Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[Hjorimir]

I would suggest D&D (or any role-playing game for that matter) is what you make of it. D&D is a collection of rules to resolve situations. Be it combat, movement, creation of magic items, stealth, NPC interaction, weather, planar travel, etc.

This thread was supposed to address the nature of a role-playing choice by a character given the role he (or she) is supposed to fulfill. Unfortunately, it has degenerated into something far more base.

Let's all try and keep a perspective here. Myself included.


..and hong...sorry...didn't realize that was your "schtick" around here. I will try to let you have it.

 

[hong]

..and hong...sorry...didn't realize that was your "schtick" around here. I will try to let you have it.

Thank you.

I am the STUPIDEST person on EN World, and let's not forget it.

 

[ejja_1]

Im with Hjorimir, not all problems can be solved with a suitable application of violence.(no matter what the t-shirt says...)
Thats why there is a Diplomacy skill, and a little attribute called Charisma. If you must act vilolently for a solution, then subdual damage would have worked just as well. It would break the clerics concentration, thus canceling most spells she would be casting.
A lot of players see the Paladin as a righteous warrior, that can do whatever he/she wants as long as it's in the name of thier diety.
And while thats fine for some peoples campaigns, it doesnt quite work for mine. The Paladin in my game is the Character that tries to solve things in a non violent way at first, using brute force only when no other alternative is available. Hence the Lawfull good status, chaotic good would be a better fit if your looking to justify the violence. A Chaotic Good character can justify using violence to accomplish the greater good, as for them the ends justify the means. But thats the funny thing about Paladins, their Lawful Good to a fault.
Not many people can play a Lawfull Good character or the Paladin, it requires forthought on the behalf of the player and a good set of judgement skills as to when what level of force is appropriate.
Most either play the character as what most refer to as Lawful Stupid, or the above where they justify everything they do as in the name of thier god.
In my game neither is the correct form.

 

[Hjorimir]

Hjorimir...

Your analogy is spot on and easy to understand, thank you. That probably makes you one of the few people who could actually play a paladin correctly in my campaign.

Regardless of what some people may think, I have a lot of players asking to play paladins in my game. In fact, I've turned a few down because I didn't want there to be issues later...like the one that spawned this thread.

Eadric in SepII's SH is a great example of a well played paladin (and a darn good read). The entire first leg of the story was all about the paladin...you can count the number of times he resorted to violence on one hand.

 

[hong]

Im with Hjorimir, not all problems can be solved with a suitable application of violence.(no matter what the t-shirt says...)
Thats why there is a Diplomacy skill, and a little attribute called Charisma. If you must act vilolently for a solution, then subdual damage would have worked just as well. It would break the clerics concentration, thus canceling most spells she would be casting.
A lot of players see the Paladin as a righteous warrior, that can do whatever he/she wants as long as it's in the name of thier diety.
And while thats fine for some peoples campaigns, it doesnt quite work for mine. The Paladin in my game is the Character that tries to solve things in a non violent way at first, using brute force only when no other alternative is available. Hence the Lawfull good status, chaotic good would be a better fit if your looking to justify the violence. A Chaotic Good character can justify using violence to accomplish the greater good, as for them the ends justify the means. But thats the funny thing about Paladins, their Lawful Good to a fault.
Not many people can play a Lawfull Good character or the Paladin, it requires forthought on the behalf of the player and a good set of judgement skills as to when what level of force is appropriate.
Most either play the character as what most refer to as Lawful Stupid, or the above where they justify everything they do as in the name of thier god.
In my game neither is the correct form.

I'm beginning to see why some people talk about D&D alignments as requiring players to have telepathy.

 

[navriin]

Hong...

Generally people don't play paladins in my campaign because I tend to deal with a lot of moral ambiguities, which makes it difficult to play a paladin. My players know that when their paladins do an evil or chaotic act, they will be punished for it, and that is how it should be, IMO *and* in their opinion. Now if the group as a whole decided to play LG characters, I would probably see more paladins, but my players tend towards the neutral alighments.

I disagree with you about the player/character motivation thing. I feel it is the *players* responsibility to make their characters desire coincide with theirs, not the DM's. A player who wants to kill lots of people and get treasure should not play a good character hoping he coincidently finds evil wherever he goes, he should just play a neutral or evil character. Otherwise, you get a situation where the supposedly good character is always trying to manufacture situations where he can 'expose' evil so he can smite it and take their stuff. This leads to bad roleplaying, which leads to a bad game. (Unless you are playing a game where their is no roleplaying, in which case this is not a problem).

(And no, I'm not accusing anyone of or not of roleplaying, I'm just stating that my campaign involes RP, and thus my decisions are based on it).

As far as the comment about players being whatever they say they are, that is untrue. A player can make a character stating he is LG, but if he goes around ing people, he is not LG. The DM is the one who ultimately knows a players alignment, not the players (detect alignment spells notwithstanding).

 

[MerakSpielman]

Here is a piece from another thread where I analyzed my interpretation of the Paladin's Code. The thread was debating the morality of using the Detect Evil, if positive, then kill the bad guy tactic, so some of the examples I use might not be quite appropriate.

------​

The generic Code of Conduct for a paladin, as stated in the PHB:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever willingly commits an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin's code requries that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents.

Let's break this down.
Rule 1) Must be LG. Loses all paladin abilities if commits an evil act.
What is an evil act? Ultimately, this is in the hands of the DM to truly decide. Personally, I would rule that murder is evil. Just because somebody is themselves evil does not mean that killing them is not murder. Superman is LG, and he turns crooks in to the police rather then killing them. Why does he do this? Becuse callous killing of those who you consider evil isn't right. Self defense is one thing, killing in cold blood is another. If your foe throws down their weapons and surrenders, it is evil to kill them, even if the enemy is Orcus himself.

Rule 2) Must respect legitimate authority.
Again, ultimately, the definition of legitimate authority can vary from DM to DM. Does a good conquerer taking over an evil kingdom represent legitimacy? What about an evil conqurer taking over an evil kingdom? A good kingdom? If the local mayer runs a smuggling ring, does that mean the paladin can't act to shut it down, because it is sanctioned by the local authority? Such is the stuff of which paladin moral dillemas are crafted. In the D&D world, though, good is firmly defined. If those in power use their influence to better themselves at the expense of the people, I think a paladin would take action, legitimate authority be damned. Is it worth risking his paladinhood to see the people released from the yoke of tyranny? If the answer is yes, then probably the cause is just. A good leader acts for the benifit of those in his charge. If the leader fails to do so, then they no longer represent legitimate authority. If they do represent legitimacy, then the paladin is bound to treat the authority with due respect (but not, please note, outright obedience).

3) Must act with honor (not lie, cheat, use poison...)
I would personally put steal on this list as well. This is different than being Good. A good person can lie/cheat/steal/use poison. Think James Bond, Han Solo, any undercover cop. A good rogue would steal into an enemy camp and coup-de-grace the enemy leader while they slept. The paladin would rather openly challange this leader to one-on-one combat by broad daylight. He will accept surrenders, even from evil beings, and never break his word, though it destroy him. As such, the word of a paladin is sacrasanct and rarely given, but always true. The paladin is the paragon of ultimate virtue, incorrigably good, and never false. If you trust a valuable item to a paladin and die before you can recover it, he will not sell it or set it aside, but restore it to your loved ones or do whatever in his judgement he thinks you would want him to do.

4) Must help those who need help
Everybody needs help of some sort. Does this mean that, because a paladin wanders by your farm the day after your best hand quit, you can expect him to help you bring in the harvest? Careful, he probably would, should you ask, but you would be wise not to waste the time of a champion of virtue on so mundane a task. Being threatened by orc raids, though, go ahead and ask him if he can do something about that. The paladin really decides who needs his services the most, and acts accordingly, following his code as best he can. If he is on a mission where time is vital and lives are on the line, he probably can't stop to help with the orcs, though he'll be back as soon as he can, or send somebody who is capable of helping sooner. Paladins offer a specific brand of help - it is known that they stand against the forces of evil - so one would hope that people wouldn't ask for their help if they didn't really think they needed it. If a situation does not require the specilization of a paladin, he will politely inform the querant of such, and be on his way.

5) Punish those who harm or threaten innocents
What are "innocents?" Good question. I would say that, in a given conflict, the innocents are those who don't pick a side, but just try to go on with their normal, everyday lives. The People. Commoners, Experts, Aristocrats. Those who, without the forces of Good to defend them, would be almost naked before the forces of Evil that threaten. Definately children would be innocents.
The paladin must also establish that the intent to harm or threaten exists. They are not bound to take action without proof. Without adiquate proof, the paladin becomes an investigator, seeking to determine whether a threat exists or not, and whether it is something simply to be reported to the guards or dealt with in person.
You can be evil and not seek to harm innocents. If you are a demonologist who seeks to commune with demons so you might join them in hell, but you do so from the privacy of your own isolated tower and don't seek to harm anybody, you are not seeking to harm innocents.
It might also be possible to be good and seeking to harm innocents, though an example fails me at the moment. This person would be punished by the paladin.
Note the use of the word "punish." It does not say "kill," though if there is no other way to accomplish eliminating the threat to the innocents a paladin will resort to deadly force. The punishment, though, should match the deed. Trying to turn the populace of a city into lycanthropes is one thing, but a merchant regularly cheating his customers is quite another. The paladin must be wise and use his mandate carefully, not extracting punishment greater than the deed warrents. Often, a simple warning from the local paladin might suffice for minor threats to innocents.


Nowhere in the paladin's code does it say that their mission is to erradicate evil from the world using whatever means they have available. A paladin is much more than a detect-smite machine. They are not a law unto themselves, and must answer to a higher authority. Killing an unarmed or defenseless foe is evil, whatever the justification.

The ends do not justify the means. Ever. A paladin knows this, and abides by his code. Unto death, if need be.

--------​

I am the STUPIDEST person on EN World, and let's not forget it.

My dear hong, you don't LET us forget it. ​

 

[Estlor]

My 2 cents:

Being a Lawful Good entity, a paladin has certain duties to agreements and friendships. Now, if an evil cultist negotiated a surrender for mercy as long as he ceased fighting and the paladin accepted it, he'd be expected to uphold the agreement. Of course, if the paladin suspected the cultist of being behind the odd behavior, that could be construed as a breech of agreement, thereby releasing the paladin from any honorbound restrictions it imposed. Of course, I'd think then the proper course for a paladin with such suspicions is to violently jerk the guy up and demand he explain what is happening. Refusal would result in a gauntleted backhand across the face to render him unconscious, then go investigate (yes, I play the no-nonsense paladins).

Of course, killing someone out of suspicion is an offense, but a minor one worthy of some simple penence (say ten Hail Marys and think about what you did). Now, saying it was orcish bloodlust means he killed the guy out of chaotic vindictiveness. Neither of those attributes are qualities of a paladin. That makes it a serious infraction with a more serious punishment.

 

[hong]

I disagree with you about the player/character motivation thing. I feel it is the *players* responsibility to make their characters desire coincide with theirs, not the DM's. A player who wants to kill lots of people and get treasure should not play a good character hoping he coincidently finds evil wherever he goes, he should just play a neutral or evil character. Otherwise, you get a situation where the supposedly good character is always trying to manufacture situations where he can 'expose' evil so he can smite it and take their stuff. This leads to bad roleplaying, which leads to a bad game. (Unless you are playing a game where their is no roleplaying, in which case this is not a problem).

Oh for eff's sake. It's _not that hard_ to come up with scenarios that allow good characters to kick butt along with everyone else. Heck, just about every published module since D&D's invention has featured a big bad who wants to do bad things, thus providing characters of all stripes with a reason to fight them.

As far as the comment about players being whatever they say they are, that is untrue. A player can make a character stating he is LG, but if he goes around ing people, he is not LG. The DM is the one who ultimately knows a players alignment, not the players (detect alignment spells notwithstanding).

Yes, yes, you can have PCs who do silly things that no reasonable person would accept as being consistent with their backstory and stated personality. That's not the point. The point is that while a _player_ may want to get into fights, or collect powerups, or be cool and mysterious or whatnot, the mapping to the _character's_ reason for being is far from being one-to-one. You can very easily have players who like fights and treasure hunting, and _also_ want to wear the white hat.

D&D is pretty much built for this sort of player, in fact. That's the whole reason for the alignment thing, plus tons of evil monsters who coincidentally also have cool shiny things; it's a framework in which it's reasonable to go forth and kick monster butt, without getting into all sorts of tedious moral quandaries.

 

[hong]

Here is a piece from another thread where I analyzed my interpretation of the Paladin's Code. The thread was debating the morality of using the Detect Evil, if positive, then kill the bad guy tactic, so some of the examples I use might not be quite appropriate.

------​

The generic Code of Conduct for a paladin, as stated in the PHB:Let's break this down.
....

At this point, the question to ask is: are you playing the paladin, or is the player?