Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2151717" data-attributes="member: 27012">In theory, yes.  In practice, you can't always have both because Lawful means are indifferent to Good and Evil ends, much as Chaotic means are indifferent to Good and Evil ends.  As such, both strongly Lawful and strongly Chaotic means can be used for Evil ends as well as Good ends.  For example, a Paladin might swear an oath that prevents them from doing something Good down the road.  Yes, you can legitimately argue that such situations can be an opportunity for good role-playing and drama, there will be situations where the choice is binary -- e.g., stay true to your oath or let hundreds of people die.  Torture the bad guy to try to find out how to stop his doomsday device that will destroy the world or let the world be destroyed.  How does a paladin resolve such situations and how does choosing the Lawful part not sacrifice the Good part?By the way, there are plenty of more subtle real-world examples but I don't want to start a political debate.  Let's just say that it's been my experience with real-life political positions that it's not always possible to square one's desired means with one's desired ends and that leaves you with a choice.  Pick one at the expense of the other.So all of the societies in a quasi-Medieval fantasy game must abide by the modern American sense of justice, including trial by a jury of their peers, for them to be Lawful?  That's not really what ou are saying, is it?  And if Paladins don't make exceptions for their respect for life, why are they carrying swords around?That's plenty of maybes.  I suspect that the players interpreted the vets insistence on not talking, even while facing death, as a mark against the possibility that he'd ever atone.  Hmmm.  I now wonder if part of the problem here is that the GM, by doing the "name, rank, and serial number" thing, didn't expect the PCs to go through with their threats and was really surprised when they did.  Would the NPC had reacted differently if the GM (and NPC) took their threat smore seriously and knew they would go through with it?In the real world, I'd agree with you on this.  But most role-playing games are all about vigiliante justice.  And vigilante justice is all about saying that the PCs know better than someone else what should happen.  If that's not the case, then the GM should familiarize the players with the organization that their PCs belong to and where their authority begins and ends.He refused to take the out that was offered to him and ignored the ultimatum.  They didn't slit his throat for giving his name, rank, and serial number, nor did they slit his throat without warning.  Basically, he called their bluff and they weren't bluffing.  Was that Good?  No.  Was it Evil?  I think that's the question.I think the difference between murder and a legitimate execution is whether the PCs had the moral and/or legal authority to play judge, jury, and executioner.  I don't think the modern world provides a very good guide for how these moral issues play out in a fantasy role-playing setting.  Try running around in the real world with some armor and a sword righting wrongs and slaying bad people who fight back and see how long it takes you to get locked up.  Most role-playing heroes are vigilantes, whether we call them that or not.  These vigilantes already take the law into their own hand.  The question is whether that moral authority extends to executions or not.  And I think that will depend on the setting and specific situation.  But I think there is plenty of room for differing opinions there.I think that this, too, depends on the setting and situation.  What about a setting that doesn't have "justificators" or formal trials by jury?  What about operations behind enemy lines?  Is a Lawful Good character obliged to give an Evil Overlord over to a LN court in a LN nation and then be forced to suck it up if the verdict is "innocent" on a technicality and the LN society protects against double jeopardy?  Why does a holy warrior, enabled by their deity to fight Evil, have to defer to someone else to administer justice?That's not how I read CG at all.  In fact, I see chaotic characters as favoring vigilante justice even more over the formal sort.And that's fine, if being "brought before our leaders" is the process for that society.  I don't think it has to be.  Judge Dredd seems pretty LN to me and he is the judge, jury, and executioner all in one package.  I'd have no problem with you playing your character like that, if that's the outlook of your Paladin and his organization.  I simply don't think that's the only way to play it.  Can paladins execute the bad guys in the field if they are not cooperating?  I can imagine many situations where I think a reasonable answer is, "yes".</blockquote>

Verification