Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

[Killer Angel]

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.

On that, I cannot disagree. I still believe that killing an unconscious enemy isn't very paladinesque, but I can concede the benefit of doubt to the pally's player, if the decision is well argumented.

[Burner28]

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?

Brushing their teeth? I mean come on, it has to be True Neutral!

[Starbuck_II]

Brushing their teeth? i!mean come on, it has to be True Neutral!

No, because you are killing off good and neutral plaque and bacteria. Some are even children and thus are innocent. That makes hima baby killer.

[Yahzi]

I couldn't get past the so-called Paladin choking somebody out.

I'da made him fall for that right there - "Sorry, that's way to undignified for Paladinhood. Can you imagine Lancelot rolling around in the mud? Ya, didn't think so."

[Amphetryon]

I couldn't get past the so-called Paladin choking somebody out.

I'da made him fall for that right there - "Sorry, that's way to undignified for Paladinhood. Can you imagine Lancelot rolling around in the mud? Ya, didn't think so."

So riding in the cart was dignified? That's rather the opposite conclusion that my Arthurian Legends professor espoused.

[yakri]

He killed a helpless creature because he couldn't be arsed to find something better to do with it.

Blatantly violating typical paladin code, good-aligned character code of ethics, and possibly the values of his god.

[Kane0]

It seems he is picking Lawful over good in this case and also chosing his interpretation to Law. The goblin did not seem to accept the formal challenge issued by the paladin, yet the paladin treated it as a personal duel. He is neglecting the good portion of his lawful good alignment, as well as showing no mercy in retaliation to an arguably just act (avenging a fallen brother).

This is a pretty ruthless pally we have on our hands here.

[Blightedmarsh]

My two cents:

This paladin seems to be the incredibly harsh knight Templar variety to me.

You say he has a code, you say he has made oaths but we don't actually know what exactly those oaths are. "I shall suffer not evil to live in my sight" could well be amongst them from the sounds of things.

If the legal response to outlaws is to burn them then I can't imagine that the fate of a captive goblin could be describes as pleasant (or indeed survivable). In this case finishing them off is a mercy whether or not they may have lived otherwise.

It could well be that the paladin risk falling not because he broke parley, or because he summarily executed the goblin. No he may risk falling because he didn't subject to goblin to a messy and protracted public execution as an object lesson to all, because he willingly adventures with people who would even consider parleying with goblins.


As the OP said "good is not necessarily nice"

[Starbuck_II]

It seems he is picking Lawful over good in this case and also chosing his interpretation to Law. The goblin did not seem to accept the formal challenge issued by the paladin, yet the paladin treated it as a personal duel. He is neglecting the good portion of his lawful good alignment, as well as showing no mercy in retaliation to an arguably just act (avenging a fallen brother).

This is a pretty ruthless pally we have on our hands here.

Um, a polioce officer can arrest you regardless of whether you accept his law; likewise whether an enemy accepts a challenge or not doesn't mean they aren't challenged.
Plus, LG slignment description in the PHB has Alhandra who "Shows no mercy to evil", it mentions she isa paladin and as of yet not fallen (if you read the books she stars in).

[Threadnaught]

Um, a polioce officer can arrest you regardless of whether you accept his law; likewise whether an enemy accepts a challenge or not doesn't mean they aren't challenged.

I'm sorry, but that is utter crap.

A challenge is a contract, and according to that statement, a contract is legally binding, even if it isn't signed. It just has to be written. I can accept that the law may require the Paladin to slay all enemies of the state, said enemies including all goblin kind. What I won't accept, and what many other people here also won't accept, is the challenge being legally binding. The goblin refused the challenge, so the goblin wasn't required to fight under any code of law, just as anyone who refuses to sign a contract is not bound under the terms of said contract.

I may not know much about law, but I do know that for a contract to be legally binding, both parties must consent to the terms. The goblin, did not consent thus, the contract is void, the Paladin cannot claim forcing the challenge on the goblin, was Lawful. In fact, forcing someone to accept contracts strikes me as being an Evil act, seeing as it's something a Lawful Evil creature may enjoy doing.

[Amphetryon]

"Lawful" in D&D can also refer to scrupulous adherence to a personal code, or to the laws of a land in which the Characters are not presently adventuring.

[Water_Bear]

I'm sorry, but that is utter crap.

A challenge is a contract, and according to that statement, a contract is legally binding, even if it isn't signed. It just has to be written. I can accept that the law may require the Paladin to slay all enemies of the state, said enemies including all goblin kind. What I won't accept, and what many other people here also won't accept, is the challenge being legally binding. The goblin refused the challenge, so the goblin wasn't required to fight under any code of law, just as anyone who refuses to sign a contract is not bound under the terms of said contract.

I may not know much about law, but I do know that for a contract to be legally binding, both parties must consent to the terms. The goblin, did not consent thus, the contract is void, the Paladin cannot claim forcing the challenge on the goblin, was Lawful. In fact, forcing someone to accept contracts strikes me as being an Evil act, seeing as it's something a Lawful Evil creature may enjoy doing.

The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, American contract law does not apply to pseudo-Medieval monarchies. Secondly, Law does not refer to legality but to the ideas of cosmic Order and personal Honor which make up part of a person's alignment.

If a warrior issues a challenge and battle is met, the only recourse for the challenged party is to yield and put themselves at the mercy of the challenger. A Paladin, being a champion of both Law and Good, would be expected to take such a person as a prisoner if possible and give them a swift merciful death if not. The issue here is whether the Goblin had the ability to surrender, and what the Paladin's obligations would be after that point if he had.

[Threadnaught]

The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, American contract law does not apply to pseudo-Medieval monarchies. Secondly, Law does not refer to legality but to the ideas of cosmic Order and personal Honor which make up part of a person's alignment.

If a warrior issues a challenge and battle is met, the only recourse for the challenged party is to yield and put themselves at the mercy of the challenger.

But what if, as in the case of this Paladin, battle is not met? What if, the challenge is denied?

Come on, if I were playing this Paladin and my DM allowed me to dictate that a challenge to single combat, meant my opponent had no choice but to kill me, or be killed by me. I would go absolutely nuts, challenging every single unarmed Commoner and Noble to single combat, then stabbing them in the back with glee as they try to run. A challenge to single combat is Lawful and it is neither Good or Evil based on your chosen opponents, I get to wipe out an entire city and keep all my powers? Can I become a Lich and "Challenge the World" too?

[Water_Bear]

But what if, as in the case of this Paladin, battle is not met? What if, the challenge is denied?

You can't "deny" a challenge, that's just not how it works. You fight or you yield.

Come on, if I were playing this Paladin and my DM allowed me to dictate that a challenge to single combat, meant my opponent had no choice but to kill me, or be killed by me. I would go absolutely nuts, challenging every single unarmed Commoner and Noble to single combat, then stabbing them in the back with glee as they try to run. A challenge to single combat is Lawful and it is neither Good or Evil based on your chosen opponents, I get to wipe out an entire city and keep all my powers? Can I become a Lich and "Challenge the World" too?

Except that Paladins will, unless circumstances make it impossible, accept surrender and give quarter. The Good aspect of their alignment means they must respect life and show mercy (within reason), and the Lawful aspect of their alignment means that they must behave with honor and keep their word (again, within reason). Theoretically, had the Goblin yielded, the Paladin would have been honor-bound to treat him as a prisoner and would have likely Fallen if he had killed him.

I shouldn't even have to say this, but yes, killing the innocent and becoming an Evil Undead creature are both one-way tickets to Fallen-Paladinville. Issuing challenges to defenseless people and killing them when they yield is classically Lawful Evil, and trying to blow up the world is more Chaotic Evil.

[huttj509]

You can't "deny" a challenge, that's just not how it works. You fight or you yield.

"I challenge you to single combat!"

"Boys, get him."
*runs away*
*fights, ignoring the challenger as he attacks challenger's allies*

All valid methods of declining a challenge.

[Threadnaught]

You can't "deny" a challenge, that's just not how it works. You fight or you yield.

Angry drunk challenges us to a fight.

I tell him to "**** off" so he's perfectly within his rights to beat me to death in the packed bar? In front of everyone else? I have a knife in my pocket which means I class as armed by the way, just in case you were wondering.

Issuing challenges to defenseless people and killing them when they yield is classically Lawful Evil, and trying to blow up the world is more Chaotic Evil.

Nah, it's not so much as they yield, as they walk away confused. Wondering why the heck I challenged them. Non of them have broken any laws based on their best knowledge and mine, so no yielding. And non of them feel confident enough in their own fighting ability to accept, they deny the challenge.
I am perfectly within my rights as a Lawful Good being, to kill them one by one as they attempt to outrun me. Afterall, issuing the challenge locks us into a fight to the death, they'd start it, all I'm doing is finishing it.

Also, if the world is challenged to single combat, it's allowed to defend itself. It has killed thousands of innocents and defenceless people, remember. It must be brought to justice, and if it refuses to allow you to imprison it, then it must die.

There's a disturbing logic to this Lawful Stupid, one that, really is logical. In a seriously messed up way.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, here's the thing about challenging an opponent to single combat. It's a custom.

As a custom, it's attached to a society, that is, the issuing and acceptance or denial of a challenge is a social construct that's entirely subjective to the culture it comes from. The rules for issuing and either accepting or declining a challenge only apply to members of the society in question.

Unless the paladin comes from a society with such customs, his challenging an opponent to single combat is a meaningless bit of bravado. It's a fancy way of saying "I'm a better fighter than you and I'll prove it."

If he does belong to such a society, then he's bound by that society's rules for the custom. These rules may or may not include stipulations for challenging those from outside the society.

We know exactly squat about what society, if indeed any, this paladin belongs to. We can't make heads or tails of the lawfulness of the challenge, absent this information that is absolutely vital to the matter.

[Starbuck_II]

Nah, it's not so much as they yield, as they walk away confused. Wondering why the heck I challenged them. Non of them have broken any laws based on their best knowledge and mine, so no yielding. And non of them feel confident enough in their own fighting ability to accept, they deny the challenge.
I am perfectly within my rights as a Lawful Good being, to kill them one by one as they attempt to outrun me. Afterall, issuing the challenge locks us into a fight to the death, they'd start it, all I'm doing is finishing it.

Also, if the world is challenged to single combat, it's allowed to defend itself. It has killed thousands of innocents and defenceless people, remember. It must be brought to justice, and if it refuses to allow you to imprison it, then it must die.

There's a disturbing logic to this Lawful Stupid, one that, really is logical. In a seriously messed up way.

Now you are getting it. The world must answer for its crimes with nature (not against).