Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5801707" data-attributes="member: 58197">I don't see how being able to fight back is relevant to whether the killing is good or evil. A prisoner on the scaffold, bound and hooded, has no way to fight back, but most paladins have no problem with executions. You might be able to argue that assassins are intrinsically chaotic, as their approach subverts the rule of law*; but IMO, if you can justify the killing at all, then you should be looking for the most reliable way to accomplish the goal with minimal harm to anybody else.Suppose you're dealing with an evil general leading a horde of monsters. The paladin rallies an army to face the general. Result: A bunch of innocent people die fighting the horde in order to get the paladin to where she can deliver the killing stroke. Alternatively, an assassin sneaks into the enemy camp, kills the general in his sleep, and glides out again, putting no one else at risk.How is the paladin's approach more defensible, morally, than the assassin's? Or, in the immortal words of Tywin Lannister: &quot;Explain to me how it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.&quot; The assassin can quite legitimately argue that the paladin is being cowardly and selfish by putting others in danger, when there is a way to get the job done alone.And this, by the way, is why I detest alignment-driven mechanics.[size=-2]*Note that I am not endorsing the &quot;assassins are intrinsically chaotic&quot; argument, merely pointing out that it is a reasonable one. The Law/Chaos axis makes Good/Evil look like an exemplar of clarity and precision.[/size]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5801707, member: 58197"] I don't see how being able to fight back is relevant to whether the killing is good or evil. A prisoner on the scaffold, bound and hooded, has no way to fight back, but most paladins have no problem with executions. You might be able to argue that assassins are intrinsically chaotic, as their approach subverts the rule of law*; but IMO, if you can justify the killing [I]at all[/I], then you should be looking for the most reliable way to accomplish the goal with minimal harm to anybody else. Suppose you're dealing with an evil general leading a horde of monsters. The paladin rallies an army to face the general. Result: A bunch of innocent people die fighting the horde in order to get the paladin to where she can deliver the killing stroke. Alternatively, an assassin sneaks into the enemy camp, kills the general in his sleep, and glides out again, putting no one else at risk. How is the paladin's approach more defensible, morally, than the assassin's? Or, in the immortal words of Tywin Lannister: "Explain to me how it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner." The assassin can quite legitimately argue that the paladin is being cowardly and selfish by putting others in danger, when there is a way to get the job done alone. And this, by the way, is why I detest alignment-driven mechanics. [size=-2]*Note that I am not endorsing the "assassins are intrinsically chaotic" argument, merely pointing out that it is a reasonable one. The Law/Chaos axis makes Good/Evil look like an exemplar of clarity and precision.[/size] [/QUOTE]

Verification