Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Henry]

Bear in mind that the average adventuring party have a brigand-ish look to them, and spend a lot of time wandering in the lawless parts of the world. That being the case, would a wandering Paladin be justified in ambushing your PCs as they travel on their way to the dungeon?

If they radiated evil, or he had it on good authority that we were planning to go burn down a village of innocents, then sure!

But then, we wouldn't be called "adventurers." WE might call us that, but the more accurate term is, "damned bandits!"

EDIT: That's also a great plot hook, the Paladin squad who attacks you because an enemy doctored you up with a phoney evil aura and tipped off the Paladins to where you'd be.

 

[Storyteller01]

Granted, but that's not the issue being discussed. No one's saying 'graar, there's one evil guy in the inn - kill everyone inside'.

I think we're going to have to renew the analogy if we want to keep on using it. It's getting stretched nearly to the point of snapping.

Agreed. But the original statement from RC was that folks who associate with evil people know what they got into, and that it was justifaction for killing them. They knew the risk ahead of time. Personally, I don't agree...

Nitpick:

Murder is by definition unlawful killing. Thus a state execution isn't murder, a police sniper performing their function isn't murder, and so on. Killing, but not murder. You're right on the last resort issue, but they arn't murderers.

Very well then. We agree that it is a premeditated act used after other options fail.

 

[Storyteller01]

EDIT: That's also a great plot hook, the Paladin squad who attacks you because an enemy doctored you up with a phoney evil aura and tipped off the Paladins to where you'd be.

Or because the rogue in the group is Neutral evil. The other players must be charmed or just ignorant, and must be saved from themselves.

 

[Rel]

Storyteller, let me ask you this:

Is it your contention that this is just how you run your games and you think it is reasonable to run them that way but everybody else is welcome to do as they like? Or is it your contention that the rest of us are playing the game wrong and need to be shown the correct way?

 

[delericho]

If they radiated evil, or he had it on good authority that we were planning to go burn down a village of innocents, then sure!

and

EDIT: That's also a great plot hook, the Paladin squad who attacks you because an enemy doctored you up with a phoney evil aura and tipped off the Paladins to where you'd be.

I'm confused. How can these two go together? If it's possible for the aura to be faked (as, indeed, it is) how can the aura indicating evil in and of itself be sufficient justification for the ambush?

(I should note that, to me, the word 'ambush' suggests that the paladin is intent on putting an end to this menace, not merely capturing them for interrogation and/or trial and execution. Furthermore, since I don't expect any successful paladins to ambush a group unless they feel they have a reasonable chance of success. And, since we're dealing with armed groups in the lawless places of the world, once battle is drawn, so I expect the encounter to end with fatalities on one or both sides. As such, if the paladin is mistaken, the forces of Good have just either lost a valuable if misguided Paladin, or they have lost a party of capable if rough-looking adventurers. Which doesn't strike me as ideal.)

The thing that really bugs me about this whole notion of ambushing groups of bandit-ish looking folks, is that it sounds distinctly like a 'walking while black' situation, which is surely not a paladin-like attitude.

 

[Storyteller01]

Certainly not. It's the good old days where characters where Good, and went out and kicked Evil's butt because it was there, and it was the right thing to do. All of this modern moralizing about good vs. evil is missing the point of D&D in large part, IMO.

Feel free to play it as you wish, of course, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

I have no problem with kicking evil's butt. It should be kicked, to warn others. But I'm not so sure instant death applies for everyone with an evil alignment. I also believe that, with the resources available, a paladin should consider that before taking a swing.

 

[Storyteller01]

Storyteller, let me ask you this:

Is it your contention that this is just how you run your games and you think it is reasonable to run them that way but everybody else is welcome to do as they like? Or is it your contention that the rest of us are playing the game wrong and need to be shown the correct way?

It's my contention that I play as I do, and the rest of you are welcome to play as you wish. I stated an opinion (that I preferred Dragon Star's rule of 'the law of active morality'), which was questioned (should all paladin's start being CSI's) and grew into this. Probably shouldn't have, but mesaage boards being what they are...

 

[Desdichado]

I have no problem with kicking evil's butt. It should be kicked, to warn others. But I'm not so sure instant death applies for everyone with an evil alignment. I also believe that, with the resources available, a paladin should consider that before taking a swing.

Well, like I said, this type of modern morality is NOT the reason why a lot of people play D&D (with your username, maybe I should not be surprised to be having this conversation, though.)

D&D has typically been a game of heroic action where the good guys and bad guys had the equivalent of white hats and black hats and the white hats were always justified in killing the black hats because they had black hats on.

So, I see where you're coming from, but I hope you realize that 1) a very significant portion of the D&D player base is NOT coming from there, and 2) absolutely defining good and evil is a hopeless prospect anyways, so the best you can hope to accomplish is to have some broad agreement within your group about how to interpret things like the paladin code.

Coming here and stating absolutely how a paladin should behave is probably the most useless course of action I can think of. Stating how you'd like to run or GM a paladin is a good discussion point, but all you're doing is putting everyone's back up with your absolutist statements that really reek of One True Way-ism.

 

[Rel]

It's my contention that I play as I do, and the rest of you are welcome to play as you wish. I stated an opinion (that I preferred Dragon Star's rule of 'the law of active morality'), which was questioned (should all paladin's start being CSI's) and grew into this. Probably shouldn't have, but mesaage boards being what they are...

Ok. We're fine then. Enjoy your game in the manner you enjoy.

 

[Henry]

I'm confused. How can these two go together? If it's possible for the aura to be faked (as, indeed, it is) how can the aura indicating evil in and of itself be sufficient justification for the ambush?

...The thing that really bugs me about this whole notion of ambushing groups of bandit-ish looking folks, is that it sounds distinctly like a 'walking while black' situation, which is surely not a paladin-like attitude.

The difference is that I don't intend to present my players with situations that will have them tied up in moral conundrums for hours. If they wander across a scruffy group that radiates evil, it's because they've just raped and plundered a village, not because they've been cheating the village's merchants. Consequently, if a paladin group jumps them for "being evil", then they'll more than likely have to a chance to hold off the paladins long enough to parlay with them and get them to stop seeing red for a second long enough to figure out what's going on.

Like Rel, for me, being evil is not a grey situation, it's pretty cut and dried, because I don't care to make my players jump through the same hoops as a policeman. In real life, I'm all for due process, trial by jury, amassing proof, etc. But in my games, both the good guys AND the bad guys know they stand opposed to one another, even, if they don't call themselves "good" and "bad."

EDIT: In my games, "walking while black" means walking with your vile showing.