New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 108
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Banned
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sydnah, Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    I'm going to chime in here, as someone who plays Paladins and who has, y'know, actually read the Alignment section in the PHB (surprising numbers of people get it wrong).


    Good, Evil, and Neutral are very specifically defined in the PHB.

    The paladin's action in interrupting a negotiation to avoid violence was either Evil or Neutral. If he was doing it to create bloodshed or out of a belief that 'all goblins should be dead', then that was Evil. If it was because he thought it was going nowhere, then that's Neutral, but is shading towards Evil. Ditto for if he was angry or impatient. It was also not Lawful, and could very easily be read as Chaotic, especially since he gave no warning whatsoever.

    The paladin's action in killing the unconscious goblin could be read as Neutral, but was probably Evil, given that he had not attempted to find out why the goblin had confronted him, that a party member had asked him to stop, and that there was a good reason to take him prisoner (find out things about goblins in the area).

    As for the 'challenge' thing - unless he has a specific code of honour that allows that, it's crap. Challenges need to be made BEFORE you fight someone under any western or eastern code of chivalry. Shouting out a challenge during the fight after a sneak attack is dishonourable under nearly every chivalric code ever created by humans. Challenges are also not necessarily to the death. That kind of 'must be to the death' thing is actually much much more up Hextor's alley (Lawful Evil god of battle, most common god of Blackguards and Paladins of Tyranny) than Heironyous' (LG Paladin God, probably the god you were referring to earlier).


    Sounds like this guy is playing a psychotic murderer who thinks of himself as the good guy. Thinking of yourself as the good guy isn't actually enough to be Good. In fact, most Evil people think they are actually doing the right thing. At this point i'd be either talking to the player about it, or his paladin would fall fairly fast.

  2. - Top - End - #62

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Rejakor View Post
    I'm going to chime in here, as someone who plays Paladins and who has, y'know, actually read the Alignment section in the PHB (surprising numbers of people get it wrong).


    Good, Evil, and Neutral are very specifically defined in the PHB.

    The paladin's action in interrupting a negotiation to avoid violence was either Evil or Neutral. If he was doing it to create bloodshed or out of a belief that 'all goblins should be dead', then that was Evil. If it was because he thought it was going nowhere, then that's Neutral, but is shading towards Evil. Ditto for if he was angry or impatient. It was also not Lawful, and could very easily be read as Chaotic, especially since he gave no warning whatsoever.

    The paladin's action in killing the unconscious goblin could be read as Neutral, but was probably Evil, given that he had not attempted to find out why the goblin had confronted him, that a party member had asked him to stop, and that there was a good reason to take him prisoner (find out things about goblins in the area).

    As for the 'challenge' thing - unless he has a specific code of honour that allows that, it's crap. Challenges need to be made BEFORE you fight someone under any western or eastern code of chivalry. Shouting out a challenge during the fight after a sneak attack is dishonourable under nearly every chivalric code ever created by humans. Challenges are also not necessarily to the death. That kind of 'must be to the death' thing is actually much much more up Hextor's alley (Lawful Evil god of battle, most common god of Blackguards and Paladins of Tyranny) than Heironyous' (LG Paladin God, probably the god you were referring to earlier).


    Sounds like this guy is playing a psychotic murderer who thinks of himself as the good guy. Thinking of yourself as the good guy isn't actually enough to be Good. In fact, most Evil people think they are actually doing the right thing. At this point i'd be either talking to the player about it, or his paladin would fall fairly fast.


    I would sig this whole thing if I could. That's beautiful man, I think I have something in my eye.

    That challenge appears to be the kind of thing Drow would do in most settings. They have the kind of culture where issuing a challenge to someone via a knife to the back, is acceptable under their code of honour.

    What should we be calling Miko's character anyway?
    Last edited by Threadnaught; 2012-11-19 at 01:14 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Xin-Shalast
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Threadnaught View Post
    That challenge appears to be the kind of thing Drow would do in most settings. They have the kind of culture where issuing a challenge to someone via a knife to the back, is acceptable under their code of honour.
    And the drow are famous for their lack of honor and inability to have a society save for by the constant intervention of their deity and authorial fiat. Definitely not paladiny role models, haha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Threadnaught View Post
    What should we be calling Miko's character anyway?
    A dead horse.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Banned
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sydnah, Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Actually, Drow work mostly by enlightened self interest and lower classes that have that indefinable minion quality - following orders even when it seems like it will end badly for them (actually makes sense evolutionarily).

    That enables them to have upper classes with a constant selection pressure due to backbiting and infighting, which ends up with a race that is simply alright at trade, agriculture, science and warfare, but immensely talented at intrigue, diplomacy, stealth work, deception, and being on a war-footing all the time forever.


    This kind of society, of which there are many real-world examples, is actually really well suited for DnD. Not only would many Drow be quite individually powerful (not overly so, like elves, because too-powerful drow either ascend relatively quickly or get ganged up on - the ganging up either works, or it levels the drow so fast they go planar - none of this '5 or so archmages and everyone else is a ranger' crap the elves do), more importantly, their nobility would have a HUGE amount of institutional knowledge of techniques that work to defeat foes (usually other nobles, but quickly applicable to any outside threat) to an extent that non-infighting nations would not have - knowledge like that is an IMMENSE force multiplier.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    I was under the impression that Paladins were supposed to show mercy to their foes, especially if they are already unconscious. Even if the DM uses a system where Good and Evil are real forces, by the specifications of the alignment system itself, any creature that is not "Always X Alignment" is redeemable, and thus should be treated with a (reasonable) amount of mercy. So unless this guy was a noted Blackguard in his tribe, he qualifies.
    As for the lawful justification, this gets heard a lot, and is mostly bull. A Paladin must maintain BOTH aspects of their alignment, because as soon as you start sacrificing one for the other, the other starts becoming neutral (and possible chaotic/evil) (and thus at the least should be seeking an atonement spell). Fine, maybe the goblin did not ask for mercy (he was being strangled, so he really couldn't, but whatever, we'll go with it), but at the point that he goes unconscious, he is a captive under your power, and you do not generally remorselessly execute captives if you are lawful good, and certainly not if you are a Paladin. Fine, he challenged him to solo combat. But we have two caveats: first, I'm guessing the goblin didn't accept, since you describe him challenging him the moment he hit him. Since he did not accept, there is no contract. So maybe he took an oath, but if the Paladin is that flippant with oaths, than that speaks more to a chaotic individual than a lawful one, since a lawful one would theoretically regard oaths as having more weight to them than "an excuse to kill captives". Let's say the goblin did accept however. Fine, he challenged him to solo combat. Unless, however, he challenged him to a fight to the death, the fact that he rendered him unconscious means he defeated him, rendering the oath/challenge completed, meaning he now has a captive that he can't kill "just because". One might argue that maybe it was a fight to the death, or the Paladin assumed that was implied or some such, but that wasn't the reason the Paladin gave. He just said that he was fulfilling the challenge, and to leave him alive would be "stupid", and this is the crux of the issue, which is a pragmatic consideration, not an ethical one. Being a Paladin, hell often being a monk, means that you are not taking an action simply because it is the pragmatic thing to do, else you are no different than any other sell sword. It is about weighing what is ethical at least on par, if not before, what is strictly pragmatic. And this is really the killer here, since it means that, whether the specific action could be debatably moral or not, the Paladin was doing it for reasons that are both unjust and amoral, the antithesis of what it means to be a Paladin.

    Note: This is not to say that a Paladin cannot be fairly pragmatic, indeed it is imperative that they do so. But they need to weigh it with the moral and ethical implications of their actions. And it is clear that this one didn't.
    "If your heart is fearful throw away fear; if there is terror in it throw away terror. Take your axe in your hand and attack. He who leaves the fight unfinished is not at peace." -The Epic of Gilgamesh

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    In this particular circumstance, the moment the goblin goes unconcious, he's between -1 and -9 hit-points and dying. The paladin was making grapple checks for lethal damage. He or one of his allies would've had to take an action of some sort to -not- kill the goblin at that point.

    If they had just walked away at that point the goblin would've had a very slim chance of surviving. More than likely though, it would've bled out in under a minute. Somewhat less likely, but still more likely than a full recovery, it would've lain there on the ground for a while after making a stabalization check, then been eaten by a random encounter. Less likely still, it would've laid there for days before a random encounter got him.

    What you're saying amounts to "if a paladin drops a foe, but doesn't outright kill it, he must give it first aid and take it prisoner." This is completely unreasonable. Doing so in this case would've been a Good (note the capital G) thing to do, but choosing not to wasn't evil and the coup-de-grace could be construed as merciful.

    After the OP's last response initiating the combat is looking more suspect, but the coup-de-grace at the end wasn't the problem here if there was one.

    As for maintaining both aspects of his alignment, yes a paladin must remain both lawful and good, however he is not forbidden from committing chaotic acts. He has to watch himself to make sure he doesn't perform too many and slip into a NG alignment, but that's all. Evil acts are the only explicit auto-fall. The rest of the code is a bit more subjective, as what constitutes honorable behavior is dependent on the culture the paladin comes from and what constitutes legitimate authority is almost entirely a personal call for the paladin unless he belongs to an order that recognizes certain authorities.

    @ the OP:

    I'm no longer certain the paladin's actions were entirely kosher. When you say he instigated the fight, what exactly were the events leading up to it, if you don't mind my asking?

    Clearly the goblin made his identity known, but did he say or do anything that could be construed as a threat? Did the paladin run his evil-dar over the goblins? (note that while pinging evil isn't enough by itself, combining an evil alignment with an opponent that's almost certainly there for vengeance is probably a pass.)

    As has been noted previously, the paladin's motivation for his actions is important to determining the alignment of his actions.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post

    Even if it will save the world, you can't kill a defenseless avatar of evil?! You can to wait till it ascends to full power and destroys the world?

    At what point does a evil creature become immune to being killed without it being an evil act?
    This is my all time favorite part of morality, the point that it would not be evil is the point you are willing to sacrifice your own morality full knowing the consiquences that you cant bring yourself not to kill it.

    If the avatar of evil is so vile that the world will be destroyed and no force could redeam it or seal it away or no posible solution and your standing there blade in hand, is your morality your power your honor, worth more than the world?

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yomega View Post
    This is my all time favorite part of morality, the point that it would not be evil is the point you are willing to sacrifice your own morality full knowing the consiquences that you cant bring yourself not to kill it.

    If the avatar of evil is so vile that the world will be destroyed and no force could redeam it or seal it away or no posible solution and your standing there blade in hand, is your morality your power your honor, worth more than the world?
    Actually, the alignment system, as written, gives you a pass on that. Destroying evil to prevent evil isn't evil. In a case such as that, it'd almost certainly get you a reward, not a punishment.

    There are very few absolute statements in BoED and BoVD. It's all guidlines that the authors (eroneously it seems) expected to be run through the filters of logic and reason.

    People making statements like yours are usually blaming the system for their own presumptions, probably for the dissonance between their own sense of morality and what's in the books I suspect. That or, worse, just repeating what they've heard without actually reading the actual materials closely. (Not that I'm accusing you of these things. They just seem to be the most common hiccups in these discussions, IMO.)

    As long as you just coup-de-grace the helpless "avatar of an evil elder god", instead of taking forever to beat it to death with a blunt stick you're golden.
    Last edited by Kelb_Panthera; 2012-11-20 at 05:50 AM.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    What if it had a speacial ability that the only way it could die was to be beaten to absolute death with a blunt stick?

    Haha but I agree killing evil isnt evil but when wrestling with morality the fact they dont know the gods judgment has alot to do with where I draw the line if he was certian this was the best option and danm with the conciquences than thats where I would open the gate that whatever he did wouldnt offend his god

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Dairuga's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Despite this thread being three-pages long already, I am going to chip in my platinum pieces here.

    The paladin, in essence, is supposed to be a Paragon of Virtue and Goodness. They are the single, main class with a Lawful Good restriction, and while it might be a bit of a strict adherence to the spirit of the character to claim that Paladins -should- therefor act as paragons of virtue and goodness, it is nevertheless a good way to define a paladin. Paladins are not supposed to be Fighters that get their CHA to all saves, and the ability to detect evil / Deal extra damage to evil. They are supposed to be those that upheld morals, honor, justice and righteousness. The restriction is there for a reason, even if everyone treats the rigidity of the restriction with some difference in malleability.

    Long story short; The paladin, if you play them traditionally, are supposed to be as Virtuous, Understanding, Good and Merciful as they come. This, of course, can be contested with our favourite Paladin, Miko. She was virtuous, if not clinging to the rigid works of her own laws. She smote evil, she upheld justice, she killed evil, and she would no doubt murder this Goblin herself if she had the choice. There is a reason she ended up falling, after all.

    However, your rules have -real- forces of Good and Evil, Capital G and E. This would serve to dampen some of the -needed- righteous behaviour, however. When you have beings of absolute good, Monsters of absolute Evil, then by proxy, killing Goblins would be considered a good act, wheras killing Good (Or secretly good) creatures or people, it would be considered an Evil act.

    Thus, it leaves you at a moral standpoint, on what to do. It seems that while your Chaotic Good crusader has some very good moral and ethical standpoints on what is good or not, your Paladin is striving to merely be efficient. But, was he really being efficient, in correlation to how Morally better he could have acted in the situation? The Crusader already pointed out -far- better options that the Paladin could have done. He could have given it a -chance-. He could have let it go, talked to it, told it "If you attack us, or try to run, you will forfeit your life. We are giving you a chance; we suggest you take it", or something akin to that, and if the goblin, as well-armed as he was, had done anything to break his chance given, it would be on his hands.

    As it stands now, I would say that your Paladin was doing something -horribly- wrong, his Required Conduct aside, merely speaking on a moral standpoint. If you -do- take the Required Code of Conduct into the equation, then the statement Required to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)", would very much show that this paladin was acting without honour at all.

    If you smite evil, you aim to kill it as quickly as possible. You give them a stroke of mercy, a finishing blow. Or you try to end its misery, or what have you; whatever reason you are fighting for. Choking something to death, slowly, over several minutes even, is -not- merciful, nor is it honourable. He might be fighting as best as he can, with Monk and Paladin levels, but nowhere did it say he could not leave the Goblin, give it one round to defend itself, prove it had a smidgen of good in it (Or at least, a smidgen of neutrality, enough to grant it some pardon). He killed the creature much like an assassin would, bluntly put.

    Now, just for humor's sake; let us crack open the Books of Exalted Deeds, and Books of Vile evil. Or for that matter, we might as well take a peak in the Fiendish Codex II. I know the prior two books gain a lot of bad reputation, and are not often used at tables, but for the sake of argument, let us keep an open mind to what they say. But for the sake of judging goodness, let us stick to the BoED for now. Yes, the BoED is teaching people on how to follow an "Exalted" path, which is far more virtuous and higher-restricted than normal Lawful good character, but it makes for a good example on how paragons of Morality and Justice should act, at least to some extent.

    It is already made clear by Raw, that Poisons are, to some extent, an evil act. Not truly evil, seen from a non-exalted point of view, because it is merely a means to an end. But, seen from an exalted point of view, it causes unnecessary pain. Poisons slowly cripple and wear away enemies, and can be seen as some form for torture, if applied correctly. By the same hand, choking someone to death, slowly, with people watching them as their life ebs away, is hardly killing someone with the least amount of pain. A slightly more moral option would, for example, be the paladin telling the Crusader to finish the goblin off.

    Now, for a little interesting tidbit. In the Fiendish codex II; It is listed a variety rule, called Corruption and Obeisance points. It is what devils deal with, to cause Lawful Good creatures to end up in one of the ventral planes upon death; Baator . The nine hells, more specifically, where the devils reside. If a lawful creature deals in corrupting acts, they end up in hell, no matter how law-abiding they are. Likewise, Evil characters whom fulfill the requirements of doing Obeisant acts, end up in Baator no matter how chaotic they might be, due to their lawful behavior.

    The next step, would then be to see if the Paladin's act could fall under one of such "Corrupting" acts, as described in the book. Do keep in mind, these are not any rules that are always in effect, and does not need to be used. But, for what they are worth, they give some handy references for what is considered bad or good. One particular of these corrupt acts, is "Perverting Justice for Personal gain". One can argue that this paladin is indeed perverting Justice for Personal gain. He claimed a monster was Evil, (Which he might have had a reason for, given the Tangible force of Evil spawning monsters and such), and proceeded to murder it, without giving it a chance for self-defense or proving that it had some shred of good in it. It was clear they were overpowering the monster, it was clear the goblin was not going to survive. In essence, he had won, but this Paladin wanted the goblin -dead-, and claimed that it was a just act, to kill this goblin.

    While it was, possibly, a lawful act to kill this goblin; if the goblin was in the Neutral territory as opposed to evil (Granted, unless he spent a round Detecting evil on it), then what he did was in no circumstance a "Good" act, and thus, it would warrant corruption points; thus pushing him towards Neutral territory as opposed to "Good". The issue about Hunters losing Neutrality for hunting down Neutral monsters is a valid counterargument to my statement; given that their lives -resolve- around hunting their chosen enemy, and that they should not be downright evil for killing what they have been trained to kill. But nevertheless, I do believe there to be a line between "Hunting quarry" and "murdering a sentient, thinking being whom was wanting revenge for his dead brother". Your alignment is determined by your actions, after all, not your class features.

    Furthermore, the Paladin claimed "He had challenged the Goblin to a single combat", but had he really? Did he step forward, give the goblin time to ready himself, and had a fair fight with him, as "Challenging someone to a fight" includes? If one is to say one challenged someone to combat, you could have a look at the Knight's rules for fighting fair, which a Paladin should -somewhat- adhere to, if they claim to challenge someone, to appear fair.

    The Paladin then goes on to say "Doing anything else would be stupid". Which is... a very un-paladin thing to say. Forces of good does sometime borderline Lawful-stupid, but being good does -not- equate being stupid, merely for giving the enemy a chance. Taking a strong enemy, beating them up, and then letting them go might be stupid. But there are a thousand of other ways that the encounter could have gone that would include neither killing, nor stupidity. To someone whom blatantly says "I do this my way, anything else is stupid", is clearly either not a team player, or merely a self-centered guy whom thinks they understand how the world works completely. Which, in hindsight, was what Miko was, to strike an example.

    He might think that "any other course of action" would be stupid, and while they are valid to him, the rest of the world might not agree. And when the universe, and the rest of the world, does not agree with his decisions, then it is usually not the Paladin that ends up being right. In other words, if he keeps acting that way, he would be well on his way to falling.

    The problem however, arises in the fact that the DM wants everyone to be happy, and ensure everyone has a good time. This is good, and making someone fall is as far from "having a good time" as one can have. Losing class features for acting in a way you think is cool is rather in bad taste. What he should do, however, is to have a talk with the Paladin, or impose a penalty of -some- sort for his acts. Perhaps have someone claim that he was... not very good. Have some people act repulsed by how he could behave in the way he did, or perhaps make the Goblin he killed carry some quasi-important role in the roleplay that required him to be alive, which is now too late, since the Paladin killed it.

    To summarize; being "Nice" does not need to be an -intrinsic- part of being "Good", but do keep in mind, most Bad-ass avenging holy-types ends up either falling, or becoming something else entirely. What he did, was more of bullying, than avenging; given that there was not much to -avenge- in the first place. It was an overpowering group of people, gathered around one piddly creature, and declared that it needed to die, more so than someone that worked for a holy purpose. There's a reason why The Punisher is Chaotic Good / Chaotic neutral.

    His actions, however, would possibly be more befitting of a Gray Guard, rather than a Paladin. The Gray Guard is a prestige class which progresses much the same as a Paladin does, with a bit more gritty and dark feel to it, and has some leniency in the code.

    At least, that's my opnion on the matter.

    ---------------------

    TL;DR - The paladin's actions were not entirely morally agreeable, and should perhaps warrant some sort of penalty in the form of roleplaying difficulties. A paladin that claims "Any method other than what I chose to do is stupid" is not a very good Paladin, and could be prone to earning the distrust of others.
    Last edited by Dairuga; 2012-11-20 at 06:37 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    When it comes to paladins and their lawful good code, I often like to think to what the current military training is in regards to the Geneva and other conventions regarding combat. These of course don't exist in the D&D universe, but they do here and for nations that agree to hold by the convention there can be some bad situations that arise that often feel like a paladin situation.

    For instance: The Australian army went on a peace keeping mission in East Timor a few years ago. East Timor was at the time a part of Indonesia, however they wanted independence. Being close to Australia, soldiers from our army were deployed there to rebuild infrastructure and keep the peace on the request of the fledgling nations leaders and with UN backing. During their deployment, guerrilla forces often attacked the Australians and East Timorese. One of the guerrillas tactics was to walk to a bunker with a grenade and throw it at the soldiers. They would then put their hands in the air and surrender.

    Even before the bomb explodes, by the conventions that the Australians ratified, the soldiers cannot shoot at the person who may have just killed their comrades. By surrendering he becomes a POW, and because he no longer posses a threat to the soldiers, even though he may have killed some of them, they cannot return fire.

    The Geneva convention, and the other less known ones, are the rules for engagement that provide the most humane solution to war. They may not always seem fair, but they are designed so that atrocities like the slow strangled death of a helpless goblin, don't happen. A Paladin should be merciful and honorable in combat. They should always create the most humane solution to war.

    Your paladin didn't follow his code. He should fall.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    @ the OP:

    I'm no longer certain the paladin's actions were entirely kosher. When you say he instigated the fight, what exactly were the events leading up to it, if you don't mind my asking?
    Leading up to the fight:

    The party were returning from collecting some essential.. guano.. when they were confronted by Well Equipped Goblins.

    While the Leader Goblin accused the party of murdering his brother, his minion Goblins began to fan out, attempting to surround the party. The Paladin didn't have time to check them for evil. The Paladin did attempt to fight the Leader Goblin 1 on 1 but the Leader Goblin neither wanted to nor accepted a 1 on 1 fight.

    Did the party kill the Goblin's brother? Probably. A few of the members decided to engage with some Goblins that were spotted a few days before, deciding to strike first and yes, assuming the Goblins were Evil.

    The Crusader was attempting to avoid bloodshed, having recently joined the party and as such was not part of the original 'possible Goblin brother slaying'.

    After re-reading what's been contributed so far, I can start to see a trend of the player justifying a somewhat brutal mindset by simply 'being a paladin'.

    Good kills evil, lawful means contracts are all binding.

    Please excuse me if the above is ..confuzzled. I'm very ill at the moment.

    The paladin, in essence, is supposed to be a Paragon of Virtue and Goodness. They are the single, main class with a Lawful Good restriction, and while it might be a bit of a strict adherence to the spirit of the character to claim that Paladins -should- therefor act as paragons of virtue and goodness, it is nevertheless a good way to define a paladin.
    This was essentially my original sentiment. This thread was/is an attempt to find some other viewpoints. The player of the Paladin just wants to have fun, which is cool. Personally I'd like to find out what he feels the difference between a Lawful Good fighter/misc and a Paladin.

    Personally, I'm all for rewarding good RP fluff with ..more fluff. To my mind, a Paladin is welcomed and loved because, as you say, they're paragons of virtue and goodness. Now, if a player can play them, then the world should reflect their noble efforts.

    To summarize; being "Nice" does not need to be an -intrinsic- part of being "Good", but do keep in mind, most Bad-ass avenging holy-types ends up either falling, or becoming something else entirely.
    I think this might be the root of the problem. Some folks just want to be The Bad Ass, forgetting that Bad Assery is a slow decline followed by a, hopeful, redemption. A journey that as you mention, involves folks falling and being fallen for the majority of the time.

    Personally, I think that Bad Ass is tired cliche'.

    Save the world - Good job!

    Save the world nicely - Winner!

    Last edited by O.L.Scudmungus; 2012-11-20 at 09:27 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    In this particular circumstance, the moment the goblin goes unconcious, he's between -1 and -9 hit-points and dying. The paladin was making grapple checks for lethal damage. He or one of his allies would've had to take an action of some sort to -not- kill the goblin at that point.

    If they had just walked away at that point the goblin would've had a very slim chance of surviving. More than likely though, it would've bled out in under a minute. Somewhat less likely, but still more likely than a full recovery, it would've lain there on the ground for a while after making a stabalization check, then been eaten by a random encounter. Less likely still, it would've laid there for days before a random encounter got him.

    What you're saying amounts to "if a paladin drops a foe, but doesn't outright kill it, he must give it first aid and take it prisoner." This is completely unreasonable. Doing so in this case would've been a Good (note the capital G) thing to do, but choosing not to wasn't evil and the coup-de-grace could be construed as merciful.

    After the OP's last response initiating the combat is looking more suspect, but the coup-de-grace at the end wasn't the problem here if there was one.

    As for maintaining both aspects of his alignment, yes a paladin must remain both lawful and good, however he is not forbidden from committing chaotic acts. He has to watch himself to make sure he doesn't perform too many and slip into a NG alignment, but that's all. Evil acts are the only explicit auto-fall. The rest of the code is a bit more subjective, as what constitutes honorable behavior is dependent on the culture the paladin comes from and what constitutes legitimate authority is almost entirely a personal call for the paladin unless he belongs to an order that recognizes certain authorities.
    The guy was unconscious and dying yes, that does not mean the Paladin has to let him die. Stabilization is as easy as a DC 15 Heal check, DC 13 if you are using the Heroes of Battle combat stabilization rules. After that, it is a simply matter of hiding him under fallen leaves to ward off predators and moving on. The only way the coup de grace is considered merciful then, is if they intend for him to die, and the choice is between bleeding out and dying instantly. Or you can keep him until he stabilizes, and use the opportunity to get information from him, and assess the risk he poses from there.

    Yes, the paladin has more leniency on the chaos vs. law side of the spectrum, but committing a chaotic act (aiding the chaotic good rebel forces, for example), and exhibiting a chaotic tendency in behavior (flippantly swearing an oath of single combat for every enemy you fight) are entirely different things. Like you say, being good, evil, chaotic or lawful is a pattern of behavior, not a single act. A tendency towards flippantly swearing oaths is a chaotic one. It is possible for such a tendency to be reversed, but the DM would need to see such through consistent behavior to the contrary. Further, whether the Paladin answers to an order or not, there are still standards of law and good to be upheld. You can argue for cultural difference all you want, but the OP already established that alignment forces are a non-subjective force in the universe, meaning such cultural variance counts for squat. The Paladin answer to a higher authority, and if it is not the church, it is the "powers that be", or whatever cosmic forces define behavior.
    "If your heart is fearful throw away fear; if there is terror in it throw away terror. Take your axe in your hand and attack. He who leaves the fight unfinished is not at peace." -The Epic of Gilgamesh

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangles View Post


    The Geneva convention, and the other less known ones, are the rules for engagement that provide the most humane solution to war. They may not always seem fair, but they are designed so that atrocities like the slow strangled death of a helpless goblin, don't happen. A Paladin should be merciful and honorable in combat. They should always create the most humane solution to war.

    Your paladin didn't follow his code. He should fall.
    You story had nothing to do with the situiation, none of the goblins surrendered.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twilightwyrm View Post
    The guy was unconscious and dying yes, that does not mean the Paladin has to let him die. Stabilization is as easy as a DC 15 Heal check, DC 13 if you are using the Heroes of Battle combat stabilization rules. After that, it is a simply matter of hiding him under fallen leaves to ward off predators and moving on. The only way the coup de grace is considered merciful then, is if they intend for him to die, and the choice is between bleeding out and dying instantly. Or you can keep him until he stabilizes, and use the opportunity to get information from him, and assess the risk he poses from there.

    Yes, the paladin has more leniency on the chaos vs. law side of the spectrum, but committing a chaotic act (aiding the chaotic good rebel forces, for example), and exhibiting a chaotic tendency in behavior (flippantly swearing an oath of single combat for every enemy you fight) are entirely different things. Like you say, being good, evil, chaotic or lawful is a pattern of behavior, not a single act. A tendency towards flippantly swearing oaths is a chaotic one. It is possible for such a tendency to be reversed, but the DM would need to see such through consistent behavior to the contrary. Further, whether the Paladin answers to an order or not, there are still standards of law and good to be upheld. You can argue for cultural difference all you want, but the OP already established that alignment forces are a non-subjective force in the universe, meaning such cultural variance counts for squat. The Paladin answer to a higher authority, and if it is not the church, it is the "powers that be", or whatever cosmic forces define behavior.
    After reading the OP's most recent update (sorry about the bug, dude. Get better ) I'm back to being certain this was a self-defense situation.

    The goblins arrived, anounced who they were and moved to surround. This is a clear indication of aggressive intent. They were there for blood, and that fight was coming no matter who fired the first shot. That alone gives the paladin an "all-clear" for use of lethal force.

    Yes, if he or someone else in the party cared to do so, they could've made a heal check to stabalize the creature, but why would they? This goblin was a member of a party there to kill the PC's. If he's dead, he no longer poses a threat of any kind, barring minions to revive him, something I find more than a little unlikely.

    The paladin missed an opportunity to show mercy, but that's all. If he's not a merciful character but upholds the other tenets of a good alignment, then that's all there is to it. No alignment is all-or-nothing.

    You're still creating the implication that all creatures the party drops without killing have to be afforded immediate care and taken prisoner. Even a saint would be pressed to equal such an unreasonable standard. Btw, even if they stabalized him and left him concealed, there'd still be a fair chance of him being discovered and killed by a passing creature with the scent ability, nevermind being left exposed to the elements for days while he makes the excrutiatingly slow climb from negative hit-points back to functionality. Just stabalizing him and walking away is most likely condemning him to a slow, torturous death; hardly a good act.

    The coup-de-grace was the only merciful option besides reviving him and taking him prisoner. It also had the benefit of being practical since, had this goblin miraculously survived, he could've come back stronger and even more hungry for revenge.

    Mercy is a tenet of good, but its absence is not evil. Evil is being a deliberate, blood-thirsty destroyer of life. This paladin may or may not be on the path that leads to that end, but we don't have enough information about his overall behavioral pattern to make that call.

    On the law-chaos side of things, flippantly making oaths isn't chaotic. Not unless you just as flippantly disregard them. If you uphold every flippant oath you make, you're showing very clearly lawful behavior, if not particularly good judgement.

    Also note that, as I said before, honorable behavior is subjective. Culture is everything in deciding what is or is not honorable action. At the same time which, if any, dishonorable actions constitute a gross violation of an honor code are just as socially subjective. Calling the paladin in question out for dishonorable behavior is entirely baseless until you actually know what his honor code's dictates are. Assuming the chivalric code of european knights errant, or something similar, is just that; an assumption.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Sep 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    It occurs to me how difficult it must be for a paladin to kill a troll, since setting a helpless sentient creature on fire is certainly an evil act. But then, he'd have to heal the troll up every time he beat him into the negatives, so it's probably a moot point.


    But anyway, we're talking about goblins...

    Goblins never have to die when fighting paladins, since they can just drop their weapons and say "I surrender" as a free action on the paladin's turn. They can then proceed to wander off and prepare another ambush.

    Ambushes would be easy for a goblin to set up, since the paladin has to parley with the goblin and the goblin can decline any offer to duel. Meanwhile, his companions can get ready to throw javelins and surrender.

    Goblin rogues can fake a deathblow so that they can get a free sneak attack when the paladin goes to bandage them.

    A goblin could probably make some easy money from a paladin, too. All he has to do is demand reparations for his "relative" that the paladin killed. Any given paladin's certain to have killed some goblins. The payout could probably get the goblin some nice weapons with which to attack travelers.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by beforemath View Post
    It occurs to me how difficult it must be for a paladin to kill a troll, since setting a helpless sentient creature on fire is certainly an evil act. But then, he'd have to heal the troll up every time he beat him into the negatives, so it's probably a moot point.

    ...
    I don't want to sound like I don't get your sarcasm, because I do, but your statements don't follow from the fluff or rules of D&D 3.5, or from common sense.

    Mercy does not mean weakness; BoED, and every other sourcebook I've ever seen which deals with alignment, takes pains to beat you about the head with that fact. A Paladin is not obligated to let their captives go unless they have shown a genuine desire and ability to reform, they are not obligated to give them any opportunity to escape even if the measures needed to contain them would otherwise qualify as torture, and they may kill said captive should their crimes warrant a just execution.

    Good has limits. There are things a Good person can do, but chooses not to, and that makes some people think that they are weak. In reality it's exactly the opposite; Good is more powerful because it embraces altruism empathy and compassion, because while a villain only ever fights for themselves a hero fights for the good of everyone, and that gives them an incredible will no other alignment can match. Or at least that's how it works in D&D.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Sep 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    I don't want to sound like I don't get your sarcasm, because I do, but your statements don't follow from the fluff or rules of D&D 3.5, or from common sense.

    Mercy does not mean weakness; BoED, and every other sourcebook I've ever seen which deals with alignment, takes pains to beat you about the head with that fact. A Paladin is not obligated to let their captives go unless they have shown a genuine desire and ability to reform, they are not obligated to give them any opportunity to escape even if the measures needed to contain them would otherwise qualify as torture, and they may kill said captive should their crimes warrant a just execution.

    Good has limits. There are things a Good person can do, but chooses not to, and that makes some people think that they are weak. In reality it's exactly the opposite; Good is more powerful because it embraces altruism empathy and compassion, because while a villain only ever fights for themselves a hero fights for the good of everyone, and that gives them an incredible will no other alignment can match. Or at least that's how it works in D&D.
    Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, all right.


    If you, as a paladin, are fighting something, it's most likely because it is a danger. You're not going to leave it to heal so that it can terrorize innocents in your absence. You're not going to try to make the fight fair so that it has a sporting chance of killing you (and, in your absence, innocents). Most of the time, it's not even in your best interest to talk things over with the evil creature, since most of them can just go back on any agreement that you've made and then get back to harming innocents.


    In our example above, a goblin identified himself as an ally to the party's enemies. The paladin, instead of giving aid to the party's enemies (who were clearly well-equipped and dangerous), engaged them. He then proceeded to subdue them and, instead of allowing a chance for their threat to return after the party left, he killed them.


    And don't automatically assume that "good" equals "agreeable." Some of the best conflicts are good-on-good.

    A Chaotic Good ranger could come to blows if he finds a paladin's heavy-handed justice too stifling on villagers' freedom.

    A paladin of a Lawful Neutral church of Justice is coming to bring a murderer to justice. Upon finding the murderer, he is trying to make amends by caring for his victim's family. To incarcerate him would mean dooming this family to starvation. The paladin decides that he is already paying his penance and that justice is served. His church is not amused.



    The variety of ways to be good (even Lawful Good) is what makes it all fun and interesting. Some paladins are a bit over the top. Some paladins are a lot more reserved.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    The biggest problem I see here is that the paladin slowly choked the goblin to death, when he could have just let another party member kill it a lot faster.
    Spoiler
    Show

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Augmental View Post
    The biggest problem I see here is that the paladin slowly choked the goblin to death, when he could have just let another party member kill it a lot faster.
    Again, this was misfortune, not a deliberate action. The dice just didn't like that poor goblin.

    If the crusader had wacked it with his weapon and rolled "minimal damage" and taken just as long to kill it, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Killer Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lustria
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    A little late for the party, but...

    A paladin is the Paragon of virtue, it's behavior should be above all suspicion.
    If you start questioning its actions, to the point you need to start a thread, this means something is going wrong.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)


    Things that increase my self esteem:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang View Post
    Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeYounger View Post
    Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi View Post
    If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
    Quote Originally Posted by grimbold View Post
    THIS is proof that KA is amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Historical zombies is a fantastic idea.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by O.L.Scudmungus View Post
    So, a classic morality mess. Is the Paladin being.. a Paladin?
    Okay just finished reading the thread!

    The crusader was negotiating as the lead goblin talked to him leaving the goblin's allies to spread out to surround the party.
    The paladin engaged the goblin negotiating after he refused his challenge but since he was negotiating any attack could have backfired after all the paladin didn't know what the others were doing and whether they had additional backup (which they didn't but thats why he has Detect Evil and as described he didn't use it, dumb mistake not a downfall one mind you).

    Once the others had been defeated by his comrades there was no need for him to continue grappling, he represents his church and their image is of vital importance if they want to grow and prosper and other than converting by sword his actions wouldn't be a credit to his faith.

    He could have disengaged and even have one of his comrades deal with the goblin but he chose a rather nasty and foolish method of ending the goblin's life.

    His party could have been under threat by another group whilst he did this and the fact he took a great deal of time instead of acknowledging his comrades isn't a good sign.

    I agree its a chaotic act and not evil, but the fact he didn't use his detect evil means he doesn't know these goblins are evil and assuming they all are is sure fire road towards falling from grace.

    At the very least he needs to seek a priest of his faith to talk to and explain why he needs to be showing his comrades why his faith is worth worshipping not drive them and others away with your singleminded zeal thats better off by being a cleric than a paladin.
    Last edited by Hopeless; 2012-11-22 at 06:19 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Angel View Post
    A little late for the party, but...

    A paladin is the Paragon of virtue, it's behavior should be above all suspicion.
    If you start questioning its actions, to the point you need to start a thread, this means something is going wrong.
    Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Sep 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Angel View Post
    A little late for the party, but...

    A paladin is the Paragon of virtue, it's behavior should be above all suspicion.
    If you start questioning its actions, to the point you need to start a thread, this means something is going wrong.
    Hrm... But everyone *always* questions paladins' actions...


    Logically, that means that everything is always going wrong.




    Taking into account the D&D games that I've been in, I can't argue with that logic.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
     
    hoverfrog's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    England.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    I haven't read all the comments but if a chaotic good character stood by and allowed the "former" paladin to murder someone doesn't that also say something about the morality of that character too?

    My suggestion is to ask the paladin to justify their actions. Perhaps he saw a clear and present danger in allowing the goblin to live. What if he'd gotten free and gone to fetch reinforcements? What if he recognised some of the equipment as belonging to murder victims and the penalty of death had already been prescribed for it? In that case he was carrying out an execution rather than killing a helpless prisoner in cold blood.
    I didn't choose the life of a murderhobo, it chose me.
    Spoiler
    Show

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Killer Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lustria
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?
    Well, if a paladin avoids to kill enemies while they're unconscious, that would be a nice starter...
    What's the next step? taking prisoners, and killing them after interrogations 'cause they're evil?
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)


    Things that increase my self esteem:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang View Post
    Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeYounger View Post
    Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi View Post
    If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
    Quote Originally Posted by grimbold View Post
    THIS is proof that KA is amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Historical zombies is a fantastic idea.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Angel View Post
    Well, if a paladin avoids to kill enemies while they're unconscious, that would be a nice starter...
    What's the next step? taking prisoners, and killing them after interrogations 'cause they're evil?
    So a Paladin who refuses to actually rid his sworn charges of the menace they're facing once and for all is unquestionably good? And one who tortures enemies by putting them in near-death situations without letting their suffering end - potentially through repeated fights - isn't being the tiniest bit sadistic?

    Really?
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    I know you already have your feedback, but it sounds like you've got a roleplayer that should have played a neutral-aligned fighter; or an Inquisitor, with that attitude.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Killer Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lustria
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    So a Paladin who refuses to actually rid his sworn charges of the menace they're facing once and for all is unquestionably good? And one who tortures enemies by putting them in near-death situations without letting their suffering end - potentially through repeated fights - isn't being the tiniest bit sadistic?

    Really?
    A paladin, in every circumstance, should be guided by good. Not killing a prisoner, is not sadistic, neither cruel, even if you know that the prisoner will try to escape to kill you later.
    To further answer you previous question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?
    A Paladin will face moral choices (see link below). She will probably suffer for them, but she'll be right, if she follows the path of good. Remember that a paladin does good things, in a lawful way.
    A paladin that acts good, while being torn by a difficult decision, acts in this way.
    A paladin that acts lawful and doesn't question herself, follows the Miko's path. Executing a prisoner, is more on the Lawful side , rather than the Good one.
    Last edited by Killer Angel; 2012-11-23 at 03:40 AM.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)


    Things that increase my self esteem:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang View Post
    Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeYounger View Post
    Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi View Post
    If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
    Quote Originally Posted by grimbold View Post
    THIS is proof that KA is amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Historical zombies is a fantastic idea.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Angel View Post
    Not killing a prisoner, is not sadistic, neither cruel, even if you know that the prisoner will try to escape to kill you later.
    My point was that the Paladin's motivations and methodology have as much to do with whether a Paladin (or anyone else) is behaving in a Lawful and Good manner as the actions themselves. For example, taken devoid of context, the above could indicate torture and maiming is neither sadistic nor cruel (though maiming is hard to actually achieve in D&D due to the HP mechanic).
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •