Paladin Question

[hong]

But the BETTER solution is to not have bad guys surrender, thus ensuring that this problem never crops up in the first place.

. . .


Hong "I said it, so it must be true" Ooi

 

[Seeten]

Thats true, Rystil, they are all better off as Neutral, they can probably fight back then with the intention of killing us that way.

 

[Seeten]

You were right in the first place. No need to worry about these ridiculous arguments, if the mobs just die.

Also, a quick note, there are no Geneva Conventions for the LG characters to follow. No D&D world I know of HAS a Geneva.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I *still* say that ambushing a group of 'usually lawful evil' things like hobgoblins that are fighting a monster without actually checking to see if they are evil (and most of them aren't), killing a few before the hobgoblins leave without fighting back and being forced to pay weregild, and then later sneaking up on them while they sleep and slaughtering them all, including slitting the throats of the unconscious but stabilised defeated enemies is not Good.

I guess that makes me the middle ground of this discussion? Even from the middle ground though, I still think the extreme "All Good is Exalted and must have stupid mercy" view is crazy.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Yup, this is true. However, there are circumstances where even this can be taken too far. If a Paladin is walking along the street and sees a common street thug that the Paladin could easily defeat raping a woman at knifepoint and preparing to murder her afterwards or something like that, it would be pretty callous if the Paladin just started whistling to himself to drown out her screams and kept walking past

So apparently good and evil aren't any less (or more) complicated in D&D than in real life. This touches on a distinction that Kant made between perfect and imperfect duties (a perfect duty is a duty that Kant would maintain applied to everyone all the time in every situation (one example of such a duty would be telling the truth according to Kant); an imperfect duty is a duty that everyone has but does not necessarily apply in every time and place--an example of an imperfect duty would be charity. While many people believe that everyone has an obligation to give to the less fortunate, people are not obligated to give any particular thing or amount to any particular person at any particular time). In D&D, I think it's pretty clear that rescuing the woman is a perfect duty and giving the 4sp to charity is an imperfect duty. (Thus every paladin is not, like Miko in Order of the Stick going to insist that her party sleep on rocks in a muddy ditch and eat lichen rather than going to an inn).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think part of the point of letting evil people surrender is to give them a chance to redress their crimes and another part would be to promise never do evil again. I doubt a stock paladin would allow surrender to become a mere ceasefire, and anyway the pressure would be squarely on the surrendering evil-doer to convince them they were sincere. Without sincere redress and recant the paladin could present a strong argument that no offer of surrender occurred, and thus regretfully deliver swift and final justice.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So apparently good and evil aren't any less (or more) complicated in D&D than in real life. This touches on a distinction that Kant made between perfect and imperfect duties (a perfect duty is a duty that Kant would maintain applied to everyone all the time in every situation (one example of such a duty would be telling the truth according to Kant); an imperfect duty is a duty that everyone has but does not necessarily apply in every time and place--an example of an imperfect duty would be charity. While many people believe that everyone has an obligation to give to the less fortunate, people are not obligated to give any particular thing or amount to any particular person at any particular time). In D&D, I think it's pretty clear that rescuing the woman is a perfect duty and giving the 4sp to charity is an imperfect duty. (Thus every paladin is not, like Miko in Order of the Stick going to insist that her party sleep on rocks in a muddy ditch and eat lichen rather than going to an inn).

I agree with you completely

 

[Dracandross]

A suggestion. If you have access to it, the Book of Exalted Deeds, in Chapter 1: The Nature of Good, discusses how creatures of good alignment act and behave within the game. This material applies to all characters of good alignment, not just exalted ones.

Well that points that all good characters must obey BoED or they are not good and therefore must be at least neutral or maybe evil in alignment (if you constantly willingly violate your alignment it should change, as one is not born evil or good but defined by actions). Only pallys have class-restriction compared to that.

And that leads to similar view of BoVD if evil chacter does some good constantly he's not evil but neutral. (Well evil can claim that hes doing good because he's so fiendish. But one cant be fiendish if he doesnt live up to it)

And howabout why theres not Book of Lawful (/Chaotic) Deeds to show that none lives up to his alignment and EVERYONE is true neutral!

Alignments are just classifying law-chaos and good-evil axel in 3 states. If you take good that literally there cant be any good in the world (maybe disregarding angels) and that means whole alignment system is pointless. Its just short way to describe general way.

-Dracandross

 

[Twowolves]

LOL! Good luck. He'll be busy fighting his wife and children, the ghoul and zombies.

Cuz, you know, paladins can't turn undead or anything......

Sheesh.