Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 2358638" data-attributes="member: 3146">I think I'd go a bit further than you. Whether or not he acted with honor depends upon what came before--if, for instance the tiefling had said, &quot;wait, don't kill me, I know of a way to save Julia&quot; and the paladin replied &quot;fine, your life is rightly forfeit, but if you enable me to save Julia and defeat the vampire, you will keep your head. However, if Julia dies, you die,&quot; then it wouldn't seem dishonorable. But, if he had unconditionally promised the tiefling her life, then it is dishonorable regardless of what justification it might have. The only way to be sure would be to know what came before. (I would guess that there was some kind of deal like the one I suggest because I don't see much other reason to have shown the tiefling mercy up to that point).I don't know if the tiefling being beyond redemption is that relevant to the matter at hand. Redeeming true villains strikes me as either an imperfect duty on the part of a paladin (in which case, he should try to redeem some villains sometime but is not obligated to try to redeem every redeemable villain he comes across) or possibly as superogative (in which case, it would be especially virtuous to attempt, but even a person who never tried it could be virtuous). In either case, simply executing judgment rather than trying to redeem the tiefling would be acceptable for a virtuous person.It's good to remember that. Most hero's will have lots of things they failed to do. (For instance, my character today failed to save a priestess's life from a wasting curse she contracted by being party to the destruction of an evil artifact. If he had not diluted his arcane might with fighting skill and had not crafted the items he has made, he might have been able to cast wish and save her. But a limited wish wasn't good enough so she died.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elder-Basilisk, post: 2358638, member: 3146"] I think I'd go a bit further than you. Whether or not he acted with honor depends upon what came before--if, for instance the tiefling had said, "wait, don't kill me, I know of a way to save Julia" and the paladin replied "fine, your life is rightly forfeit, but if you enable me to save Julia and defeat the vampire, you will keep your head. However, if Julia dies, you die," then it wouldn't seem dishonorable. But, if he had unconditionally promised the tiefling her life, then it is dishonorable regardless of what justification it might have. The only way to be sure would be to know what came before. (I would guess that there was some kind of deal like the one I suggest because I don't see much other reason to have shown the tiefling mercy up to that point). I don't know if the tiefling being beyond redemption is that relevant to the matter at hand. Redeeming true villains strikes me as either an imperfect duty on the part of a paladin (in which case, he should try to redeem some villains sometime but is not obligated to try to redeem every redeemable villain he comes across) or possibly as superogative (in which case, it would be especially virtuous to attempt, but even a person who never tried it could be virtuous). In either case, simply executing judgment rather than trying to redeem the tiefling would be acceptable for a virtuous person. It's good to remember that. Most hero's will have lots of things they failed to do. (For instance, my character today failed to save a priestess's life from a wasting curse she contracted by being party to the destruction of an evil artifact. If he had not diluted his arcane might with fighting skill and had not crafted the items he has made, he might have been able to cast [i]wish[/i] and save her. But a [i]limited wish[/i] wasn't good enough so she died. [/QUOTE]

Verification