Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)
- Thread starter Trainz
- Start date
Trainz said:
We wouldn't? Assuming you have a tribe of ogres living in the wilderness not bothering anyone, I'm not at all convinced that wiping them out would be the right thing for the paladin to do.
In any case, there's a significant difference. Lawful peoples tend to keep treaties, chaotic ones don't. Depending on the nature of the treaty this can be good or bad, but it does make an LE group much better neighbors than a CE group if you can come to an agreement.
Trainz said:
I understand your argument here, but don't force words into people's mouths. I'm not letting sympathy for pathetic little kobolds cloud my morals here. Heck, if your Paladin is 1st level, they aren't so pathetic. Depending on how your party reacts, the dice rolls involved, and the way your DM runs things... they could take you.
Would I, as a DM, run the moral ramifications of a paladin drawing his sword and killing ogres without any indication that they actually did anything wrong just because they detected as having an evil alignment different from the same encounter with kobolds? No, I honestly wouldn't.
Trainz
Explorer
OK. Now, from a gaming point of view, if you start investigating every encounter that doesn't outright attack you that detects evil, the other players will start being bored with your antics. And the DM.AnthonyJ said:
Of course, that depends on gaming style, but the game is basically heroes battling evil. Most want the action going-on and play the adventure. Thinking too much about the ramifications of every action within the alignment spectrum is beyond the basic scope of D&D.
Some thought must be spent, especially when playing a Paladin, but as long as he generally behaves OK, I say let the game roll-on.
Trainz said:
If the DM wants a straight good vs evil slugfest, there's a simple solution:
Paladin goes snooping around.
Paladin gets attacked.
Paladin then whacks upon the evil.
What's so complex about that? If the evil things don't attack the paladin who's snooping around, the DM may have something more in mind than a simple slugfest, and having the paladin attack blindly makes the game worse, not better.
Trainz
Explorer
Of course, that makes sense.AnthonyJ said:
But that's getting a bit far from the original point (I'm guilty as charged)...
Wich is: I think it is OK to attack an evil creature without provocation if it detects evil, unless it is in a civilized area: in that case, the Paladin should make an arrest and investigate with the help from a good aligned church's spells into the creature's past.
So there.
Is that better ?
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Trainz, if you're still polling for opinions, my take is that the following would be an acceptable middle ground:
Approach Yusdrayl and tell her that you have now performed two valuable services for her and her tribe (presumably you've brough back Calcryx and rid them of the Goblins). In return you want her assurance that they will behave peacefully toward the people of Oakhurst and to keep Calcryx from pursuing evil. You assure her that if they follow these directives that they have no enemy in you. But if you hear tales of their misdeeds, you'll be back. And you won't be happy.
As for the thorny alignment debate that inevitably crops up around this type of discussion, I wholeheartedly support the position of jgbrowning. IMO (regarding gaming anyway) "evil thoughts" don't make your alignment Evil, evil actions do. So, for the Kobolds to be regarded as Evil, they must have done something evil.
In this particular case there is no indication that they've done anything evil to the people of Oakhurst or anybody else whom the Paladin considers to be "innocent". More than likely, the evil acts the Kobolds have committed have been against the Goblins. Depending on how pragmatic the Paladin is, this may be considered a "good thing" (but not a "Good thing" of course). This tends to fall into the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy (in fact the whole relationship with Meepo is predicated on this idea).
So, with that in mind, it may at very least be imprudent for the Paladin to kill every creature that detects as Evil. One of the few up sides of Evil (from the Good point of view) is that it "does not play well with others". You may or may not be able to redeem the evil, but odds are pretty strong that you can get them to turn on one another.
Approach Yusdrayl and tell her that you have now performed two valuable services for her and her tribe (presumably you've brough back Calcryx and rid them of the Goblins). In return you want her assurance that they will behave peacefully toward the people of Oakhurst and to keep Calcryx from pursuing evil. You assure her that if they follow these directives that they have no enemy in you. But if you hear tales of their misdeeds, you'll be back. And you won't be happy.
As for the thorny alignment debate that inevitably crops up around this type of discussion, I wholeheartedly support the position of jgbrowning. IMO (regarding gaming anyway) "evil thoughts" don't make your alignment Evil, evil actions do. So, for the Kobolds to be regarded as Evil, they must have done something evil.
In this particular case there is no indication that they've done anything evil to the people of Oakhurst or anybody else whom the Paladin considers to be "innocent". More than likely, the evil acts the Kobolds have committed have been against the Goblins. Depending on how pragmatic the Paladin is, this may be considered a "good thing" (but not a "Good thing" of course). This tends to fall into the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy (in fact the whole relationship with Meepo is predicated on this idea).
So, with that in mind, it may at very least be imprudent for the Paladin to kill every creature that detects as Evil. One of the few up sides of Evil (from the Good point of view) is that it "does not play well with others". You may or may not be able to redeem the evil, but odds are pretty strong that you can get them to turn on one another.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Laying aside the alignment difference (in my view, Lawful Evil tribes are much more likely to make good neighbors than Chaotic Evil ones), there are several incorrect assumptions here.
First, you assume that differences in the magnitude of a threat are not morally significant. They are. An Al Bundy (of Married With Children) type man with a horrible temper and no self-control may assault someone with his fists and do serious damage. A Mike Tyson type individual--a trained heavyweight boxer with a horrible temper and not much self-control--may also lose his temper and assault someone with his fists. And, in Western society, we generally agree that these two things are crimes of a different magnitude. In the US, the one is generally assault and battery and the second is assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder. Similarly, we would look differently upon a man who taught his young children how to shoot a .22 rifle and one who taught them how to use an M60 or SAW. The magnitude of a threat does legitimately make a difference to how one reacts to it. Even in our political discourse, it makes a difference when a third-world tyrant is aquiring the region's largest conventional army and when they are aquiring or attempting to aquire (or even simply retaining the ability to aquire) weapons of mass destruction. All political groups seem to admit that, regardless of their stand on current American foreign policy. Granted, that is evidence of what people do believe rather than what they ought to believe, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that the magnitude of threat is not significant rather than the one who claims that it is.
Second, there are other significant differences between the tribe of ogres with a young adult green dragon and the tribe of kobolds with a wyrmling white. The young adult green, for instance, is not a potential threat like the wyrmling. He is an extant threat in his own right. Unlike the kobolds' wyrmling, he is also quite durable and is unlikely to die because of abuse. The young adult green is also a significant enough power--in terms of intelligence, physical power, and ability--to turn the tables on the ogres and, in short order become a green dragon with a tribe of ogres at his command (a much more threatening prospect for the surrounding area).
And third, there is another difference between a first level paladin vs. kobolds and a white dragon and a 15th level paladin vs. ogres and a young adult green: The 15th level paladin can almost certainly take the ogres and the dragon by himself. (The EL of a young adult green and 32 ogres is only 15 or so and considering the vast difference in CRs, the ogres are probably not a threat). The first level paladin, OTOH, is almost certain to die if he attempts to face 32 kobolds and a white wyrmling.
That said, I would not say that the 15th level paladin is obliged to wipe out the ogres and their dragon. It would depend upon his understanding of the specific situation and the ogres interactions with the surrounding communities. Just like the case of Calcryx and the kobolds.
First, you assume that differences in the magnitude of a threat are not morally significant. They are. An Al Bundy (of Married With Children) type man with a horrible temper and no self-control may assault someone with his fists and do serious damage. A Mike Tyson type individual--a trained heavyweight boxer with a horrible temper and not much self-control--may also lose his temper and assault someone with his fists. And, in Western society, we generally agree that these two things are crimes of a different magnitude. In the US, the one is generally assault and battery and the second is assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder. Similarly, we would look differently upon a man who taught his young children how to shoot a .22 rifle and one who taught them how to use an M60 or SAW. The magnitude of a threat does legitimately make a difference to how one reacts to it. Even in our political discourse, it makes a difference when a third-world tyrant is aquiring the region's largest conventional army and when they are aquiring or attempting to aquire (or even simply retaining the ability to aquire) weapons of mass destruction. All political groups seem to admit that, regardless of their stand on current American foreign policy. Granted, that is evidence of what people do believe rather than what they ought to believe, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that the magnitude of threat is not significant rather than the one who claims that it is.
Second, there are other significant differences between the tribe of ogres with a young adult green dragon and the tribe of kobolds with a wyrmling white. The young adult green, for instance, is not a potential threat like the wyrmling. He is an extant threat in his own right. Unlike the kobolds' wyrmling, he is also quite durable and is unlikely to die because of abuse. The young adult green is also a significant enough power--in terms of intelligence, physical power, and ability--to turn the tables on the ogres and, in short order become a green dragon with a tribe of ogres at his command (a much more threatening prospect for the surrounding area).
And third, there is another difference between a first level paladin vs. kobolds and a white dragon and a 15th level paladin vs. ogres and a young adult green: The 15th level paladin can almost certainly take the ogres and the dragon by himself. (The EL of a young adult green and 32 ogres is only 15 or so and considering the vast difference in CRs, the ogres are probably not a threat). The first level paladin, OTOH, is almost certain to die if he attempts to face 32 kobolds and a white wyrmling.
That said, I would not say that the 15th level paladin is obliged to wipe out the ogres and their dragon. It would depend upon his understanding of the specific situation and the ogres interactions with the surrounding communities. Just like the case of Calcryx and the kobolds.
Trainz said:
Similar Threads
