Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Halivar]

His penchant for breaking & entering alone calls his lawfulness, and thus his paladin-ness, into question.

IOW, while he respects authority, he will often take "chaotic" actions in order to ensure justice is done.

More likely, he'd be best modeled (in D&D) by a CG UA Urban Ranger.

But, see, you're basing his "paladin-ness" on his following the letter of the law, whereas I called him a possible paladin archetype because of his strict, unswerving adherance to a moral and ethical code. This moral and ethical code is, at least in the current run of the Batman comics (exluding old runs and non-canonical stuff like DK), a central theme to his character. Batman solidly places himself above the law, but not above the concept of law and integrity that he struggles to uphold. He has the strictest code of honor of any other superhero (IMO; this brings him into frequent conflict with chaotic heros such as Robin #1 and, more recently, Robin #2), which he not only follows zealously, but expects those around him too, as well.

A paladin, in my view, is a fighter who champions a law above that of mortal men. That law is absolute, and no worldly political legal system can constrain him from following it.

CG implies, to me, that a hero is extrinsically motivated (i.e. Han Solo) rather than intrinsically motivated (i.e. Indianna Jones, another LG archetype ("It belongs in a museum!")).

 

[tonym]

I did insult her, but only after I perceived her as being psychotic.

The paladin was likely "psychotic" because you kept an orc bandit alive during the battle so you could release it later into the world, after you pumped it for information.

You knew the paladin would have a problem with this, so you tried to exclude her from your scheming, but you were not subtle enough.

It looks to me like you caused the problem. Your PC should have explained to the orc immediately that the paladin may execute it following the interrogation. Your PC was cruel and conniving to exploit the orc, knowing it's fate depended entirely upon the paladin.

A paladin is an expert in justice; their decisions should me respected by the whole party. A wizard makes decisions about magic, a rogue about traps, and always the party defers to their expertise. Likewise, your evil-nurturing, conflict-causing CN Wizard/Wild Mage should have asked for and respected the paladin's judgment on the fate of the orc.

You ran your character as if there wasn't an Expert in Justice in the party...and that was a mistake.


PS: Well...you did say "throw rocks" in the thread title!

Tony M

 

[Jim Hague]

Yup, sure was honorable and brave of the LG Paladin to ride down a bound and helpless prisoner. You bet. Right up there with slaughtering infant orcs and crippled opponents. But hey, let's hide behind the 'no mercy to evil' flavor text, shall we? Because if the alignment says good, then everything they do must be good, right? Because the opponents are worse, somehow.

I quote straight from the SRD, no flavor text:

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

"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."

"Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."

And people ask why the paladin is such a pain in these threads, and why the alignment system causes such issues. Riding down a bound and helpless opponent is not altruistic, definitely desn't respect the creature's life, and there's a marked lack of concern for dignity. Murdering a defeated opponent out of combat is significantly different that killing in battle, folks. But note that close-mindedness, judgementalness and lack of adpatability also. Ditto 'honor' and 'compassion'. The paladin was definitely acting out of alignment.

Thayan, you were in the right on this one - the paladin's player was playing the paladin as lawful jerk, instead of lawful good. And that's right up there with playing LG as 'lawful stupid', IMO.

 

[J-Buzz]

I totally feel the paladins actions could be taken as un-lawful, not to mention breaks any code of conduct that you would expect from a "knight" type of character.

My feelings are that if the paladin has a problem with an evil character/monster she would have never accepted the brutes surrender. So if the Orc dropped his weapon and attempted to surrender and the paladin cut him down, not problems. However once the surrender was accepted then the code of conduct or lawful alignment would prevent the paladin from killing the orc.

Accepting surrender then killing the creature is deceitful borderline evil.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

The main problem I have with the "Paladins kill evil, that's what they do, why do you think they have detect evil as a class skill?" argument, is this: Fine, see evil orc, slay evil orc, that's one thing - what happens the first time the barkeep scans evil? Or the city guard? The commoner on the street? How about the freakin' king? Does the paladin just cut them all down in cold blood, one after the other, because they "felt evil?" And can this be considered even remotely "lawful good" behavior?

 

[painandgreed]

I quote straight from the SRD, no flavor text:

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

"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."

"Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."

And people ask why the paladin is such a pain in these threads, and why the alignment system causes such issues. Riding down a bound and helpless opponent is not altruistic, definitely desn't respect the creature's life, and there's a marked lack of concern for dignity. Murdering a defeated opponent out of combat is significantly different that killing in battle, folks. But note that close-mindedness, judgementalness and lack of adpatability also. Ditto 'honor' and 'compassion'. The paladin was definitely acting out of alignment.

See, I read all that as supporting the paladin's actions. She is being altruistic by being out in the wilderness putting her life on the line to stop evil s that others may sit at home with their families. While she repects all life, the life that needs to be saved would be the life that also respects others lives, and that would be the lives of those back home who are being robbed and killed by the bandits. If she lets the prisoner go, she puts them all in danger. She was required to act. She was commited to oppose evil. She would not see injustice happen by letting guilty party go free and unpunished.

Notice how it was the only non-good person in the party that wanted to let the evil creature go and tried to thwart justice? I smell conspiracy. ;-)

 

[Abraxas]

My feelings are that if the paladin has a problem with an evil character/monster she would have never accepted the brutes surrender. So if the Orc dropped his weapon and attempted to surrender and the paladin cut him down, not problems. However once the surrender was accepted then the code of conduct or lawful alignment would prevent the paladin from killing the orc.

The orc didn't surrender - it was rendered unconcious (it seems for the purpose of forcing it to divulge useful information). When it woke up it apparently started spilling the beans in order to save its life without any garantee that its life would be spared.

Yup, sure was honorable and brave of the LG Paladin to ride down a bound and helpless prisoner.

Those are the easiest ones to ride down - they're not moving. This orc wasn't bound and helpless. You're not suggesting that just because the orc turned and ran away the paladin had to let him go, are you? The act of killing the orc was not dishonorable. The paladin had decided how justice was to be served (and given that it is a tyrran paladin the choice isn't surprising) and carried it out. How the orc chose to meet his end was dishonorable, but not the act of delivering it to him on the end of the sword while he was trying to escape.

 

[Jim Hague]

See, I read all that as supporting the paladin's actions. She is being altruistic by being out in the wilderness putting her life on the line to stop evil s that others may sit at home with their families. While she repects all life, the life that needs to be saved would be the life that also respects others lives, and that would be the lives of those back home who are being robbed and killed by the bandits. If she lets the prisoner go, she puts them all in danger. She was required to act. She was commited to oppose evil. She would not see injustice happen by letting guilty party go free and unpunished.

Notice how it was the only non-good person in the party that wanted to let the evil creature go and tried to thwart justice? I smell conspiracy. ;-)

Afraid I have to disagree - this is the paladin doing an 'Unknown Soldier' routine.

Explaining here - in the comic miniseries Unknown Soldier, the Soldier is driven to Dachau after its liberation. Upon seeing the pure human evil there, he develops the philosophy that whatever he does is right, no matter what it is, because his enemy is worse. During the course of the story, the soldier causes a nation to fall to a hostile power for a short-term benefit to his country, murders a hospital full of people who are sympathetic to his opposition, and kills a man who he intends to be his heir because that man discovers a dirty secret. All of this is justified because the ultimate evil the Soldier has observed he feels allows him to commit any moral atrocity, because the other side is worse. And in adopting that attitude - that because you're 'fighting evil', any act is justifiable - the Soldier becomes a monster himself.

Saying that murder (which is what this is - the taking of a helpless life) is justifiable because your enemies are worse and do worse (are evil) is the same thing. It's moral relativism (I'm right because they're not, and whatever I do is right because whatever the enemy does is evil) of the worst sort, especially in a non morally-relative universe, which an alignment-based D&D world is. It's evil masquerading as good. While some have stated earlier in the thread that they find the hard road of LG 'stupid', and provided an example from the Book of Exalted Deeds as proof...it's meant to be hard, as would playing Chaotic Evil; they're extreme alignments, and restrictive.

 

[Jim Hague]

Those are the easiest ones to ride down - they're not moving.

Y'know, that wasn't funny in Apocalypse Now, and it's really not funny here.

This orc wasn't bound and helpless. You're not suggesting that just because the orc turned and ran away the paladin had to let him go, are you? The act of killing the orc was not dishonorable. The paladin had decided how justice was to be served (and given that it is a tyrran paladin the choice isn't surprising) and carried it out. How the orc chose to meet his end was dishonorable, but not the act of delivering it to him on the end of the sword while he was trying to escape.

Yup, because killing an unarmed opponent out of combat who presents no threat to you isn't honorable; it's cowardice of the highest order. The paladin had every advantage and the orc had none. Worse, the orc presented no threat to an armed and trained party of adventurers. If the paladin was honorable, they'd have armed the orc and given it a chance to comport itself in battle. It'd have still likely been one-sided, but it's not stabbing an opponent who can't defend themselves in the back while riding them down.

 

[delericho]

Saying that murder (which is what this is - the taking of a helpless life) is justifiable because your enemies are worse and do worse (are evil) is the same thing.

I disagree with your definition of murder. By that definition, the execution of an unrepentant mass-murderer is itself murder, despite the fact that his crimes have earned that sentence several times over, despite the fact that he hasn't shown the slightest remorse, and despite the fact that he would commit the same crimes again given the opportunity.

If the orcs crimes are such that the appropriate and just response is death, then the mere fact that the orc is (currently) helpless doesn't change that.

While some have stated earlier in the thread that they find the hard road of LG 'stupid', and provided an example from the Book of Exalted Deeds as proof...

I don't find the road of LG stupid in the slightest. That example from the Book of Exalted Deeds, on the other hand, very definately is.