Results 31 to 60 of 108
-
2012-11-17, 11:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Xin-Shalast
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
They are if they're the source of the problem and I believe that to be the case here. If he'd just cut the goblin down in a reasonable amount of time we wouldn't be here.
If your poor rolls are consistent enough and bad enough then you shouldn't be playing a class or build that depends upon rolling and should instead be the one forcing others to roll.
That and if he's not good enough at grappling to kill something he's got outclassed in a grapple in a timely manner, it should really make him rethink his build because he's not going to always outclass his opponents like that.
-
2012-11-17, 11:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
From what I see of the situation, the paladin did nothing but walk over and start a fight without warning, while his teammate was attempting to negotiate.
Furthermore, not only did he start a fight, but he started a fight with a group that seems to have had a legitimate grievance, not one who's trying to waylay the party for any nefarious means. There's no indication that that goblin party was evil, especially in a world that is described as "Having concrete Good and Evil, but by and large the species aligned with Evil are only doing so because it's how they were raised and can be redeemed".
Furthermore, the idea that "killing Evil people is not an evil act" is simplistic in the extreme. It's basically saying that people who detect as Evil do not have the right to live. Which, in a D&D cosmology that is pretty much predicated on the existence of both good and evil, is pretty definitively not true.
Personally, in my game the Paladin likely wouldn't have fallen immediately, but he'd know that this is not acceptable behavior for a Paladin, and might be hit with some penalty the next time he attempted to use one of his class features. I don't like doing immediate falls unless it's a grossly evil act, and while I think this particular one was fairly repugnant, it was a situation in which combat was very likely, and it was a situation in which his opponent likely would have tried to kill him or his friends in the future. But Paladins are not about taking the easy way out, in my mind, at least.
-
2012-11-18, 03:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Amsterdam
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
I think the discussion here on whether what he did was evil or necessary proves that you shouldn't simply impose an external morality, because some players are bound to disagree. But you should discuss the morality in the group, and make sure the Paladin engages with that issue. No matter how you turn it, a Paladin has to engage the issue of morality. You can't simply be completely amoral (which is probably the default behaviour of adventurers). And saying it's necessary in order to meet your strategic goals is amoral.
-
2012-11-18, 04:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
We not only don't, but can't know if the goblin's lingering death was because of average-ish rolls not being good enough, or if it was simply an anomolous string of low rolls. Monk and paladin both get a bum rap around this forum, not because they're completely incapable, but because, barring serious optimization, many other classes outperform them in their typical roles. I also think the fact he chose to fluff his grapple checks to do damage as a choke-hold may have a bit to do with why this thread was started.
I never said killing evil creatures was never evil. I will however, repeat the actual alignment system rule; killing an evil creature to prevent further acts of evil is not an inherently evil act, it's morally neutral at best.
There's a huge difference between an act approved by good and an act that's simply accepted by good. The former would be called a good act and the latter a neutral act.
The goblin's death was acceptable, though not laudable, because the paladin acted in self-defense. Evil or not, that goblin was almost certainly there for blood, unless the OP's DM has written an entirely different culture around the goblinoid races. He could've spared the creature, sure. It might even have been a good act if he had, but it also likely would've opened him and the rest of the party up to later attempts at repraisal. Even if the goblin wasn't evil, this is true.
Like I said before, it's not fall worthy, IMO, because though it certainly wasn't a good act, it almost certainly wasn't an evil act either. The paladin's code requires that he never do evil, not that he must only do good.
One of the biggest hurdles the alignment system runs into, IME, is that people get into a binary mindset; either an act is good or its evil. The alignment system has three bands on that scale though, not two. Not only can an act can be neither good nor evil, most acts don't inherently fall into either category. You combine this with people making rulings based on actual morality rather than the game's morality rules and you get into all kinds of unpleasant discussions. The fact that morality is such an emotionally charged subject doesn't help matters either.Last edited by Kelb_Panthera; 2012-11-18 at 04:06 AM.
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign
Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle
-
2012-11-18, 04:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
-
2012-11-18, 09:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
- Half past Crazy
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
You want to talk about the system, alright. Let me go grab the book (of Exalted Deeds)... One of the traits outright stated as a marker of good is mercy.
No contest here, acts can fit any of the 9 slots or anywhere in between.
Wrong! It was self-defence right up until the moment the goblin hit 0 hit points. Now then, I know death happens, and I'm not saying that killing your foe in battle is an evil act in and of itself. But, I am saying killing someone after you have knocked them out (i.e. removed them from the battle), that is CE.
In conclusion, that Paladin should have a fall on the way, or a warning from their god at the least.
No contest here, as before. I just say the act in question falls into evil.
-
2012-11-18, 09:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Originally Posted by qwertyu63
-
2012-11-18, 09:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
- Half past Crazy
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
True, but Paladins are supposed to be morally above others anyway, so I thought it fit. I know not everyone uses the book, but it's what I had to read from, c'est la vie.
Really, the act a normal player would ever do that I consider evil enough to ping on the evil-o-meter is "Killing a defenseless sentient", and the Paladin in question is guilty as charged. (Please note, I do have other acts that ping, but most players don't go near them, as they are even more clearly evil and can't really be discussed here.)
-
2012-11-18, 10:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NY, USA
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
The BoED isn't that great, but it gets a lot more hate than it really deserves. There really isn't anything new about the idea that Good characters are expected to show a reasonable amount of mercy to their enemies, and that section (like most of the BoED) is not specifically for Exalted characters but describes Good in general.
Now does that mean your CG Ranger with Favored Enemy Goblinoid is going to get kicked down to Neutral for killing a few surrendering Gobos? No, of course not; Good characters can commit occasional Evil acts without an alignment check, as long as their overall behavior is consistent with the ideals of Good. The Paladin, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard as a living ideal of Lawful Good behavior and would likely fall for the same behavior.
-
2012-11-18, 10:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
It all comes down to the nature of goblins really. If goblins are irredeemably evil, then you are basically dealing with something on the level of a talking animal. Yes, they can use tools and hold a conversation, but attempts at punishment or imposing justice are as futile on them as they are on a pack of wolves or tigers or rabbits.
The morality of killing it in this scenario registers on the same level as killing a helpless animal, which means you measure it by the effect it has on the person committing/witnessing the act, rather than the effect it has on the goblin itself. This was a clean kill, no undue suffering on the part of the goblin that might disturb other party members or inure the paladin to the suffering he causes, so a neutral act.
If, as you stated before, there is nothing that is irredeemably evil in this campaign, and evil is instead a choice, then justice could be imposed on the goblin. As the goblin was helpless, he was not an imminent threat to the party and was at the paladin's mercy. The moral nature of the goblin and the circumstances of its death makes this murder. Paladin falls.
-
2012-11-18, 10:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
-
2012-11-18, 11:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NY, USA
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Goblins (and other Goblinoids, and Orcs, and Kobolds, and...) are Often Evil; in the terminology of D&D 3.5 that means that ~45% of their population is Evil, and it outright states that culture and religion are the key factors in that. DMs are free to change that, like any other rule, but it should be clearly indicated and Players are to assume RAW (within sensible limits).
Surrendering Goblins are, by RAW, entitled to the same degree of mercy you'd show anyone else. Killing them is an Evil act, and thus if a Paladin kills them they're looking at a potential fall. Anyone else, I'd say cut them a break, but Pallies are supposed to be above that.
-
2012-11-18, 11:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
-
2012-11-18, 11:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
We not only don't, but can't know if the goblin's lingering death was because of average-ish rolls not being good enough, or if it was simply an anomolous string of low rolls.
The lingering death was due to minimum damage being rolled over 3-4 rounds*.
We use hit locations for narrative fluff, and he originally rolled a head. I believe, according to the Paladin's player's description, he was attempting a head lock/death by noogie - basically, grappling and doing damage to the head/head area.
It should probably be noted that the well quipped Goblin had 2 character levels*
Goblins (and other Goblinoids, and Orcs, and Kobolds, and...) are Often Evil; in the terminology of D&D 3.5 that means that ~45% of their population is Evil, and it outright states that culture and religion are the key factors in that.
To my mind, that would make the 'Good' character who slays all Goblins because they're 'Evil' the exception, one working on a gross assumption.
However, we could argue that all the non-Evil goblins aren't likely to be the one's out mugging adventures.
Kinda like humans I guess..
Still again, context trumps all.
SpoilerThanks all for the input - lots to think about. Personally I agree with the sentiment that, once the Goblin had been rendered unconscious, snapping its neck, in the face of appeals from other party members, was not GOOD, but not likely to cause an instant fall.
Instead, a possible continuation of a slow and slippery fall into EVIL.
Caps GOOD and EVIL represent ideals, personified and presented within the campaign. Personal alignment can be rationalised endlessly - it's all about who/what's attention you're attracting and the consequences of such attention.
Characters can seemingly argue what constitutes 'Good' to GOOD at their leisure. Characters arguing what constitutes 'Evil' to EVIL are likely to end horribly horribly.. ..dead'ed.
Last edited by O.L.Scudmungus; 2012-11-18 at 11:55 AM.
-
2012-11-18, 12:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Orcs are Often Chaotic Evil- which means less than 50% are Chaotic Evil. However, an unknown proportion of the remainder will be Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil, and we cannot know for sure how many are Not Evil. One of the later MMs- I think MMIV- does say that the most common alignment after CE is CN- so the proportion that are Not Evil may actually be quite high.
Goblins, by contrast, are Usually Neutral Evil- which means that more than 50% will be Neutral Evil, and an unknown amount will be the other alignments.
In both of these cases, "culture" may play as much, or more, a part, than "inborn tendencies".
BoED does suggest that killing prisoners is inappropriate for Good characters- but it also states that Execution does not qualify as evil- so a case can be made that if the character has "the power to condemn"- then they may judge the victim, impose a death penalty if appropriate, and carry it out, without violating the normal principle of Not Killing Prisoners.Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2012-11-18, 12:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- Virginia Beach VA
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Junior, half orc paladin of the Order of St Dale the Intimidator: "Ah cain't abide no murderin' scoundrel."
Tactical Precepts: 1) Cause chaos, then exploit it; 2) No plan survives contact with...(sigh)...my subordinates.
-
2012-11-18, 01:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
-
2012-11-18, 04:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Lone Star-ville
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
"I drank what?"
--Socrates
-
2012-11-18, 04:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Not having the book, does it suggest that Execution, capital E, is a formal process?
I can see a good case being made for Execution, as punishment metered out by a ruling body, to be 'not EVIL' - possibly not GOOD, but still, far more tolerable* than a simply 'killing', at least to a society so 'civilised' by said ruling body.
Granted, it would also reveal insight into the writers influences.
*for a given value of 'tolerable'.
Last edited by O.L.Scudmungus; 2012-11-18 at 04:40 PM.
-
2012-11-18, 04:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Xin-Shalast
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
If it's a string of low damage rolls it should give the man pause to consider how he'd have still managed to kill it more quickly if he'd been using a suitable weapon and been rolling low on damage with it.
If it were a case of average rolls not being good enough, then that's a teachable moment for him to learn how to build a character that's not rubbish at its job. Because, seriously, if you're doing about what you should and you're not performing at a certain baseline level of competence, that's not fun unless one is out to play an incompetent character, which is a bit rude to do without consulting with one's fellows.
-
2012-11-18, 05:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
OP clarified that it was in fact an anomolous string of "minimum" rolls. This goblin's lingering death was just bad luck.
As for the whole, "once he was unconcious he was a prisoner" nonsense, the goblin was at negative hit-points and dying since the monk had been making grapple checks for lethal damage. Snapping his neck prevented him from spending up to a minute bleeding internally before dying at best, or possibly days of exposure to the elements and predators if he'd had the misfortune to make a stabalization roll. The coup de grace was a mercy, if anything, not an execution of a helpless prisoner.
The player's (or perhaps even the OP's) choice to describe it as choking the goblin is causing some confusion here.I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign
Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle
-
2012-11-18, 05:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Xin-Shalast
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
-
2012-11-18, 07:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
IHS "Paladin CoC". problem solved.
(sorry, I just discovered Iron Heart Surge last night I it's my favorite poorly worded thing ever :)
-
2012-11-18, 07:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Grappling can run into problems if the DM likes to use as much of the massive variety of opponents that are availabe as he can reasonably explain, but in a campaign with an emphasis on interactions between humanoids, something an emphasis on morality certainly suggests IMO, it can be quite a powerful option.
Again, we have too little to go on to make heads or tails of whether this is, or is not, a poor choice.
As for the "choking" thing; this whole thread probably would've been much clearer (if it came up at all) had the player or OP fluffed the attack as cranking the neck until it snapped instead, or if the player hadn't been pidgeonholed, by an unnecessary roll of the dice, into fluffing the grapple checks for damage as an attack on the creature's head.
The goblin could've been making quite a fuss (making the unfortunate discussion with the crusader difficult or impossible, since the monk could've claimed "I couldn't hear you over his goblinoid curses in my ears") or even offered a surrender instead of just gagging until it went limp.I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign
Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle
-
2012-11-18, 08:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
-
2012-11-18, 09:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
The Paladin initiated combat with a group of people who were negotiating with the Crusader. He "challenged" the goblin to single combat by grabbing it in the middle of a conversation, choked it unconscious and snapped it's neck. All because the goblin had accused the party of murder and may have sought it's own brand of "justice" if the Crusader failed negotiations.
We don't have any information about how any negotiations that were dealt with, were going. The Paladin attacked during parley a Chaotic act and killed his "opponent" who so far hasn't been revealed as attacking. It was self defence up until the point where the Paladin decided he'd rather people fight and die, than talk.
Party walks into a city and find a group of goblins sleeping nearby, said goblins have set themselves up as traders, are armed and there are children there. Pally kills them all because, well, they're goblins and we know goblins are evil, right? Young uns would only grow up and be evil goblins, so best prevent them from ever doing more evil than they may have already.
No problem here.
Nothing was mentioned about whether the group of goblins the party encountered were actually evil. Killing a group of people because they may be evil and may commit evil acts, is at worst, Neutral?
-
2012-11-18, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Show me where the op said this, exactly.
All I remember reading is that the goblin said he was there because someone in the party killed his brother. I don't remember the crusader saying a thing until after combat was already begun. I do remember the OP saying that the paladin issued his challenge as he was taking his first shot, but for all we know he took that first shot because the DM called for innitiative and he won. Short of the OP giving us a much more explicit description of events, we don't know how exactly it went down.
We don't have any information about how any negotiations that were dealt with, were going. The Paladin attacked during parley a Chaotic act and killed his "opponent" who so far hasn't been revealed as attacking. It was self defence up until the point where the Paladin decided he'd rather people fight and die, than talk.
Party walks into a city and find a group of goblins sleeping nearby, said goblins have set themselves up as traders, are armed and there are children there. Pally kills them all because, well, they're goblins and we know goblins are evil, right? Young uns would only grow up and be evil goblins, so best prevent them from ever doing more evil than they may have already.
No problem here.
Nothing was mentioned about whether the group of goblins the party encountered were actually evil. Killing a group of people because they may be evil and may commit evil acts, is at worst, Neutral?
We're both making assumptions here. If there was an actual parley, then I'll happily concede that you're right. If there wasn't then what I've said holds. Until the OP gives us a clearer picture, we're a couple of schroedinger's cats.I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign
Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle
-
2012-11-19, 08:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
Honestly, ya'll have provided more than enough feedback and have really helped produce some insight into the situation, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm done here.
For final clarification sake: Yes, the Paladin started the fight, in as much as he walked up to the leader of the Goblins and attempted to strike it.
Of course, having a pretty shocking BAB, the Paladin/Monk missed - which he then claimed later wasn't an aggressive act, because he would have appeared 'unarmed' and failed to connect with the strike.
SO YES....
thanks all.
-
2012-11-19, 10:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.
It could be argued in that situation I created, however, that the goblins were preparing for some evil act and that it is better to kill the children while they're young, so they don't grow up to be evil, or plot some revenge for their evil kin.
Scorched earth is a very effective strategy for dealing with evil, when there's no life or even undead, can there really be any evil?
So here we go, the thread isn't about a Paladin, it's about Miko Miyazaki as a player. Someone who appears to believe playing as a Paladin, makes everything they do, both Lawful and Good. As evidenced by this little gem.
So, the same city, with the same goblin traders and children. Pally walks in and starts making a lot of noise about how they're "evil goblins" and he's going to kill them all. Traders pick up their weapons to defend themselves and Pally kills them all saying it was self defence because they were armed.
Both situations are more similar than they appear. Both involve goblins who are usually Evil. In both cases the Paladin starts the fight, unprovoked. The Paladin kills a defenceless sentient in both scenarios. And the Paladin's justification is pathetic, marginally better than "it's Lawful and Good because I'm a Paladin, and Paladins are Lawful Good."
O.L.Scudmungus, I want to know this Paladin's future. His fall, the actions that lead to the fall and his eventual destruction. Could you please update me about any future adventures?
-
2012-11-19, 11:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012