OotS 406

[Grog]

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.

Please point out where, in the D&D rulebooks, it says that "killing an evil doer is not murder."

Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. In D&D, in many places, this would be extended to cover demi-humans and other civilized races as well. And unless paladins are specifically empowered under the law to deliver the death penalty to "evil doers" on the spot (which they are not, as per the PHB), if one of them were to cut someone down in the street, they would be guilty of murder. Period. As Miko was guilty of murder when she unlawfully killed Shojo.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If what she did was Evil, does it matter what she thought?

And by "intent", I'm refering to the "intent to execute Shojo", the immediate goal of her act of using her sword.


It seems that not only are you arguing that from her point of view she is dispensing justice, but that you are also arguing that because she believes what she is doing is just and Good, then her act of execution ceases to be Evil.

It's a question about the subjectivity of morality: does what Miko believes her act to be have any influence on the morality of the act, or not?

My answer is, "No". Evil act: bang, loss of powers.

What's your answer?

The thing that gets me about arguments like that is the obvious reducio ad absurdum. If Miko had been even crazier than she was, and her delusions led her to the conclusion that every man, woman, and child in Azure City had been replaced by demons, and she proceeded to butcher every person she laid eyes on, by the arguments given by the "she thought she was doing Good" crowd, she'd keep her paladinhood.

Paranoid delusions under no circumstances justify committing evil acts. Period. This is not a case of the DM railroading the paladin by giving him bad information on which he makes a reasonable decision. This is a case of the paladin making crap up to justify evil actions. And making crap up does not count as determining the grounds for a reasonable decision.

 

[Elf Witch]

Please point out where, in the D&D rulebooks, it says that "killing an evil doer is not murder."

Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. In D&D, in many places, this would be extended to cover demi-humans and other civilized races as well. And unless paladins are specifically empowered under the law to deliver the death penalty to "evil doers" on the spot (which they are not, as per the PHB), if one of them were to cut someone down in the street, they would be guilty of murder. Period. As Miko was guilty of murder when she unlawfully killed Shojo.

Please point out to me in the players handbook where it says that a paladin cannot be empowered by the law to deliver the death penalty on the spot? I have never seen that written.

Page 44 code of contact has nothing in it about killing evildoers being murder. It does say that paladins help those in need and punish those who harm or threathen innocents. It does not say anywhere just what that punishment has to be.

I would also like to point out on the same page that paladins get detect evil at will and the ability to smite evil.

Under the ability smite evil it says that if they use this ability on a non evil person the smite as no effect and the ability is used up. It does not say anything about it being an evil act.

It is up to the DM to decide what the laws are in his societies in his game. It is also up to the DM to decide if killing an evil person on the street is an evil act in his game.

There are no rules that say a DM cannot have a society where paladins are the ultimate judge of wrongdoers and have the ability to deliver judgement on the spot.

Just because you feel that killing an evildoer without first giving them a trial by jury and then allowing them to be executed does not mean that is how it is wriiten in the rules and to do allow the opposite to be some kind of house rule.

 

[Voadam]

The thing that gets me about arguments like that is the obvious reducio ad absurdum. If Miko had been even crazier than she was, and her delusions led her to the conclusion that every man, woman, and child in Azure City had been replaced by demons, and she proceeded to butcher every person she laid eyes on, by the arguments given by the "she thought she was doing Good" crowd, she'd keep her paladinhood.

Paranoid delusions under no circumstances justify committing evil acts. Period. This is not a case of the DM railroading the paladin by giving him bad information on which he makes a reasonable decision. This is a case of the paladin making crap up to justify evil actions. And making crap up does not count as determining the grounds for a reasonable decision.

I would not find a delusional person who thinks they are doing good to be doing evil actions.

This is different from someone who makes stuff up to justify evil actions.

Evil is not just a bad result.

Honestly (but unreasonably) thinking you are doing good is different from justifying a known evil.

Mistakes are not evil.

Stupidity is not evil.

Unreasonableness is not evil.

Being wrong is not evil.

Evil is more serious. Evil is a conscious decision to do wrong. Intention matters.

A panther that stalks and kills a person is not evil.

A person that stalks and kills another person could be doing evil, but the intention and knowledge of the person matters.

I think fall is bad term. Paladins should not accidentally fall becase they blindly step in the wrong direction.

 

[Elf Witch]

The thing that gets me about arguments like that is the obvious reducio ad absurdum. If Miko had been even crazier than she was, and her delusions led her to the conclusion that every man, woman, and child in Azure City had been replaced by demons, and she proceeded to butcher every person she laid eyes on, by the arguments given by the "she thought she was doing Good" crowd, she'd keep her paladinhood.

Paranoid delusions under no circumstances justify committing evil acts. Period. This is not a case of the DM railroading the paladin by giving him bad information on which he makes a reasonable decision. This is a case of the paladin making crap up to justify evil actions. And making crap up does not count as determining the grounds for a reasonable decision.

You do realize that not all of us who believe that Miko thought she was doing a good act is saying that she was shouldn't have lost her paladin powers or that what she did was not an evil act?

And while paranoid delusions does not justify commiting evil acts is does justify that she keeps her good alignment. If Miko killed people because she was seeing demons she would still lose her paladinhood but she would not suddenly became evil and on par with the worshipper of an evil god who killls babies on his alter every full moon.

And we have disagee that this is a case of a paladin making up crap to justify evil actions. There are some valid reasons why Miko had reason to believe that there was something hinky going on. Thinking that with the evidence as she precived it there was a good possibailty that the OOTS and Shojo were up to evil was not that far fetched. She just didn't out of the blue come up with the fact that Shojo had violated his vows even Hinjo thought he had and that he should be arrested and tried.

Miko did not commit an evil act by judging the evidence wrong she committed an evil act by slaying an innocent man. What she should have done was use the law to investigate she has been giving special powers to aid in that. Her rashness and anger lead her to comitting an evil act thus costing her paldinhood.

 

[Elf Witch]

Nitpick: those are motives, not intents.


[Emphasis] added.

You think she's evil now? The grammar of this sentence works if you add the "not", but is otherwise confusing. What do you mean?


You're not arguing the morality of her act, since you call it evil.
You're not arguing that she fell, or that she should fall, since you agree with it.
You are upset that some folks suggest that Belkar now kill her, something which nobody who is "discussing" with you at the moment has brought up.

What are you trying to get at? What is the point of contention?

Sorry I forgot to add not.

By point of contention is that one evil act does not make a person evil and that intent matters when it comes to matter of DnD alignment.

A town merchant lives in an evil society ruled over by clerics of an evil god he by law has to practice worship of this evil god. So he tithes to the church, goes to temple and helplessly watches the monthly blood letting. But he does not particpate in the actual killing he lives his life with as much honor that he can. He does not cheat his customers or lie to his wife. He gives aid to others when he can. Therefore even though he gives worship to and evil god this does not make him evil.



As for Belkar killing her I have been reading a lot of other threads both here and in the forums on Giant in the playground after awhile they tend to blur amd merge and I forget just which thread had what in it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Please point out to me in the players handbook where it says that a paladin cannot be empowered by the law to deliver the death penalty on the spot? I have never seen that written.

Reading the PHB definitions, as written, they don't. However, that is not what Miko did. She acted without knowledge of the truth, in point of fact, in total disregard for the truth. She didn't deliver a death penalty on the spot, she made up a scenario, assumed it to be true without any actual evidence that it was so, and then committed murder. Further, we have the evidence from the actions of Hinjo and previous doings of Miko that Sapphire Guard paladins are not empowered to deal the death penalty on the spot.

Page 44 code of contact has nothing in it about killing evildoers being murder. It does say that paladins help those in need and punish those who harm or threathen innocents. It does not say anywhere just what that punishment has to be.

Compassion. Respect for life. Required by the "good" alignment.

There are no rules that say a DM cannot have a society where paladins are the ultimate judge of wrongdoers and have the ability to deliver judgement on the spot.

No there aren't. We aren't talking about home game rulings though. We are talking about the PHB, and Miko's conduct falls well outside the definitions for paladins and lawful good characters as defined by that source.

 

[Storm Raven]

And we have disagee that this is a case of a paladin making up crap to justify evil actions. There are some valid reasons why Miko had reason to believe that there was something hinky going on. Thinking that with the evidence as she precived it there was a good possibailty that the OOTS and Shojo were up to evil was not that far fetched.

Thinking they were evil was deranged and delusional, especially since she has the ability to detect evil at will, but not only did not do that, she did not care what that would have revealed. Thinking they were in league with Xykon was insane in the extreme.

She just didn't out of the blue come up with the fact that Shojo had violated his vows even Hinjo thought he had and that he should be arrested and tried.

Shojo, not being a paladin, did not take the vow.

 

[Storm Raven]

So she loses her powers for her actions but because she became evil. And because in her mind she thought she was oing her duty I would find it horrible for her to be killed by say Belkar as some have suggested as a fitting punishment for her actions.

I would find it entirely apropos and a form of poetic justice. Miko brought down by Belkar, having become a criminal, justifiably killed by her nemesis just after she has run amok and killed the ruler of Azure City. Killed, effectively, by her own pride and paranoid delusions.

 

[Grog]

Please point out to me in the players handbook where it says that a paladin cannot be empowered by the law to deliver the death penalty on the spot? I have never seen that written.

It doesn't say that paladins can't be empowered by the law to paint people blue whenever they feel like it, either.

You're the one claiming that it's just fine for paladins to kill whoever they want so long as they think they've done something wrong, so I'm asking for a cite to support that.

It is up to the DM to decide what the laws are in his societies in his game. It is also up to the DM to decide if killing an evil person on the street is an evil act in his game.

There are no rules that say a DM cannot have a society where paladins are the ultimate judge of wrongdoers and have the ability to deliver judgement on the spot.

True. There's also no rule that says a DM cannot have a society where paladins roast babies every week in a holy ritual, to use an example from earlier in this thread. However, that kind of world is a far cry from the PHB model of paladins and thus isn't useful for discussion purposes. And so is a world where paladins are allowed to butcher people in the street whenever they feel it's warranted.

But since we're specifically talking about OotS here, we can use that world as a model for our discussion. So if you think paladins in the OotS world are allowed to kill whoever they like, please show me the strip that tells us that. Otherwise, we can conclude that Miko's killing of Shojo was unlawful, and thus, a murder.