Lord Pendragon
First Post
What a great thread. I wish I'd seen it earlier, so I could respond to the many, many points I'd like to respond to, but alas at this point the points and counterpoints have piled up considerably. So let me instead participate by setting out how I view the moralities of D&D through a quick examination of my own LG paladin, Nathan Silverhome.
Our game is not high on roleplaying. In fact, my DM describes our game as "beer and pretzels" which is another way of saying "hack and slash." However, because I'm playing a paladin, and because of the situations our group has found itself in, I've found myself having to give a lot of thought to Nathan's morality.
Our group are "Wardens" which is something similar to an Old West sheriff. There are general laws, and there are courts in bigger cities, but on the whole we are the law. This inherently makes the game more morally ambiguous, because we the PCs are forced to make the moral decisions, with little recourse to a King's Law to decide what's right and wrong. The only concrete law is that soldiers of the (evil) Empire forfeit their lives on (good) FreeHold soil.
One session, our group fought a group of human Imperial soldiers, on FreeHold soil. One of them, after seeing his buddies ruthlessly cut down, surrendered. Nathan accepted his surrender. But once he was imprisoned, Nathan was left with the question of what to do with him. He wound up bringing him back to their town. At that point, he offered the man what mercy he could, by offering to deliver the man's personal effects, and a letter, to his family in the Empire, after his death. Once the man had made his arrangements, Nathan executed him.
Another time, the group captured a foe in an enemy stronghold. Nathan knowingly and purposefully allowed his companions to threaten to torture the man (with the clear understanding that actual torture would be unacceptible,) for information. After his companions were finished, Nathan himself executed the man. He did it himself to ensure that the man's death was as quick and merciful as possible.
Indeed, Nathan always performs any executions he believes are necessary. In his mind, shipping a condemned man off to another person to be killed is cowardly and duplicitous, an attempt to keep one's own hands clean while ensuring the same outcome. If a man deserves to die, Nathan refuses to pass the buck, instead accepting the moral responsibility of that death himself.
Throughout his career, Nathan's priorities have been to respect life, even when he must of necessity take it. He does not torment his foes, or belittle them. He offers no cruelty, and gives what mercy he can (such as offering to send a foe's body back to his family.) On the other hand, he does not place a proven enemy's chance of repentance above innocents' right to safety. He does not forgive Evil before defending Good. He does not gamble the lives of the Good on the possibility that Evil will decide to change its ways.
Our game is not high on roleplaying. In fact, my DM describes our game as "beer and pretzels" which is another way of saying "hack and slash." However, because I'm playing a paladin, and because of the situations our group has found itself in, I've found myself having to give a lot of thought to Nathan's morality.
Our group are "Wardens" which is something similar to an Old West sheriff. There are general laws, and there are courts in bigger cities, but on the whole we are the law. This inherently makes the game more morally ambiguous, because we the PCs are forced to make the moral decisions, with little recourse to a King's Law to decide what's right and wrong. The only concrete law is that soldiers of the (evil) Empire forfeit their lives on (good) FreeHold soil.
One session, our group fought a group of human Imperial soldiers, on FreeHold soil. One of them, after seeing his buddies ruthlessly cut down, surrendered. Nathan accepted his surrender. But once he was imprisoned, Nathan was left with the question of what to do with him. He wound up bringing him back to their town. At that point, he offered the man what mercy he could, by offering to deliver the man's personal effects, and a letter, to his family in the Empire, after his death. Once the man had made his arrangements, Nathan executed him.
Another time, the group captured a foe in an enemy stronghold. Nathan knowingly and purposefully allowed his companions to threaten to torture the man (with the clear understanding that actual torture would be unacceptible,) for information. After his companions were finished, Nathan himself executed the man. He did it himself to ensure that the man's death was as quick and merciful as possible.
Indeed, Nathan always performs any executions he believes are necessary. In his mind, shipping a condemned man off to another person to be killed is cowardly and duplicitous, an attempt to keep one's own hands clean while ensuring the same outcome. If a man deserves to die, Nathan refuses to pass the buck, instead accepting the moral responsibility of that death himself.
Throughout his career, Nathan's priorities have been to respect life, even when he must of necessity take it. He does not torment his foes, or belittle them. He offers no cruelty, and gives what mercy he can (such as offering to send a foe's body back to his family.) On the other hand, he does not place a proven enemy's chance of repentance above innocents' right to safety. He does not forgive Evil before defending Good. He does not gamble the lives of the Good on the possibility that Evil will decide to change its ways.
