Can Lawful good ever be ruthless?

[Endur]

Was this order ruthless and not the act of someone lawful good?

I concur with the other posters, that this order fell more on the lawful side than the good side.

That being said, my Paladin would have ordered the squire to protect the royal family, I would not have mentioned the "kill" part. While it is possible the squire would have to kill in order to accomplish his orders, that would come down to a judgment call under the circumstances, and I would avoid the "ruthless" accusation by not making the decision for the squire.

A Paladin can wage war and slay enemies. Which means a Paladin can commit some acts that others would call ruthless.

 

[Saeviomagy]

GOOD - Protect the innocent, if attacked. Make sure that it is a true attack and not a fient. If you are harmed, so be it. But only attack if attacked first.

That second sentence makes it a bit harsh, doesn't it? To retain a good alignment, someone in the party basically has to be seriously crippled or dead before you fight back (given the abstract nature of D&D hitpoints...)

Even if you just say "you can't fight back without taking damage first", that makes paladins who reach 2nd level quite a rare breed...

As to the original question? Try changing the wording of what you actually said.

"Save the lives of X. Kill anyone who wants to stop you saving the lives of X"

Or, a little more reduced

"Kill anyone who wants X to die"

You're not going to make exalted status... probably. But paladin? Piece of cake.

 

[Torm]

I concur with the majority opinion, and would add that while I have always been Lawful Good, I have also always been without Ruth. Sure, a Michelle or Roxanne, here and there, but always I have been Ruth-less.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Not wanting to be controversial but it obviously wasn't a good act. I don't think it was an evil act either mind you so we're not talking about loss of paladinhood. There would have been a better way of expressing this though: "Protect and Defend the royal family to the best of your ability - keep them alive!". The act of killing should never be taken lightly and ordering the killing of those who try to stop your squire places your squire in a very difficult position - disobeying your orders or possibly commiting murder if he follows them.

As such, standard rap over the knuckles from the superior who learns of this.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[FCWesel]

I don't think it was a bad thing at all.

To take it a step farther....

There's a scene in The Crow that always stuck with me where one of the villains says, "Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is. And felt how awful goodness is." Against the wicked, all bets are off.

 

[Elf Witch]

Thanks for all the replies. I am not playing a paladin I am playing a fighter who happens to be a secular knight. My squire is an half orc gladiator slave that my character bought and freed.

The paladin of our party is really not that concerned with this family or their safety.

I could have worded it better but the dragon was on us and I wanted there to be doubt in the squire's mind that she had my permission to use lethal force if needed.

There are no other civilians on this ship just pirates, the party and the paladin's army. And like the Titantic not enough boats. And I felt that those three people deserved a seat in a lifeboat more than anyone else. They truly had no say in the fate that was about to befall them.

 

[WmRAllen67]

I am not playing a paladin I am playing a fighter who happens to be a secular knight

Then I don't see any problem with your actions...

GOOD - Protect the innocent, if attacked. Make sure that it is a true attack and not a fient. If you are harmed, so be it. But only attack if attacked first.

IIRC, for a knight, any attack must be replied in kind... the knighting ceremony includes a "buffet", after the dubbing with the sword, wherein the king essentially hits you upside the head, saying "From this moment on, accept no other blow unanswered..."

 

[FCWesel]

...the knighting ceremony includes a "buffet"

Ahww, now I want to be a knight so I can have a buffet, too. I love buffets.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ahww, now I want to be a knight so I can have a buffet, too. I love buffets.

Especially if they slay vampires.


What?

 

[Sejs]

You did just fine alignment-wise, as far as I'm concerned. *nod*

In the end alignment doesn't dictate actions, actions dictate alignment, and in the overwhelming majority of circumstances a single action do not an alignment change make. You can do whatever you feel is appropriate for the character to do, regardless of your alignment. There's no invisible force holding you back from doing something, it's just that if you find yourself doing it consistantly, there may be moral reprocussions later on down the road.