That's best dealt with by discussing the issue with the other players.

I agree. This is a common conflict about gaming preferences that far to often gets pushed into a right/wrong conflict. The players should talk this out OOC and come upon a common denominator on what's acceptable in game. For example I'm in agreement that lawfull executions aren't entirely out of scope for a LG D&D society. However, mercyless executions of unarmed NPC are something I'm a bit uncomfortable with when done by PC's, so it's something I prefer to be clear about with my group.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So let me get this straight. The "Paladin" thing to do now is to let people get away with murder, so long as they swear up and down to be good? BS.

This concern over whether the paladin has jurisdiction to execute a criminal is silly. Paladins are the sword arms for good/justice, its stupid to saddle them with transporting villains around for due process, a concept which certainly didnt exist in midieval times, and most likely doesnt exist in most campaign worlds.

Ditch the paladin code (and alignment), and you wont have this issue, just the (more important) RP one of how the party reacts to her.

Paladins... starting more arguments than chaotic evil assassins played by a 14 year old on meth since 1977.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Not paladiny at all. It's one thing to defeat evil, but another to murder in cold blood. She could have insisted that he be brought to justice. But this was wrong.

- Killing in cold blood, and someone unarmed at that.

An execution falls under this category as well. The prisoner would be bound and unarmed. Oh no, poor orc.

- Breaking other party members' words.

The paladin is not responsible for keeping the word of her comrades, or even her own if doing so would cause harm.

 

[TheNovaLord]

it is all very campaign specific.

if the orc had been brought up to understand that the pink skins are out to destroy all orc kind and surrender is never an option. I think the issue is the orc surrendering in the first place.
If he expected to be treat like a prisoner (cos that the way the campiagn is) then the paladin was in the wrong.
If the orc surrendering was unique and had never happened before then id not overly berate the paladin

Our current campaign has two paladins, 1 msytic theurge (well nearly), 1 favoured soul, 1 scout and 1 ranger. all either LG or NG. They have enemies that are the enemies of their blood and for countless centuries have been and until one wipes out the other, far into the future too. The campaign dictates no mercy on either side. Historically the 'good guys' have excepted parley and diplomacey with the 'bad guys' and it always ended in betrayl and deciet and woe for the good guys. Paladins arent stupid scmucks.

JohnD

 

[Benimoto]

There's a lot of ambiguity about what consitutes lawful or good behaviour, but to find common ground, let's look at the PHB definitions of the alignments:

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So while you can't really argue that the paladin was committing an evil act by those definitions, she definitely wasn't committing a good one. I tend to agree with Cheiromancer that running down a fleeing orc implies a disrespect for the dignity of the orc.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if
they feel like it.

And while the original poster implies that the party was about to promise the orc safety, but hadn't yet, the paladin acting against the party's wishes and killing the orc was probably a chaotic act. The paladin was defying the authority of the party and following her own conscience. The dirty look she gave only reinforces that. That seems chaotic. If following her own conscience would put her at odds with the party, then she should either leave the party or renegotiate how the party will act in such circumstances. Acting unilaterally, even in judgement, is not a lawful act according to how I'm interpreting the PHB.

So, my own personal verdict here is that the paladin was acting in a CN manner. I don't see a willful evil act here, or a gross violation of the paladin's oath, so I don't see a reason to strip her of her powers. However, continued actions in that manner would be cause for a little chat about the responsibilities of lawful good.

 

[delericho]

It's up to the player of the paladin how the paladin would react.

Of course. It's up to the DM how to apply the consequences of that choice (as far as alignment is concerned).

Killing and not killing the orc are both correct actions. Clearly the player of the paladin felt their paladin character would not feel bound by the other PC's negotiations and would kill the orc. There is nothing wrong with this.

Disagree. For the paladin to have the authority to execute the orc, she must take the position that the party are the rightful authority in the region. That's a reasonable stance to take. However, once the party strikes a deal with the orc to spare his life, the paladin is then bound by that agreement. If the paladin refused the terms of the deal, the time to say so was before it was struck.

There is more than one way to run a paladin. If the DM doesn't force a strict, narrow interpretation, then a player can choose his or her own interpretation of what constitutes a "paladin"--as long as it jives with the PHB rules.

Agree.

Killing the orc would only violate the PHB paladin rules if the orc was not evil and the paladin knew it, or if the paladin, with his own voice, promised the orc freedom in exchange for information.

Agree with the first part, but not the second. By not voicing her objection as or before the deal was struck, the paladin is impliticly agreeing with the terms of that agreement. Just as it is not acceptable for the paladin to "leave the room" so the rest of the party can torture prisoners, so it is not acceptable for the paladin to weasel out of the deal by claiming "well, I never said I agreed to it."

For me, that's the crux of it. I won't label the paladin's actions evil, because of the context (the orc was recently an enemy combatant, almost certainly will be again, and is evil), but they are chaotic. When the paladin is showing less honesty than a random captured orc, there's a problem.

 

[grimslade]

Pally Justice

If the paladin had argued against the agreement with the orc, i.e. I do not guarantee safe passage for this minion of evil, the paladin is in the clear with his deity. No sanctions. No warnings. Jobs a good'un! The roleplaying elements of the parties interaction with the paladin should be interesting, however.
If the paladin agreed to the 'plea bargain', even by silent consent, then there should be a deific warning on the wayward paladin for staining his honor. No loss of abilities. The killing of the orc is not an issue, it is the giving a promise to the rest of his party that is the problem. A paladin should be forthright in dispatching evil.

 

[delericho]

So let me get this straight. The "Paladin" thing to do now is to let people get away with murder, so long as they swear up and down to be good? BS.

Then don't agree to spare them in exchange for information. The paladin can have it one way or the other, but not both. Tricky thing, having principles.

This concern over whether the paladin has jurisdiction to execute a criminal is silly. Paladins are the sword arms for good/justice, its stupid to saddle them with transporting villains around for due process, a concept which certainly didnt exist in midieval times, and most likely doesnt exist in most campaign worlds.

Killing the orc isn't the problem. Promising the spare the orc and then killing him is the problem.

Ditch the paladin code (and alignment), and you wont have this issue, just the (more important) RP one of how the party reacts to her.

Paladins... starting more arguments than chaotic evil assassins played by a 14 year old on meth since 1977.

Alternatively, one could argue that all these alignment arguments are actually a good thing. The questions of what it is to be good, noble, honourable and true are difficult questions. The fact that people are being forced to think about them might be considered a good thing. Ditching alignment (and the code) just skips past the questions, which might be convenient, but is it really better?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Alternatively, one could argue that all these alignment arguments are actually a good thing. The questions of what it is to be good, noble, honourable and true are difficult questions. The fact that people are being forced to think about them might be considered a good thing. Ditching alignment (and the code) just skips past the questions, which might be convenient, but is it really better?

Our games dont use alignment (Arcana Evolved/D&D hybrid), and the players have mature, in-character discussions on eithics, morality, religion, etc. Some characters are more merciful, some are more honorable, but there is no litmus test for determining if someone is "good" or "evil". Indeed, their adventures have brought them into conflict with both sides of the classic D&D spectrum. None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment. There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations. People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.

Alignment is 2 words written on your sheet, that in most groups seem to invariably lead to conflict between player and GM in regards to mechanics (loss of paladin abilities, holy weapons, etc). You dont need to write anything down to figure out a character's personality, and how he upholds or violates their personal morals as the situation warrants.