MerakSpielman
First Post
Hey, I don't suppose you can tell us if the cleric really was causing the wierd behaviour of the companions. 
Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)
- Thread starter JDragon
- Start date
Czhorat said:
Well the highest moral standard possible would be NG not LG. The Paladin is according to EGG the 'embodiment of the perfect Christian Knight' - combining Good and Lawful behaviour. Adhering to the highest possible moral standard would require him to act non-lawful where Lawful behaviour conflicted with highest-good behaviour. Eg: the Lawful paladin would not want to 'dishonourably' assassinate the BBEG even if that were the most expedient means of removing the threat. Nor will he lie, cheat etc to achieve his goals, even at the risk of failure and the triumph of evil. If failure was otherwise virtually certain if he didn't lie/cheat etc, I'd say he could do so and keep his Paladinhood, but it's still putting his duty to Good over his duty to Honour.
Epametheus
First Post
JDragon said:
Sorry 'bout that; that first bit was directed more at what seems to be a popular DMing philosophy then at anyone in particular.
Hmm. If he'd knew how targetting magic usually works, it sounds like it'd be logical to assume that the two confused character had hit some trap, not gotten bewitched by the spellcaster that couldn't even see them. Halfway sounds like the player forget that his PC was a Paladin.
Aaron -- where in the description of LG does it say "don't use lethal force?" LG is about doing what's good for everyone around you, not relative pacifism. Taking special care to keep a dangerous, vile prisoner alive has more to do with the character's (and perhaps the player's) personal beliefs than with any of the defined alignments. I'd actually expect a greater effort to keep evil people alive from a NG character, myself.
reapersaurus
Explorer
I haven't read any of the thread, and I'm sure this has been mentioned, but....JDragon said:
The Paladin player is an idiot for not using subdual force.
Every Paladin player should be more aware than anyone that you don't allways have to use the sharp end of the sword.
It is the Paladin character's burden, and responsibility, to not kill unless necessary. Using lethal force on a prisoner when the easy opportunity was there to subdue is a violation of all Paladin's codes.
reapersaurus
Explorer
WHY don't more Paladin players simply get their characters a Phylactery of Faithfullness?
It would stop an inexperienced, or rattled, or not-sure player from making SO many mistakes.
But then, we wouldn't have the pleasure of so many threads that describe situations like this then, would we?
It would stop an inexperienced, or rattled, or not-sure player from making SO many mistakes.
But then, we wouldn't have the pleasure of so many threads that describe situations like this then, would we?
Hjorimir
Adventurer
Epametheus said:
It doesn't say anything about that within the description of LG. On the other hand, it doesn't advocate cutting down subdued and bound prisoners either. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I am of the opinion that just because somebody is evil in alignment it doesn't give the paladin (or anybody else for that matter) the lawful right to administer punishment because of something they might do. If that was the case they could just put paladins at city gates to kill whoever showed up on their evil radar. Consider the implications.
Would that paladin be justified in killing an evil man because he was stomping on butterflies? Or if he stole some food because he was hungry? Or smiled because somebody the paladin likes set off a trap? Obviously, the paladin was in a strong position to simply knock this person out. Instead he made the conscious decision to cut her down.
There are even articles in Dragon that suggest a paladin is culpable for their actions if they are under compulsion effects or if they unknowingly committed an evil (i.e. cause a landslide while fighting a giant that destroys a farmer's house).
The case we are speaking of seems far clearer to me.
Last edited:
Epametheus said:
No problem, i just used it as an opprotunity to get my possition out there. Didn't feel like you were pointing a finger at all.
"Posted by MerakSpielman - Today at 01:26 PM
Hey, I don't suppose you can tell us if the cleric really was causing the wierd behaviour of the companions. "
IT was not the cleric, she was almost out of spells, she just knew what it was in the area they had stumbled on and the resulting effect.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Random thought...
When I think of a Paladin, I think of the story of Jonah.
The paladin is called to rid the world of evil. There are two ways to do this, and should be used in the following order:
1.) Call upon evil to repent. If this works, the amount of evil in the world goes down AND the amount of good goes up (resulting in a "double bonus" for the forces of good).
2.) Smite evil. If this works, the amount of evil in the world goes down but the amount of good does not go up.
Now, back to Jonah... as the story goes, Jonah gets called by God to go to Nineveh and tell the people, "repent or be destroyed." Nineveh repents and is not destroyed. (Jonah gets rather miffed at God, since he was hanging out in the shade of a gourd outside the city limits, waiting for the fireworks when God nuked Nineveh for being evil).
How does this relate to paladins?
Paladins should always offer the chance for evil to repent FIRST. If evil repents, the paladin's job is done - and it's a "double bonus" job. If not, then the paladin gets to be the tactical nuke.
This means that paladins, while not pacifists, must NEVER use lethal force as the weapon of first resort. It is in the "bag of tools," it's just never the first tool they pull out of that bag... though when dealing with antagonistic forces, it's probably weapon 1a... it might go something like:
SCENARIO 1:
Paladin: "Surrender and repent!"
Evildoer: "I surrender. I'm sorry. I will repent."
Paladin: "Oh... okay."
(Jonah-esque Paladin): *thinks to self* "Dangit, and I was gonna enjoy kicking his pasty butt."
SCENARIO 2:
Paladin: "Surrender and repent!"
Evildoer: "No." -- or -- *fires spell/weapon/whatever*
Paladin: "Allrighty then!" *starts hacking merrily away as the divine tactical nuke*
So while a paladin may call upon you to repent with a sword in his hand, ready to fight after an instant or two, he ALWAYS gives his opponent that instant (hence the need for Divine Protection in the form of Divine Grace since unscrupulous opponents will use that instant to try to kill him).
--The Sigil
When I think of a Paladin, I think of the story of Jonah.
The paladin is called to rid the world of evil. There are two ways to do this, and should be used in the following order:
1.) Call upon evil to repent. If this works, the amount of evil in the world goes down AND the amount of good goes up (resulting in a "double bonus" for the forces of good).
2.) Smite evil. If this works, the amount of evil in the world goes down but the amount of good does not go up.
Now, back to Jonah... as the story goes, Jonah gets called by God to go to Nineveh and tell the people, "repent or be destroyed." Nineveh repents and is not destroyed. (Jonah gets rather miffed at God, since he was hanging out in the shade of a gourd outside the city limits, waiting for the fireworks when God nuked Nineveh for being evil).
How does this relate to paladins?
Paladins should always offer the chance for evil to repent FIRST. If evil repents, the paladin's job is done - and it's a "double bonus" job. If not, then the paladin gets to be the tactical nuke.
This means that paladins, while not pacifists, must NEVER use lethal force as the weapon of first resort. It is in the "bag of tools," it's just never the first tool they pull out of that bag... though when dealing with antagonistic forces, it's probably weapon 1a... it might go something like:
SCENARIO 1:
Paladin: "Surrender and repent!"
Evildoer: "I surrender. I'm sorry. I will repent."
Paladin: "Oh... okay."
(Jonah-esque Paladin): *thinks to self* "Dangit, and I was gonna enjoy kicking his pasty butt."
SCENARIO 2:
Paladin: "Surrender and repent!"
Evildoer: "No." -- or -- *fires spell/weapon/whatever*
Paladin: "Allrighty then!" *starts hacking merrily away as the divine tactical nuke*
So while a paladin may call upon you to repent with a sword in his hand, ready to fight after an instant or two, he ALWAYS gives his opponent that instant (hence the need for Divine Protection in the form of Divine Grace since unscrupulous opponents will use that instant to try to kill him).
--The Sigil
This thread really brings the point home that if a Paladin is being played the player and the DM MUST be on the same page.
The player and DM should both know the amount of moral dilemmas that are willing to be tolerated – if both like them – great, if neither like them – great – just so long as it’s not the DM torturing the player with dilemmas he has no desire for or the player fishing for depth the DM doesn’t want.
The easiest way to do this is for the paladin player and DM to discuss beforehand what the LG code means and what behaviors are likely to violate it. If the player knows what’s coming, excuses are limited.
Further, if I’m dealing with an inexperienced player (or a player inexperienced to my style) I will always initially ask the player if they’re sure of their action and warn them of the consequences. Remember the paladin will have been indoctrinated with their code, the player not so much.
The player and DM should both know the amount of moral dilemmas that are willing to be tolerated – if both like them – great, if neither like them – great – just so long as it’s not the DM torturing the player with dilemmas he has no desire for or the player fishing for depth the DM doesn’t want.
The easiest way to do this is for the paladin player and DM to discuss beforehand what the LG code means and what behaviors are likely to violate it. If the player knows what’s coming, excuses are limited.
Further, if I’m dealing with an inexperienced player (or a player inexperienced to my style) I will always initially ask the player if they’re sure of their action and warn them of the consequences. Remember the paladin will have been indoctrinated with their code, the player not so much.
Ideally the paladin should, once he understood what happened (this assumes that his motivation for killing the priest was that he believed the priest was attacking his party magically) would feel remorse for what he had done and find some way of coming to peace with himself and his actions. Heironeous should not have to “smack down” his paladin’s for making a mistake.
On the other hand, if the paladin does not recognize that his actions were wrong (he did cut down a prisoner who wasn’t doing anything wrong, despite what he believed), then perhaps he should be “reminded” that the slaughter of evil is not the only thing a paladin is here for.
On the other hand, if the paladin does not recognize that his actions were wrong (he did cut down a prisoner who wasn’t doing anything wrong, despite what he believed), then perhaps he should be “reminded” that the slaughter of evil is not the only thing a paladin is here for.
Similar Threads
