The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[billd91]

While I agree that the moral relativism of folks like Arravis is indeed a bit frightening, keep in mind that it's all just academic masturbation. It's the kind of thing they spout off in philosophy classes that have no contact with the real world. But if you put a dude like Arravis in any situation where a moral choice is involved, he will probably do the right thing, as will most folks.

So I think he's safe to hire as a babysitter.

Most of us have been to university (I suspect) and most of us have gone through the "there is no good or evil" phase. it's something you outgrow as you become more fully human, more fully real.

"Without God, anything is permissable. Without moral absolutes, anything is likely."

Dostoevsky.

It's not really a question of going through a phase as much as it is a philosophical recognition that there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and that the concept of good and evil is entirely based on subjective social convention and mutable from place to place and time to time. Fortunately, I think we've made great strides in most places around the globe, even compared to 100 years ago much less antiquity where mass slaughter and 'ethnic cleansing' was relatively common and acceptible.

Note that this is unlike D&D when alignment rules are in use and there IS an objective measure of whether something is good or evil within the game. Unfortunately, where the game meets the real world, we still run into differences of opinion and thus help to illustrate the fact that there really is no objective standard of good and evil in real life...


EDIT: That said, whether or not Arravis is safe to hire as a baby sitter hinges more on how well he can change a diaper and keep the baby off the stairs rather than whether or not he thinks about the philosophical nature of morality.

 

[Arravis]

Billd91, thank you for getting my point.

 

[LostSoul]

Huh???

What's next, "Tell your player to roll to attack, and then ask him to decide if he hits or not"?

Paladins who murder get stripped of their abilities. If the player gets his nose out of joint, tough. He can play Monopoly or something.

Here's the thing: A Paladin who acts evil isn't an unbalanced class. He's just as powerful as he is with his moral code acting to restrain him.

So the Paladin's code is just flavour.

I think it's bad if the DM gets to nerf a PC over just flavour. The DM isn't playing the character, so why should he decide when the Paladin's abilities come into play or not?

Now if both the DM and the player of the paladin decide before what will constitue a breach of code, that's fine. If they don't, and the DM says, "I don't like how you play your PC, so now you suck," that blows.

What's more, the Paladin's code acts to restrict player choices in the game. Either he is Lawful Good and has a playable character, or he's not and he's got an unplayable character. That's really restrictive if you want to explore good & evil.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's not really a question of going through a phase as much as it is a philosophical recognition that there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil

Prove it.

 

[Arravis]

So the Paladin's code is just flavour.

If it's just flavor, why have in-game effects for breaking the code?
3rd edition when out of its way (for good or bad) to get rid of "flavor" and to put that in the DM's and player's hands.
The paladin's code of ethics IS in the class description, therefor it IS part of the class.

 

[Galfridus]

Yikes, quite a few responses since lunch. I've kept some details vague because this is a continuing adventure, and some because it's a long-running game and providing full context is pretty much impossible. That said, here's some more grist for the mill:

The paladin is awakened (by a servant) and told someone has a message for him. He summons another PC to watch over his wife and heads downstairs, where he meets the halfling who begins delaying him.

At the same time, someone sneaks in to his wife's bedroom (yes, past the PC who is watching) and "does something" to her. At the time, what it was is not clear, but she was alive and not obviously harmed. The PC drives the "attacker" off (in essence, they teleport away).

Another PC, a cleric, roused by the struggle, bursts into the room, sees that the wife is alive but confused, and gets a quick summary of what happened. He runs downstairs.

Meanwhile, the paladin has grown suspicious and begins questioning the halfling, then grabs him. When the halfling refuses to give answers (who sent you, what are you doing here), he gets a little rough. The halfling tells some obvious lies, and the paladin gets a little rougher.

Then the PC cleric arrives and announces that someone has assaulted the paladin's wife. After a few more questions and non-answers, the player says "I break his neck." I verify that his intent is to kill. Since the halfling is a) pinned and b) already at low HP, I say he is negative HP and dying. (I had foregone rolling damage for the various attacks during the interrogation in order to maintain the flow of the scene.) That's where the session ended.

Game time elapsed between the assault and the end of the session was a minute or so.

(Of course, since there is a cleric standing right there with a Heal spell prepared, the halfling is likely to live.)

===

I didn't intend to have the halfling die and was not trying to bait the paladin into anything.

It's hard to describe how a particular campaign uses alignments; I would say that this one falls more toward Good and Evil as moral absolutes, but that means different things to different people.

To simplify things rather a lot: the Paladin was not legally justified to execute the halfling, as no lives were in danger; he did not (and does not) know if the halfling is evil; he has good and sufficient reason to presume that the halfling was involved; he knew his wife was attacked but still alive.

I consider this chaotic as the paladin disregarded laws he had sworn to uphold for no reason other than personal vengeance. The evil part depends a bit more on the nature of the person involved, and the paladin's failure to discover further details about that nature. That does seem a bit weaker than the chaotic bit, on further reflection.

 

[howandwhy99]

Prove it.

That's the big big problem with real world morality. It can't be proven or disproven. If it could, life would be a LOT easier.

Can we talk about paladins?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Now if both the DM and the player of the paladin decide before what will constitue a breach of code, that's fine. If they don't, and the DM says, "I don't like how you play your PC, so now you suck," that blows.

Except that if they don't agree to something before hand the default is to play the class as written, not to play it without the code. If someone wants to play a paladin without a code, or wth a very different code from the default set out, they should bring that up with the DM and negotiate it prior to playing the character. You are suggesting that somehow the default should be to ignore the class as written. Even if your idea of what the paladin should be was superior, its a wholly impractical stance.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

It's not really a question of going through a phase as much as it is a philosophical recognition that there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and that the concept of good and evil is entirely based on subjective social convention and mutable from place to place and time to time. Fortunately, I think we've made great strides in most places around the globe, even compared to 100 years ago much less antiquity where mass slaughter and 'ethnic cleansing' was relatively common and acceptible.

You just contradicted yourself. You said (a) there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and (b) we've made "great strides" in most places around the globe.

How can you say we've made "great strides" if there is no way to measure good and evil? We've made "great strides" compared to what? Measured by what?

You can't have it both ways. If there is no way to measure good and evil, then you can't say that we've become more moral as a species due to the relatively uncommon nature of mass slaughter.

I love it when moral relativists contradict themselves. [laughs, puts feet up, munches popcorn]

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

That's the big big problem with real world morality. It can't be proven or disproven. If it could, life would be a LOT easier.

You're assuming, of course, that something has to be "proven" to be known as truth.

Do you love your parents?

Prove it.