OotS 406

[PhoenixDarkDirk]

Lich's have their soul at least in the game that we played in with this undead slayer and the soul is trappped in the undead's body unable to continue its journey.

My problem with this is that lichhood is completely voluntary so, if there are good liches, I see no proof of lichhood being evil.

As far as I can tell, this god's antipathy towards all undead is just pointless bigotry and is thus evil.

 

[Elf Witch]

Unless Miko is specifically empowered under the law to dispense the death penalty to lawbreakers without a trial, then her killing Shojo wasn't an execution - it was a murder. And there's nothing in the PHB about paladins having that power, and there's nothing in the comic about it, either. (Indeed, we've seen evidence to the contrary - Miko wasn't allowed to kill Belkar on the spot, he was to be taken into custody and tried on charges of murder).

There's a big difference between an execution and a murder.

Miko chose to let Shojo bring Belkar to trial for the murder he commited we saw how well thay worked out. :\ I wonder if Belkar will ever face the charge of that murder. And the reason she was not allowed to kill Belkar on the spot was because Shojo who she gave tooks vows to as a Samuri was her leader an ordered her to stop.

The players handbook does not say that a paladin cannot kill evil doers. Killing an evil doer in DnD is not murder.

 

[jeffh]

Shojo needs to come to trial for his breaking of the law. Now I would think that saving the world would have some kind of mitigating circumstance when it came to a sentence.

His saving the world does not change the fact that he is guilty of breaking the law he swore to uphold.

It doesn't change that fact, but it does render it irrelevant. Not just mitigate it a little. Render it completely irrelevant. It is just not reasonable to hold it against him at all.

 

[Elf Witch]

My problem with this is that lichhood is completely voluntary so, if there are good liches, I see no proof of lichhood being evil.

As far as I can tell, this god's antipathy towards all undead is just pointless bigotry and is thus evil.

In the eyes of the god voluntarily twarting the natural progression of life death rebirth is againist divine law. A law that the paladins uphold and swear vows to.

It is not pointless bigorty in this world it is a divine fact that death is necessary to the balance of the world and that having a soul trapped forver in the body of a lich starts to unravel the balence.

 

[Elf Witch]

It doesn't change that fact, but it does render it irrelevant. Not just mitigate it a little. Render it completely irrelevant.

No it does not. Even if you break the law because you were doing something for the greater good does not change the fact that you broke the law.

Shojo made a vow when he took the title and he swore to uphold the laws of Azure City. He broke those laws. So if he lived he would need to be tried and have a chance to explain why he did what he did. I am pretty postive that saving the world would either get him aquited or a suspended sentence and a parade with ballons.

If he is a wise leader he would understand the importance of allowing himself to be tried to show that number 1 he is not above the law and 2 and by facing and answering to his crime can lay the groundwork for changing the laws he broke.

Violating laws because they are inconvient even if you are doing it for all the right reasons does change the fact that you are guilty of breaking the law.

At this point he has not saved the world and there are arguments that there could have been other steps he could have taken to save the world.

Besides think of the slippery slope this creates it says that laws are not important and should be able to be broken without consquence because you were doing it for a noble reason.

 

[jeffh]

No it does not. Even if you break the law because you were doing something for the greater good does not change the fact that you broke the law.

Shojo made a vow when he took the title and he swore to uphold the laws of Azure City. He broke those laws. So if he lived he would need to be tried and have a chance to explain why he did what he did. I am pretty postive that saving the world would either get him aquited or a suspended sentence and a parade with ballons.

If he is a wise leader he would understand the importance of allowing himself to be tried to show that number 1 he is not above the law and 2 and by facing and answering to his crime can lay the groundwork for changing the laws he broke.

Violating laws because they are inconvient even if you are doing it for all the right reasons does change the fact that you are guilty of breaking the law.

At this point he has not saved the world amd there are arguments that there could have been other steps he could have taken to save the world.

Besides think of the slippery slope this creates it says that laws are not important and should be able to be broken without consquence because you were doing for a noble reason.

What gives the law this magical normative force you're attributing to it? Law is at its best best a rough guide to right and wrong, and even then it's liberally mixed in with stuff that's got nothing to do with right and wrong but nevertheless helpful or necessary to maintaining social order. At its worst law is an arbitrary impediment to doing the right thing, or indeed to running one's life at all, made worse by the fact that some people see it the way you apparently do - as somehow an end in itself - or mistake lawfulness for good. This instance falls squarely into the latter category. In no case is law constitutive of right and wrong, not even partially. Laws are like sausages in that if you knew how they were made, you would want nothing to do with them. Law is a necessary evil. It is never an end in itself.

And even a paladin can believe this. They must believe in social order, respect authority and follow a consistent code, yes - none of which need coincide with what laws a given society happens to have written down (though admittedly the middle one can get dicey for people with such an attitude). D&D Lawful does not mean "obeys laws".

Legally your argument is correct, but near-vacuous and in any case irrelevant to the discussion. Ethically it's a non-starter.

 

[Elf Witch]

What gives the law this magical normative force you're attributing to it? Law is at its best best a rough guide to right and wrong, and even then it's liberally mixed in with stuff that's got nothing to do with right and wrong but nevertheless helpful or necessary to maintaining social order. At its worst law is an arbitrary impediment to doing the right thing, or indeed to running one's life at all, made worse by the fact that some people see it the way you apparently do - as somehow an end in itself - or mistake lawfulness for good. This instance falls squarely into the latter category. In no case is law constitutive of right and wrong, not even partially. Laws are like sausages in that if you knew how they were made, you would want nothing to do with them. Law is a necessary evil. It is never an end in itself.

And even a paladin can believe this. They must believe in social order, respect authority and follow a consistent code, yes - none of which need coincide with what laws a given society happens to have written down (though admittedly the middle one can get dicey for people with such an attitude). D&D Lawful does not mean "obeys laws".

Legally your argument is correct, but near-vacuous and in any case irrelevant to the discussion. Ethically it's a non-starter.

Well thank you for calling my arguement stupid and irrelevent to the discussion.

And since we are talking about DnD if law is a necessary evil then why do paladins have to be lawful good? Instead of say neutral good. That would sure make their lives a lot easier.

You think that because I think Shojo should be brought to trial the way Hinjo wants that I mistaking lawfulness for goodness. Well you are wrong I just happen to feel that a person like Shojo who helpes write the laws and adminsters the law is not above the law.

Who decides when someone like Shojo breaks the law that it is okay and he should not be brought in front of a legal body to answer why he did what he did? Who Shojo himself, popular opinion.



According to Hinjo Shojo broke laws and knew he was breaking laws because of how well he covered it up. When something like this happenes don't you think that the smart thing to do is for Shojo to explain to who ever is the judge in Azure City just why he felt that he needed to do what he did.

What someone breaks a law for the greater good and everyone should just take their word for it?

I don't think he should be punished in any way for what he is done but I think the best thing for him, the paladins and the people is for him to have his day in court so his actions can be explained.

A society has to trust that their laws are impartial and that they apply to everyone fairly. By not bringing him to trial the message is the law does not apply to those in power.

tell me something do you think Belkar should be brought up on charges of murder for killing the guard? And if goes out and saves the world does that mean he should not be tried for murder?

 

[PallidPatience]

Hinjo needs no defense. He was calling for the right thing. He was pairing Law and Good. "He needs to be taken care of... but not right now, and in the correct way."

Miko was performing the actions that were overly "LAW"ful. I personally think that she was behaving far more chaotically than lawfully, but meh.

 

[Falkus]

What someone breaks a law for the greater good and everyone should just take their word for it?

That's often the case in DnD and a lot of fantasy I've read.

 

[Storm Raven]

You do realize that paladins are based on a combo of knights from history and from literature?

Well, no. Paladins are based pretty much entirely on literary antecedents. Primarily they are based upon a single character in Three Hearts and Three Lions, but they also have a limited amount of influence from the Arthur cycle, the tales of Charlemange's paladins and a few other sources. No figure in actual human history could successfully abide by the paladin code as presented in any iteration of the D&D RAW.

I don't agree with everything that PHB says about paladins because I think it is poorly written and that is why we have so many multi page paladin threads.

I agree to some extent. But there is an ancillary point too - the PHB description of the alignment lawful good excludes most historical characters. It certainly excludes the 14th/15th century nobles who were empowered to render on-the-spot justice and engaged in summary executions. So the historical precedent of such individuals existing in our history is not really relevant to this discussion.

You are saying that because I don't agree totally with the PHB that their is noway for us to evaulate paladins because there is no common ground. Why is it eating babies always comes up in these paladin threads? Sheesh just because you are not a slave to the PHB paladin code it means that you think paladins should be going around eating babies.

I didn't say eating babies. I said roasting babies. The Russians accused the Teutonic knights who invaded their country in the 13th century of exactly that crime. The Teutonic knights are one of the crusader orders that is often cited as a real world prototype for paladins. I submit that (even if these charges were not true, and they probably were not) the documented evidence concerning the various crusader orders shows that the individuals who made up these orders could never qualify as paladins or even as LG using the PHB definitions.

Evaulating Miko using the pladin code in the PHB she did not break it until she killed Shojo. The only non paladin act she has commited was killing someone who was not gulity of the crimes she accused him off. If he had been guilty and she killed him she would not have lost her paladin ability. Not for one chaotic act. As another poster said and quite rightly that doing one chaotic act does not cost you your paladinhood but doing an evil act does.

No, if she had killed him, even if he had been guilty, that would have still been an evil act. His guilt or innocence is entirely separate from whether he was evil, and even if evil, striking down an unamred defenseless man when viable alternatives are not only present, but are better alternatives, remains an evil act.

Killing an evil person in DnD is not an evil act and so does not lead to lose of paladinhood.

This is just wrong. Killing an evil person in D&D may or may not be an evil act, depending upon the circumstances.