Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[Nifft]

Good point. But I got the impression that the prisoner was human. Humans are certainly not a damned race in the campaign

Again, you're taking morality from once setting (mine) and applying it to another setting (the original poster's). There's no guarantee they're compatible.

Even if they were, IMC evil clerics are all demon-worshippers, and have freely chosen damnation -- and the Paladin's hands are NOT tied when it comes to killing them.

Yes, accepting their Atonement is better than spraying the walls with their blood, but they have to repent before they are in your custody.

-- N

 

[Tom Cashel]

I like the Wizard of Oz.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This seems, at least to me, to seriously misread human motivations. The evil priest who sacrifices babies to Tharizdun has human motivations. (Maybe he wants power so that he can pay back the parents who refused to nurture his artistic talents; maybe he wants vengeance upon a town that he thinks wronged him, or maybe he just wants to live "the life"--gold, girls, and drink (Tharizdun provides him with power he uses or plans to use to get beer, bimbos and bling bling)). It doesn't make him any less despicable. The barbarian king who tortures his enemies to death then impales them on spikes on his front lawn has human motivations. (He likes the feeling of power that their screams give him and thinks that displaying their dismembered corpses demonstrates that he is a fearsome enemy). It doesn't make him any less cruel. Heck, if you have a cosmology where demons and devils are fallen celestials, they also may have humanly understandable motivations. But even if they're motivated by pride, spite, and envy as well as motiveless malice, they're still just as evil. None of those human motivations that make them evil rather than EEVEEIL makes them any less evil than you seem to assume that they are. That bandits on the road probably have humanly understandable motives doesn't excuse them in the least.

Everyone's got a reason.

(It's also a stretch to say that the band of bandits hasn't hurt anyone yet--odds are good they've robbed people before and they clearly intend to hurt people even if you're generous enough (far too generous for rationality, IMO) to give them the benefit of the doubt).

Actually, it's a refusal to equate D&D-World with medieval and ancient society.

The example is "humans with human motivations who have not yet hurt anyone, and are not Evil with a Capital E".

-- N

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Off topic but this seems like an interesting idea; how do you work this? It might be interesting to have a campaign where there are spells (possibly like Command Undead) or abilities (like Turn Undead) that allow their evil masters to command the races that lack free will. Do you do anything like that or does free will in your case refer to the ability to choose right rather than wrong instead of the ability to choose specific actions.

This is campaign-specific.

IMC, Orcs are a Free Race. They were born, not created, and have free will.

IMC, Goblinoids are a Damned Race. They were created unnaturally and lack free will.

It's Good to kill baby goblins.
It's Evil to kill baby orcs.

-- N

 

[Tom Cashel]

Paladins get great powers. The code of conduct is meant to balance them.

Ignore the code, and your paladin just became the best class in the game: all brawn, no drawbacks.

 

[Nifft]

abilities (like Turn Undead) that allow their evil masters to command the races that lack free will

Goblins were created by Demons, and the Tannar'ri can command them.

They also are likely to be evil on their own, but that's more a matter of "culture".

-- N

 

[Nifft]

This seems, at least to me, to seriously misread human motivations. The evil priest who sacrifices babies to Tharizdun has human motivations. [...] The barbarian king who tortures his enemies to death then impales them on spikes on his front lawn has human motivations

I'm trying to distinguish between Evil-with-a-capital-E and human. In some settings, the distinction makes sense. In others it may not. I would argue that in many settings, serving an inhumanly Evil dark power is not a "human motivation". The greed that led you to damnation may be "human", but the dark power's will is not.

(It's also a stretch to say that the band of bandits hasn't hurt anyone yet

Hey, some people here would ask that insane priests of evil gods be given the benefit of the doubt. I think that a potential Robin Hood deserves better.

-- N

 

[Epametheus]

A straightforward answer to what laws a paladin follows is that he or she follows the laws of where he or she comes from. The extend the Thayan example, the Paladin in question probably follows the laws of Cormyr, Sembia, Aglarond, or the Dalelands. An act that's considering a crime in Thay or Zhentil Keep may not be a crime in Shadowdale, and vice versa. If the paladin actually has a mortal leader that he's sworn fealty to, all the clearer; the paladin obeys the laws of the Realm and of the organization that trained him.

A Cormyrean Paladin entering Thay amounts to an Act of War, even if it's a One Man War.

Any cleric devoted enough to his god to actually receive spells should be perfectly willing to die before he'd renounce his faith. A priest that fears so much for his life that he'd renounce his faith just to save it is a sorry excuse for a priest. For the truly faithful, to die means nothing more than to begin the journey home.

A bound & gagged spellcaster can still easily be a threat. If the bound & gagged wizard manages to fireball the party despite that impediment, I don't think he counts as a "helpless opponent," regardless of his restraints.

The response of the paladin should correspond with the strength of the evil. The typical evil L1 commoner/expert whose just a bitter ass shouldn't be sworded. The evil L1 Aristocrat that's horribly abusing the people is iffier. He could definately stand to be removed, but someone decent needs to put in the guy's place to prevent anarchy. Whether or not lethal force is needed won't be determinable until the attempt to remove him is actually made.

And as I've said earlier, Superman isn't that great a role model to base paladins off of. Supes can easily take the high road with any problem presented to him; taking the high road with a problem is just about the only way it can even challenge him. If he's supposed to choose between stopping a nuclear launch and saving Lois Lane, Supes can pretty easily just do both and not even mess up his hair. It's highly unlikely a paladin could pull of something similar to that (though amusingly enough, a high level wizard probably could).

I think Himura Kenshin makes a better analogy for a high-level paladin -- while pretty powerful, his enemies are often comparable to him if not stronger, and he sometimes has to seriously consider violating his beliefs (and in doing so, damn himself to the path of the Battousai) if he wants to triumph over evil and protect those around him.

 

[Christian Walker]

I see no problem.

Paladins are the end all, be all of justice. If the Paladin saw fit to hack the prisoner down, then so be it. The person was evil. Had teh prisoner been drug back to town and put on trial, I'm sure he would have been convicted, then sentenced to death.

The Paladin just sped that up a bit, as was his right and purpose in life.

 

[hong]

What if the worshipper of the evil deity is a child?

Is that a babe on your altar, or are you just glad to see me?

At what point does innocence become conscious decision?

When the drugs stop working.

At what point does a child become a man?

Well, when a boy and a girl get together and they REALLY like each other, like REALLY, then the boy puts a little "seed" in the girl. You know, like in Alien. And then the "seed" comes out of the girl, again, you know, like in Alien.

Just playing devil’s advocate here.

Too much of that will make you go blind.