LuYangShih
First Post
Misplaced mercy and compassion create a false justice that accomplishes nothing, though. Mercy is a noble trait, but applying it to those who do not deserve it will have grave consequences.
Last edited:
Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)
- Thread starter Trainz
- Start date
jeffsforehead
First Post
I think LuYangShih sounds a bit like someone in the Bush Administration.
"But we haaaaaave to invade them before they get us. They're EVILDOERS."
Only dweebier.
"But we haaaaaave to invade them before they get us. They're EVILDOERS."
Only dweebier.
Last edited:
LuYangShih
First Post
Although politics is a restricted subject on this board, which is why I will limit my response, that is a good example. Look at all of the atrocities and oppression suffered by the people of both Afghanistan and Iraq before the United States removed the governments responsible. If anything, we should have acted sooner.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Please cease with the political references: it make's Eric's Grandma uncomfortable. And after she offered you those nice tea cakes, too.
For the record: I don't see an alignment violation with either action, depending on the motivation and the explanation. As I mentioned before: a paladin serving Heironeous would have no problem smashing evil...it's what he does. But the guiding principle of Pelor's faith is to 'do so much good in the world that evil cannot thrive'. Preemptive slaughtering of kobolds is simply not on their agenda, and goes counter to their diety's wishes. Therefore, it varies.
LYS, I didn't think you were advocating a brutal thought-police of paladins, btw, that was someone else. I understand your perspective on the Detect Evil issue, and your further statements have clarified why I think we'll need to agree to disagree. As far as I can tell, you see evil in the D&D alignment system as an absolute...if someone is evil in one way, they are evil in all ways. The difference between a pick pocket, a corrupt tax collector, a blackmailer and a mass murderer are merely levels of realized attitude.
I don't view the system that way, and that's why I find the "with XX tendencies" concept to be fundementally wrong. Someone who's "neutral with evil tendencies" is, to me, NE. If you reject the PHB and SRD descriptions in favor of a more 1e/2e version of alignment (which I think is part of the reason for our disconnect), than that makes sense. But the 'tendencies' qualifier, to me, invalidates the system. You might as well abandon the alignment concept entirely, and just use two qualifiers: Lawfulness and Good, similar to what NWN uses, and then just measure on a scale.
For the record: I don't see an alignment violation with either action, depending on the motivation and the explanation. As I mentioned before: a paladin serving Heironeous would have no problem smashing evil...it's what he does. But the guiding principle of Pelor's faith is to 'do so much good in the world that evil cannot thrive'. Preemptive slaughtering of kobolds is simply not on their agenda, and goes counter to their diety's wishes. Therefore, it varies.
LYS, I didn't think you were advocating a brutal thought-police of paladins, btw, that was someone else. I understand your perspective on the Detect Evil issue, and your further statements have clarified why I think we'll need to agree to disagree. As far as I can tell, you see evil in the D&D alignment system as an absolute...if someone is evil in one way, they are evil in all ways. The difference between a pick pocket, a corrupt tax collector, a blackmailer and a mass murderer are merely levels of realized attitude.
I don't view the system that way, and that's why I find the "with XX tendencies" concept to be fundementally wrong. Someone who's "neutral with evil tendencies" is, to me, NE. If you reject the PHB and SRD descriptions in favor of a more 1e/2e version of alignment (which I think is part of the reason for our disconnect), than that makes sense. But the 'tendencies' qualifier, to me, invalidates the system. You might as well abandon the alignment concept entirely, and just use two qualifiers: Lawfulness and Good, similar to what NWN uses, and then just measure on a scale.
LuYangShih
First Post
I am using 3E standards of alignment. In fact, since I never played 2E or 1E, it would be difficult for me to do otherwise. I am not aware that tendencies were even present in the previous systems. I do know that they occassionally appear in 3E, however. And you are incorrect in your perception of how I view Evil characters. I already mentioned that Evil characters could perform Good actions and still be Evil, and vice versa. This is a very fine line, however, for obvious reasons.
I would also take issue with calling what the Paladin plans to do as "slaughter". He is executing his divine mandate to bring justice to Evil creatures. A Paladin should show compassion only when it is warranted. In fact, I think most people have missed the fact that the Paladin in the current situation is showing compassion where he should.
Yes, he is removing a vile and evil threat to the citizens of Oakhurst, through force, but he is also removing a strangely untainted soul, (Meepo) from a life of depravity and wickedness, adopting him as a squire. This is very noble, and compassionate. I think the Paladin Trainz describes is truly walking a balanced path, in that he does not shy from handing out the justice that is his duty, and also that he shows mercy to those deserving of it.
I would also take issue with calling what the Paladin plans to do as "slaughter". He is executing his divine mandate to bring justice to Evil creatures. A Paladin should show compassion only when it is warranted. In fact, I think most people have missed the fact that the Paladin in the current situation is showing compassion where he should.
Yes, he is removing a vile and evil threat to the citizens of Oakhurst, through force, but he is also removing a strangely untainted soul, (Meepo) from a life of depravity and wickedness, adopting him as a squire. This is very noble, and compassionate. I think the Paladin Trainz describes is truly walking a balanced path, in that he does not shy from handing out the justice that is his duty, and also that he shows mercy to those deserving of it.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Actually, I think it's a poor example--not because the idea of pre-emption was not a reason for the decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan but because the reasons (and stated justifications--Howard Dean is a very very poor source for the administration's explanations of why they supported the war; if you actually take the time to read the speeches themselves, you'll find a complex and multifaceted explanation of the war's necessity) were much more complex than Arravis implies.
Implied future threat was one portion of the puzzle. ("If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations will come too late.") Other parts included breaking the terms of a truce, opposition to other goals thought to be worthy (the Israeli/Palestinian "peace" process for instance), the ability to win victory, the relatively low cost of victory (compared to North Korea, for instance, where, even without nuclear weapons, the North Korean army could level Seoul--a large city and the capitol of a significant US ally--with conventional weapons in any conflict), human rights violations (the cornerstone of Tony Blair's presentations), AND the possibility of a liberated democratized Iraq being a springboard for change, democratization, and hopefully liberation throughout the middle east.
In an attempt to step back a bit from the political waters we appear to be wading into, I'd like to suggest that, leaving aside the question of whether or not any or all of those calculations were correct, they do form a reasonable approximation of the kind of factors a paladin should look for when deciding to engage in battle:
In no particular order:
1. Threat--imminent threats are one thing but paladins ought to respond to developing threats as well. The hunter doesn't wait until he's within reach of the bear's claws to fire his gun after all.
2. Existing law/obligation. Paladins ought to respond to defeated enemies breaking the terms of their truce.
3. Opposition to other worthy goals. Paladins ought to consider how to respond to those who would sabotage the good work they are doing elsewhere.
4. The cost of victory. If more good will be destroyed by conflict than is likely to result from it, Paladins should be careful before entering into conflict. And if the costs of the conflict are very high, the net benefit may need to be significant in order to justify conflict. Paladins should rarely espouse causes that are truly hopeless.
5. Especially evil foes. (Human rights don't translate directly into D&D but I think this is the essence of the argument). Paladins should oppose those who through strength and intimidation impose tyranny and terror upon innocents.
6. A part of a greater plan or hope. This can help to justify the cost of conflict. A paladin might well wage war on a humanoid tribe that is actually less menacing than some others (although still menacing enough to justify war on absolute terms) if victory over them would leave him in a better strategic position than victory over the others. Or if he judges them more likely to reform after conquest and provide an example which might make others reform/convert.
In the particular case of the Sunless citadel paladin, I only see a dubious case for 1 (threat) and 5 (evil foes). The kobolds aren't a threat yet. Whether they are likely to materialize into one is an open question. The kobolds are certianly evil but it's not clear (to me) whether they're the Scrooge kind of evil which can be tolerated and even, to a certain extent, made useful, or the Sauron/BBEG kind of evil which it is foolish to attempt to domesticate. The only things that indicate their evil are their callousness towards the dragon they have captured and the fact that most of them detect as evil. I think that the particular paladins plans are very very questionable on items 4 and 6. It's not at all clear to me that the paladin actually has the ability to defeat all of the kobolds and their dragon. Nor is it clear that any party or force he could raise could do so at little cost to themselves. It seems likely that many people would die in order to counter a threat that might never materialize. In fact, given the likelihood of the paladin's failure, it seems to present the possibility of making things a lot worse as kobolds who were attacked by the humans would become an immediate threat if the humans weren't victorious. And the paladin doesn't seem to place it in any larger context. Defeating the kobolds isn't a stepping stone to training kobolds who could convert other kobold tribes. It's not a possibility to create a just koboldish society that could be an example to other kobold societies or even a society of kobolds that no longer looks to evil dragons as their example of what they want to be (and surely that is a large part of why kobolds are evil to begin with). The paladin's vision is limited to defeating a single threat that could someday materialize. If you ask me, that doesn't seem sufficient to justify the risks the paladin is taking.
Implied future threat was one portion of the puzzle. ("If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations will come too late.") Other parts included breaking the terms of a truce, opposition to other goals thought to be worthy (the Israeli/Palestinian "peace" process for instance), the ability to win victory, the relatively low cost of victory (compared to North Korea, for instance, where, even without nuclear weapons, the North Korean army could level Seoul--a large city and the capitol of a significant US ally--with conventional weapons in any conflict), human rights violations (the cornerstone of Tony Blair's presentations), AND the possibility of a liberated democratized Iraq being a springboard for change, democratization, and hopefully liberation throughout the middle east.
In an attempt to step back a bit from the political waters we appear to be wading into, I'd like to suggest that, leaving aside the question of whether or not any or all of those calculations were correct, they do form a reasonable approximation of the kind of factors a paladin should look for when deciding to engage in battle:
In no particular order:
1. Threat--imminent threats are one thing but paladins ought to respond to developing threats as well. The hunter doesn't wait until he's within reach of the bear's claws to fire his gun after all.
2. Existing law/obligation. Paladins ought to respond to defeated enemies breaking the terms of their truce.
3. Opposition to other worthy goals. Paladins ought to consider how to respond to those who would sabotage the good work they are doing elsewhere.
4. The cost of victory. If more good will be destroyed by conflict than is likely to result from it, Paladins should be careful before entering into conflict. And if the costs of the conflict are very high, the net benefit may need to be significant in order to justify conflict. Paladins should rarely espouse causes that are truly hopeless.
5. Especially evil foes. (Human rights don't translate directly into D&D but I think this is the essence of the argument). Paladins should oppose those who through strength and intimidation impose tyranny and terror upon innocents.
6. A part of a greater plan or hope. This can help to justify the cost of conflict. A paladin might well wage war on a humanoid tribe that is actually less menacing than some others (although still menacing enough to justify war on absolute terms) if victory over them would leave him in a better strategic position than victory over the others. Or if he judges them more likely to reform after conquest and provide an example which might make others reform/convert.
In the particular case of the Sunless citadel paladin, I only see a dubious case for 1 (threat) and 5 (evil foes). The kobolds aren't a threat yet. Whether they are likely to materialize into one is an open question. The kobolds are certianly evil but it's not clear (to me) whether they're the Scrooge kind of evil which can be tolerated and even, to a certain extent, made useful, or the Sauron/BBEG kind of evil which it is foolish to attempt to domesticate. The only things that indicate their evil are their callousness towards the dragon they have captured and the fact that most of them detect as evil. I think that the particular paladins plans are very very questionable on items 4 and 6. It's not at all clear to me that the paladin actually has the ability to defeat all of the kobolds and their dragon. Nor is it clear that any party or force he could raise could do so at little cost to themselves. It seems likely that many people would die in order to counter a threat that might never materialize. In fact, given the likelihood of the paladin's failure, it seems to present the possibility of making things a lot worse as kobolds who were attacked by the humans would become an immediate threat if the humans weren't victorious. And the paladin doesn't seem to place it in any larger context. Defeating the kobolds isn't a stepping stone to training kobolds who could convert other kobold tribes. It's not a possibility to create a just koboldish society that could be an example to other kobold societies or even a society of kobolds that no longer looks to evil dragons as their example of what they want to be (and surely that is a large part of why kobolds are evil to begin with). The paladin's vision is limited to defeating a single threat that could someday materialize. If you ask me, that doesn't seem sufficient to justify the risks the paladin is taking.
LuYangShih said:
WizarDru
Adventurer
[Shrug] Like I said, I'm not particularly for or against the action. I would make any action he takes have consequences. Killing the kobolds can only result in two versions, though, he slaughters the entire tribe, raising the dreaded 'orc baby' (or in this case, kobold) question, or he only slays the dangerous ones, possibly creating a greater threat, later. Is he willing to take all of the non-evil ones under his wing? Or is he going to abandon them to their fate, destined to be slain by the goblins or dominated by them or another kobold tribe? If he does eliminate the tribe, will this bring another tribe to deliver retribution? Will the goblins now reign unopposed, and become a true threat? Will he need to kill all of them, too? If he kills all the goblins and the kobolds, will newer more dangerous creatures come up from the underdark? If he doesn't get rid of them will Calcryx destroy them all and destroy the town in a few years? Will they break Calcyrx and lead an attack on their own?LuYangShih said:
It's a dangerous line to walk, and paladins are the most likely candidates to fall into blackguard territory. The paladin can't save the world by himself. The reed that doesn't bend tends to break.
LuYangShih
First Post
Elder-Basilisk:
As I said, that was a limited response. I could expound on the issues, and my entire view on the subject, but of course I will not do so on these boards.
As for your points on the Paladin. I think that the Kobolds are more of a threat than you classify them as. Why should the Paladin wait for clearly evil creatures to to develop into truly dangerous foes before dealing with them? Again we could return to Green Knights example earlier in the thread. I also do not think the Paladin tolerates evil unless it is absolutely neccessary.
And of course, the fact that they detect as Evil is irrefutable proof of the nature of their characters. Also, do not assume the Paladin and his party could not slay all or most of the Kobolds forces. Even if that is the case, it is outside the given morality of the action he contemplates. Retreat is neccessary at times, and the Paladin cannot slay all the Evil in the world himself, but he should destroy what Evil he can.
Also, I think that the "larger context" you speak of would simply be an excuse not to do what is right. Yes, it is just one Kobold tribe. But if destroying that Kobold tribe saves innocent lives, and punishes Evil, then the Paladin has done all that he needs to do.
Wizardru:
Actually, the Paladins main target seems to be Calcryx, not the Kobolds. I would also say that Paladins are the least likely to become Blackguards. It is harder to tempt and corrupt a pure soul than it is one filled with vice. Perhaps the Paladin cannot save the world, but that does not mean he should not try.
As I said, that was a limited response. I could expound on the issues, and my entire view on the subject, but of course I will not do so on these boards.
As for your points on the Paladin. I think that the Kobolds are more of a threat than you classify them as. Why should the Paladin wait for clearly evil creatures to to develop into truly dangerous foes before dealing with them? Again we could return to Green Knights example earlier in the thread. I also do not think the Paladin tolerates evil unless it is absolutely neccessary.
And of course, the fact that they detect as Evil is irrefutable proof of the nature of their characters. Also, do not assume the Paladin and his party could not slay all or most of the Kobolds forces. Even if that is the case, it is outside the given morality of the action he contemplates. Retreat is neccessary at times, and the Paladin cannot slay all the Evil in the world himself, but he should destroy what Evil he can.
Also, I think that the "larger context" you speak of would simply be an excuse not to do what is right. Yes, it is just one Kobold tribe. But if destroying that Kobold tribe saves innocent lives, and punishes Evil, then the Paladin has done all that he needs to do.
Wizardru:
Actually, the Paladins main target seems to be Calcryx, not the Kobolds. I would also say that Paladins are the least likely to become Blackguards. It is harder to tempt and corrupt a pure soul than it is one filled with vice. Perhaps the Paladin cannot save the world, but that does not mean he should not try.
Elder-Basilisk posted: if you actually take the time to read the speeches themselves, you'll find a complex and multifaceted explanation of the war's necessity) were much more complex than Arravis implies.
Actually, I never implied that. Only that LuYangShih reminded me a bit of Prez Bush.
P.S.: I'd post more on the other issues but it has so far all been covered in previous posts already. Just don't feel like going around in circles.
Actually, I never implied that. Only that LuYangShih reminded me a bit of Prez Bush.
P.S.: I'd post more on the other issues but it has so far all been covered in previous posts already. Just don't feel like going around in circles.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
