Lawful Stupid Rears its Ugly Head... Again

[Lalato]

Then I guess that's what you should be doing, instead of asking about it in some online forum where people haven't a clue about the details of that specific campaign and the player and DM involved.

I've discovered long ago that simply asking "why" to the person you're curious about makes a lot things become very, very clear.

Arnwyn... I appreciate your frankness in this matter, but I do see a bit of rudeness underneath it that seems to me a bit out of place considering what you know about me and my gaming group.

I should note, however, that we all had a lengthy discussion about this at the gaming table. A compromise of sorts was reached after that lengthy discussion. We're all adults after all and we can do things like compromise and talk things out between each other. I'm only presenting this to the forum so that I can hear what other people's opinions are. I think it's an interesting topic to discuss and that's why I brought it up. I'm not looking for the forum to do the talking for me... I've already done that on my own.

I know that my thread title and my subsequent description shows my bias in the matter, but I never stated that I was hoping the forum would back me up. I hope I didn't come off that way.

--sam

 

[Janx]

So maybe we need to know what aspect of the situation bothered Lalato's paladin.

The following things happened:
1. rogue looted the body of bad guy
2. rogue kept something and didn't share it
3. paladin saw the rogue do this
4. the rogue didn't tell anybody about it (assumed)

We don't know:
a. what was the something that was taken, mundane or important
b. what bothered the paladin: looting, not sharing in general, not sharing the something, keeping a secret

I suspect that #2 bothered him, particularly if #4 happened.

Most people probably assume even split of treasure. if the Rogue is pocketing items before they hit the party inventory, then the paladin may feel that is stealing.

The paladin can confront him publicly or privately
The paladin can shrug it off as not of great importance, but keep an eye on the rogue. Basically, the rogue has raised the suspicion of the paladin and he may not trust him in a future situation. The paladin may continue working with the rogue, but the rogue is a "lesser" person and should not be put in a position of greater trust (from the paladin's view).

Janx

 

[Arnwyn]

I should note, however, that we all had a lengthy discussion about this at the gaming table. A compromise of sorts was reached after that lengthy discussion. We're all adults after all and we can do things like compromise and talk things out between each other.

Ah. That's cool.

I'm only presenting this to the forum so that I can hear what other people's opinions are. I think it's an interesting topic to discuss and that's why I brought it up. I'm not looking for the forum to do the talking for me... I've already done that on my own.

Sorry about that. But you're original post/question is definitely not clear on that, IMO... especially considering the number of "my player/DM did this!" threads that have passed by here in recent times and the proliferation of very unclear and vague starting posts. So what are you looking for?

I know that my thread title and my subsequent description shows my bias in the matter, but I never stated that I was hoping the forum would back me up. I hope I didn't come off that way.

You did.

If you are looking for how others do things, then I can answer that: It depends on the deity, region, and/or how a particular player feels his/her paladin should act. I haven't seen it yet IMC, but I'd have no problem whatsoever about paladins refusing to loot (and refusing to allow his/her companions to loot) someone's corpse (or stealing from unconscious people).

There certainly might be conflict if there are party members who are of opposite minds on this matter, but the player with the newer character should have thought about that before bringing his/her character in to such a party...

 

[Lalato]

So maybe we need to know what aspect of the situation bothered Lalato's paladin.

The following things happened:
1. rogue looted the body of bad guy
2. rogue kept something and didn't share it
3. paladin saw the rogue do this
4. the rogue didn't tell anybody about it (assumed)

I believe my character was the only one unconscious during the episode. One other party member was present. There were two characters that didn't see it... mine and another that was trying to escape from a burning building.

We don't know:
a. what was the something that was taken, mundane or important
b. what bothered the paladin: looting, not sharing in general, not sharing the something, keeping a secret

a. It was purse. It contained some money and a gem.

b. This one is a little harder to answer. I'll give a bit more background here to help this along. The Paladin himself did not complain about the looting at first. The DM pointed out that this was shady behavior and asked the Paladin what he planned to do about it. This exchange is what caused the "crisis" for the Paladin. I don't think the DM was trying to foment intraparty conflict here. I think, perhaps, he was hoping for the player to come up with an in-character way to handle the situation... but his wording was probably not the best, and I think it caused the player to question his decision for playing a Paladin in the first place. It came down to a discussion of the Paladin's code... that a Paladin couldn't knowingly associate with morally ambiguous people like the Rogue. So... that's a long way of saying that it was the looting of the body that caused the "crisis of faith" for the Paladin, but I don't think the Paladin was upset about the looting so much as he was upset about what that said about the Rogue's moral character.

The paladin can confront him publicly or privately
The paladin can shrug it off as not of great importance, but keep an eye on the rogue. Basically, the rogue has raised the suspicion of the paladin and he may not trust him in a future situation. The paladin may continue working with the rogue, but the rogue is a "lesser" person and should not be put in a position of greater trust (from the paladin's view).

Janx

It snowballed from there into a discussion on how the Paladin should handle the situation regarding morally ambiguous people he associates with. We came to the compromise that the Paladin might see such behavior, and if he chose to question it... he would confront the offending party privately to let him know that it was unacceptable, and that he would be watching out for any future infractions.

At any rate... that's when the last session ended so we'll see how it ends up affecting the game in the future. I hope that now that this episode is behind us... we can move forward and have a great campaign.

--sam

 

[Andor]

The DM pointed out that this was shady behavior and asked the Paladin what he planned to do about it. This exchange is what caused the "crisis" for the Paladin. I don't think the DM was trying to foment intraparty conflict here. I think, perhaps, he was hoping for the player to come up with an in-character way to handle the situation... but his wording was probably not the best, and I think it caused the player to question his decision for playing a Paladin in the first place. It came down to a discussion of the Paladin's code... that a Paladin couldn't knowingly associate with morally ambiguous people like the Rogue. So... that's a long way of saying that it was the looting of the body that caused the "crisis of faith" for the Paladin, but I don't think the Paladin was upset about the looting so much as he was upset about what that said about the Rogue's moral character.--sam

It definitely does sound to me like the DM is trying to stir up trouble. Does he have a problem with Paladin PCs?

Also a Paladin cannot associate with Evil people. He certainly can associate with the morally ambiguous. He may well have an obligation to help smooth out their ambiguities, but it would be a matter or discussion and example. If they couldn't, especially in Eberron, no Paladin would be out adventuring they'd all be curled up in a fetal ball in their cell rocking back and forth and muttering 'I am a good Paladin. I am a good Paladin.'

-Andor

 

[Jdvn1]

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

Wow, lawful good is the best alignment?

That's the RAW!

 

[Lalato]

Here are the relevant bits from the SRD regarding the Paladin's Code and Associations...

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

The important thing here is that the Paladin will not continue to associate "with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

My take on it is that the rogue perhaps acted without honor when swiping the purse... that would be an affront to the Paladin's code. However, it was the first time that the rogue did anything like that in front of the Paladin. The Paladin had no reason to suspect something ill of the Rogue... and even if he did suspect something bad, since there was no precedent there really wasn't any need for the Paladin to confront.

--sam

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Wow, lawful good is the best alignment?

Heh. Another inconsistency in the rules... ALL of the Good alignments say that, and if I remember right, so do all of the Neutrals. The Evils fight over some other distinction.

 

[shurai]

It occurs to me that a nice litmus test for paladins & looting might be the question of inheritance. Almost all legal systems have provisions for the children inheriting the wealth and possessions of the parents after they die. If that is the case, then obviously the paladin shouldn't loot the bodies of anyone whom he suspects has a family that may need taking care of. Of course, if the paladin knows that the corpse is an evil monster or necromancer or the like, and is unlikely to have legitimate, law-abiding family members, then I'd say the paladin's code shouldn't prohibit looting.

Also, I agree with the idea that it's all dependent on culture. If the paladin is from a strongly conquest-oriented warrior tradition, like the Vikings, it may very well be that he has rightful claim to whatever his fallen enemy owns, including any wives or children for concubines or slaves. Even the Greeks behaved this way. On the other hand, in such cultures it was also considered to be respectful to give even one's enemy a proper burial with weapons and armor included . . . since no real-world cultures had swords that cost more than seven hundred cows, I'd say D&D cultures would probably keep the holy magic sword Lord Tenner always carried for the defense of the realm and bury his Lordship with a masterwork longsword with religious markings instead. : ]

I'd say the final word is with respect to a different kind of lawfulness: adherence to the intent of the D&D rules. Every class is supposed to kill bad guys and take their stuff, and paladins are no different. It's like playing a monk who shuns money and magical items that would enhance his power. Yeah, it makes sense for an ascetic to take a vow of poverty, but that's not how D&D works.

 

[swrushing]

Is it MANDATED by the RAW that all paladins object to looting ofbides for their loot? Nope.

Are characters limited to only doing what the RAW mandates? nope.

So is it perfectly fine for a paladin to object to looting of bodies? yup. Just as it would be Ok for a cleric to do so, or a fighter to do so, or even a dwarf to do so, for whatever reason they have for objecting.

heck they might be fine objecting to the act based on what will be done with the loot afterward, with "one person looting it and keeping for themselves" being objectionable, but "donating it to the locals church" being fine or "return it to the merchants who have been robbed by these brigands" being OK and maybe being fine with "taking t and splitting it up among us."

they might even be fine objecting to lotting one kind of body (a dead elf, an innocent victim, someone whose kin are known and nearby, a child) but being fine allowing the looting of another (evil bad guy, monster, loyalist to the emporer.)

It all depends on the player's view of his character, the personality he has written for his character, the tenets of his faith as described by him and the Gm and the other laws and ethics set in the campaign...