What would you have done?

[Rel]

"Nice coat."

Daniel

I might be a little extra dense today. I'm not getting the reference. Enlighten me.

 

[diaglo]

I might be a little extra dense today. I'm not getting the reference. Enlighten me.

you are monologueing. he is distracting you for the feint

 

[Rel]

you are monologueing. he is distracting you for the feint

You see, that is precisely the sort of Evil up with which I will not put.

Attacking a man during his monologue! The very idea!

 

[TheEvil]

I might be a little extra dense today. I'm not getting the reference. Enlighten me.

Sin City.

 

[Storm Raven]

Suppose the paladin captures the NPC equivalent of Hitler. Rather than executing the villain on the spot, who the Paladin knows with 100% certainty is guilty, they cart this Hitleroid back to their home land to face a Crimes Against Humanity trial. The trial simply confirms what the paladin already knows -- the NPC is guilty. So the government takes the bound Hitleroid out to the gallows and hangs him. What's the difference? What could have changed during the trial?

The difference is that in one case, the Paladin behaved in a lawful and good manner, and in the other he did not. One of the hallmarks of "Chaotic" alignment is the idea that the end justifies the means. This is in contrast to the "Lawful" idea that the means are as important, and may even be more important than the ends.

That it would be expedient to bypass the trial stage with such a prisoner does not make it "Good". Expedient is often contrary to what is "Good". In this case, even though the BBEG certainly would not have accorded this right to the Paladin, it is not a justification for turning the tables. Part of being "Good" (especially "Lawful Good") means showing mercy to those who would not show you mercy, being just when confronted by the unjust, according rights to those who oppose you, even if they would not.

 

[TheEvil]

Part of being "Good" (especially "Lawful Good") means showing mercy to those who would not show you mercy, being just when confronted by the unjust, according rights to those who oppose you, even if they would not.

To be honest, while this is a perfectly reasonable view of what Good is, I don't think it is justified by the RAW, unless you go by the Book of Exhalted Deeds.

 

[Henry]

He's I'm guessing referring to Marv from Sin City -

Awesomeawesomeawesome movie.

When Marv takes a liking to your coat, you are a dead man, no if's, ands, or buts.

 

[Pielorinho]

When Marv takes a liking to your coat, you are a dead man, no if's, ands, or buts.

Indeed--it's a very bad sign when Marv compliments your coat. His equivalent of saying, "Prepare yourself," only not so nice.

Daniel

 

[John Morrow]

The difference is that in one case, the Paladin behaved in a lawful and good manner, and in the other he did not. One of the hallmarks of "Chaotic" alignment is the idea that the end justifies the means. This is in contrast to the "Lawful" idea that the means are as important, and may even be more important than the ends.

Which is exactly why the corner alignments are unstable. Good and Evil are issues of ends while Law and Chaos are issues of means. When a Paladin has a choice between Lawful means and Good ends, which should they pick?

That it would be expedient to bypass the trial stage with such a prisoner does not make it "Good". Expedient is often contrary to what is "Good".

In the real world, that's largely because of uncertainty and incomplete information. Part of my point is that fantasy games reduce or eliminate the uncertainty and incomplete information that causes us to need trials and protections for the accused in order to ensure justice. But why bother with rules of evidence and a right to not incriminate yourself when guilt can be determined simply by asking the accused, under the influence of various spells that determine truth, "Did you do this crime or not?"

In this case, even though the BBEG certainly would not have accorded this right to the Paladin, it is not a justification for turning the tables. Part of being "Good" (especially "Lawful Good") means showing mercy to those who would not show you mercy, being just when confronted by the unjust, according rights to those who oppose you, even if they would not.

It's not a matter of turning the tables. It's a matter of swiftly achieving justice. What is the purpose of mercy, a trial, and rights?

Is letting an Adolf Hitler sit in a jail cell for months awaiting trials and appeals that will only lead to an inevitable conclusion really more merciful than simply executing him? Doesn't the fact that not only Hitler but other Nazis killed themselves rather than surrendering suggest that maybe it isn't?

And let's not forget in the original situation that the characters did show mercy (they didn't simply kill the prisoners immediately), gave them an opportunity to start repenting by telling them what they wanted to know, and kept their word when one of the prisoners did tell them what they wanted to know (he wasn't executed, as promised, but was shown mercy and released). The Evil prisoners were given an out.

 

[Rel]

Awesomeawesomeawesome movie.

Not to hijack this thread but this comment intrigues me. My impression was that Sin City was very "special effects heavy". And you had just recently commented that you didn't like Sky Captain because it was (IIRC) "too special effects heavy".

I find that interesting, though if you'd rather not comment on it here then I understand.

In any event, I'm not currently wearing a coat so I feel relatively safe from Pielorinho.