PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Need some opinions on how this scenario would work for a paladin



Pika...
2009-07-14, 05:12 PM
Sup. I was daydreaming a bit ago and came up with this scenario concerning if it would be allowable for a paladin.

The basics:

The party is in orc territory/lands.
A band of orc slave trades ambushes them, hoping to add them to a chain with various slaves already cuffed to it (a bunch of goblins and some female orcs).
The party wins, but the slavers get away with the unconscious female halfling.
The chained slaves are still there, still chained and looking confused.


So here is my question. Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws and is supposed to be as much Law focused as he is Good focused, and since he is in orc territory/lands where slavery is not only legal but part of the common way of life, could he just pick up the chain with all the goblins and female orc slaves, head to the orc tribe, track down where/who the halfling was sold to and offer the new "owner" a great deal for one small halfling (it even says in the MM1 that orcs pride themselves on how many orc females they own, so it would be an awesome deal for the orc)?

Yora
2009-07-14, 05:15 PM
So he uses the slaves as loot from a fight and wants to trade them in?
I'm pretty sure that's very much not aproved of by any paladin code.

A paladin is supposed to have respect for local customs and to consider carefully how breaking the customs would disrupt the lives of the innocent citizens. It would be quite inappropiate to use violent force to free a prisioner because the punishment seems a bit too harsh for what he has done. But there is a point where a paladin has to make a conscious descision if the local customs are to inhumane to be respected and he is compelled to fight this evil that is happening to innocent people. If he is lucky, it's a situation which the code of his order explicitly mentions. If not, he has to trust his consciousness if the greater good is better served by becoming active or acepting the nescesity of tolerating an undesireable situation.
But I'm pretty sure no lawful good characters consciousness would tell him, that it's better for the people and the peace of the region, to keep people in orc slavery if they could be freed.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 05:16 PM
So here is my question. Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws and is supposed to be as much Law focused as he is Good focused

Where does it say that?

Berserk Monk
2009-07-14, 05:17 PM
No. I think the paladin should try to rescue the halfling without putting anyone, even the orcs and goblins, into any harm.

Signmaker
2009-07-14, 05:25 PM
Consider: Paladins gain their powers through divine favour, hence the need to adhere to a 'code'.

Therefore, the portfolio of a god, as well as appropriate knowledge of said god trumps any local law, even if it's the direct opposite.

I've personally ran in to a DM that utilized the same "Slaves are legal" bit. Needless to say, my Paladin followed divine rule rather than mortal rule. Lost her powers due to it, but that's unrelated to what the case usually is.

Pika...
2009-07-14, 05:31 PM
Consider: Paladins gain their powers through divine favour, hence the need to adhere to a 'code'.

Therefore, the portfolio of a god, as well as appropriate knowledge of said god trumps any local law, even if it's the direct opposite.

I've personally ran in to a DM that utilized the same "Slaves are legal" bit. Needless to say, my Paladin followed divine rule rather than mortal rule. Lost her powers due to it, but that's unrelated to what the case usually is.

Hmm...that's an interesting way to look at it.

But what if you are a paladin of Primas for example?

Pika...
2009-07-14, 05:34 PM
So he uses the slaves as loot from a fight and wants to trade them in?
I'm pretty sure that's very much not aproved of by any paladin code.

A paladin is supposed to have respect for local customs and to consider carefully how breaking the customs would disrupt the lives of the innocent citizens. It would be quite inappropiate to use violent force to free a prisioner because the punishment seems a bit too harsh for what he has done. But there is a point where a paladin has to make a conscious descision if the local customs are to inhumane to be respected and he is compelled to fight this evil that is happening to innocent people. If he is lucky, it's a situation which the code of his order explicitly mentions. If not, he has to trust his consciousness if the greater good is better served by becoming active or acepting the nescesity of tolerating an undesireable situation.
But I'm pretty sure no lawful good characters consciousness would tell him, that it's better for the people and the peace of the region, to keep people in orc slavery if they could be freed.

Oops. Missed your edit.

I am starting to see how a character can balance both law and good thanks to your post.

However, wouldn't destroying the orcs' slave system, which is the base of their economy/workforce/etc cause their society to collapse?

ColdSepp
2009-07-14, 05:34 PM
The specifications of a paladins code should be determined between the player and the DM before the game starts, so that both are aware of what it is.

How it interacts with local law, rulership, etc. all need to decided before the game starts. Otherwise, you get misunderstands.

Glyde
2009-07-14, 05:36 PM
I don't think Paladins adhere to local laws, but rather their deity's code.

And I don't think any good-aligned deity allows slavery. Paladin would commence smiting.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-14, 05:41 PM
Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws

Nope. A Paladin is supposed to follow his Paladin Code which means follow local laws if they don't conflict with his Paladin Code. So unless you can suppose a Paladin comes from a society where, according to the Paladin Code, slavery is OK, no the paladin should not return the slaves.

Now, the Paladin Code says you must help others but it does not say when or how. So for ex, if the party had spotted the orc slavers first and the paladin and his party had determined that they had no chance to free the slaves, then the paladin is still true to his code even if they had not tried to free the slaves. The Paladin Code does not require the paladin to commit to suicidal attacks...well at least not all the time. So for ex, if the paladin's Code said slaves MUST be freed at any cost, then yes he should have attacked even if his team mates did not accompany him.

The only way NOT freeing slaves could normally be an acceptable choice is if freeing the slaves would be pointless or even put them slaves themselves into danger. The usual way to tell this is that the slave npc will point this out themselves...for ex...

Paladin: You are free now! Escape to the surface while our party continues to valiantly fight the servants of the Spider Queen

Human Commoner 1: You do realize that I am 10 miles into the underdark where I'm effectively blind, I have 3 hp at my max and I can only attack with a rusty dagger.

If you are in doubt as to whether this is the situation, ask the DM out-of-character.

What is in this paladin's Code? Well that is up to the player and his DM. But it is safe to assume this...if you think it's questionable then it's probably against the code.

As for the dilemna of freeing the slaves, chasing the orcs and freeing the halfling, this lead to one of the features...or bugs...of the Paladin class. The obvious answer is to do all 3!

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-14, 05:41 PM
Bartering the slaves to save another isn't well appreciated by the Code. It doesn't seem as a gross violation (the Pally's attempting a trade, not slaughtering women and children; plus, he may not understand why the orcs themselves are treated as slaves), but promoting slavery is a stain the Paladin has to clean pretty well.

The best option, as usual, would be Diplomacy. If the Paladin has Diplomacy, of course. Try to barter for both the halfling and the slaves. It shows respect for the land's fair laws (note that I said fair; to the Paladin, slavery isn't a fair law and hence pays it no importance) Also, given that the Paladin isn't automatically on "Smite Evil" mode, it may even serve as a bartering chip.

In the case the Paladin doesn't seem to have Diplomacy, but there's someone that does, allow such person to do it. Same thing. Just, recall that said person is doing the negotiations, and the Paladin is just part of them.

The scenario is reasonable: it's not a lose-lose situation (and if you're the DM, you shouldn't provide the Paladin with a lose-lose situation unless the player is quite experienced and shows enough merits for it) It shows on whose its loyalties lie, and what it would do to remain pure of heart while ensuring the safety of all. It may even cause the orcs to grow less prejudiced.

As a final point, Paladins are supposed to be Lawful, but being Lawful doesn't mean attaching to the letter of the law. That's what a Lawful Neutral would do (and what a Lawful Evil would hastily point out, and do so as long as it benefits it), since it doesn't have any regard to the benevolence of the law or the benefits it provides. Lawful Good people wouldn't endorse a law that actually goes against their beliefs; however, they wouldn't go completely against it if they know they're going to be at a losing battle. They may show their contempt and complain, though. Of course, sometimes it's required to follow action.

As a final point: the Code's only exacting point is that a Paladin loses its status and power at the first willing act of evil it commits; not the first Chaotic act. Perhaps it does if it becomes less rigid and becomes way too flexible, since it would entail a change in alignment. But one single Chaotic act wouldn't remove it of its powers.

SurlySeraph
2009-07-14, 07:59 PM
There are any number of solutions to this problem that a paladin could take, depending on whether he's more Lawful or more Good. I'd recommend the pragmatic way: Detect Evil on the slaves, free the good ones, and trade the evil ones for the halfling.

Nero24200
2009-07-15, 05:11 AM
Simply because somthing is the local law doesn't mean the paladin is obligated to follow. It even states that a paladin is allowed to protest against a law he/she beleives is unfair. What if, for instance, a paladin is in a society were, by law, folk are require to rape, pillage, murder, and in other words, perform evil acts constantly. Is the lawful part of the paladin's code going to force him/her to join in? I don't see why, since performing all those evil acts would make him/her fall anyway.

Remember as well that paladins do not gain Smite Chaos, or Aura of Law, they are more focused on fighting evil, so if a paladin is forced to choose between defending good or defending law, he/she should choose the former.

Now, barting slaves for the halfing is, in my book, an evil act. I don't see in any way how slavery can be good, and in not freeing the slaves but instead, trading them, he/she is activly encouraging it.

Now, what the paladin should do is free the slaves then attempt to rescuse the halfling, by force if he/she deems it nessicery. Who knows, maybe karma might offer the paladin a hand for having to make the tough choice and have the freed slaves help him.

Triaxx
2009-07-15, 05:16 AM
Actually, a sensible Paladin will realize that not only will it better serve his code to free the slaves, but that the slaves likely have information on just where the halfling is being taken and how the slavers hold prisoners. Not to mention being potentially grateful enough to bring help to 'punish' the slavers.

It might be a case of 'it's legal, but only because it's traditional, and no one is really happy about it.' Gives great RP material and a real sense of accomplishment that they've' positively influenced the area.

Yora
2009-07-15, 05:25 AM
There are any number of solutions to this problem that a paladin could take, depending on whether he's more Lawful or more Good. I'd recommend the pragmatic way: Detect Evil on the slaves, free the good ones, and trade the evil ones for the halfling.

Doing evil things to evil people is still evil.

Killer Angel
2009-07-15, 05:52 AM
So here is my question. Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws and is supposed to be as much Law focused as he is Good focused, and since he is in orc territory/lands where slavery is not only legal but part of the common way of life

A paladin must act good, following lawful ways.
I don't think that a paladin will give a damn about any "law" or society based on an chaotic or evil behaviour.
(Would any paladin care about devil's laws?.. i don't think).

Still, if you want to adhere to orchish laws... the orcs tried to ambush the group to take the pcs as slaves. They failed and losed the slaves, which now belong to the paladin.
He can do what he wants with his slaves, including set them free.
And he can ambush the orcs, the same way they do, 'cause (for them) it's evidently a social acceptable behaviour....

JeenLeen
2009-07-15, 09:56 AM
Does the paladin know anything about how slaves are treated or why they are slaves?
If it's how slaves are generally thought of -- property kept in poor housing and conditions to be used until unusable, then discarded -- then promoting or operating in that system seems evil and "assocating with evil" (even if not an evil party member).
Are the goblins prisoners of war, or villagers who were raided?

In the Wheel of Time series, there is a form of slavery which, after a set time, the slave is released. In the video game Tales of Phantasia, IIRC, everyone is technically a slave to the king and wear a collar to symbolize this, but it effectively doesn't matter.

I assume the evil/common form of slavery is how orcs (CE) would operate, but it depends on the worldview. Hobgoblin slavers (LE) might not be as cruel, even if from a pragmatic view.
I apologize if the above was offensive to anyone, but I do think the form of slavery should matter for the paladin. It is a medieval-esque fantasy world.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-15, 09:58 AM
Doing evil things to evil people is still evil.

Unless you are a Grey Guard...

Telonius
2009-07-15, 10:05 AM
Oops. Missed your edit.

I am starting to see how a character can balance both law and good thanks to your post.

However, wouldn't destroying the orcs' slave system, which is the base of their economy/workforce/etc cause their society to collapse?

Straitlaced Paladin answer: Yes, and good riddance to it. Let them rebuild it from the ground up without the slavery. If anyone is harmed in the process, it falls on the person who's committing the evil, not on me.

Mellower Paladin answer: Yes, and it's an excellent opportunity to use the crisis to improve their alignment generally. Orcs aren't unthinking brutes. Appeal to their reason, show them why their society collapsed, and teach them how to be better in the future.

Tokiko Mima
2009-07-15, 10:35 AM
In this case, be sure and view the 'Lawful' part of Lawful Good alignment as indicating a Paladins respect for honor and their Code, rather than a general respect for the status quo. A paladin on the 333rd layer of the Abyss need not treat inhabiting demons according to local laws as written by the demon prince Graz'zt, for example. A paladin usually only defends cultures that promote Paladin values, i.e. places where the Good alignment holds sway.

Within reason, a Paladin should try and work with the local populace, but remember that the 'Good' part of a Paladin's alignment almost always has more weight then the 'Lawful' part; Paladins fall for committing a single intentionally Evil act but not for a Chaotic one, unless it's influential enough to actually change their alignment.

Treating sentient creatures like property is almost always going to be evil to a large extent, even if it is local law and custom. Paladins will, in general, be opposed to slavery. That doesn't mean every Paladin has to ride out and liberate every slave, or disrupt orcish society because it promotes slavery (Though some Paladins can and do crusade with this in mind.) It does mean that the Paladin themselves should never participate in that system, and trading slaves for a captive is doing just that.

#Raptor
2009-07-15, 10:36 AM
Doing evil things to evil people is still evil.

Yeah... but I really wonder what a Paladin would be supposed to do with any evil slaves in this situation.

- Just free them? Then there are all those evil slaves running around that are up to no good.
- Kill them? Coldblooded murder. Maybe ok for a greyguard, but not for a normal paladin.
- Put them in a jailcell? He won't have the time for this if he also wants to free the halfling. Also, its questionable if any jail in the gameworld would even imprison people for merely being evil. Most likely not.

JeenLeen
2009-07-15, 11:58 AM
- Put them in a jailcell? He won't have the time for this if he also wants to free the halfling. Also, its questionable if any jail in the gameworld would even imprison people for merely being evil. Most likely not.

But it might imprison them for being goblins or orcs. But, then, probably not any better than leaving them as slaves; and they'd probably be executed instead.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-07-15, 12:25 PM
In my opinion, every time somebody writes "paladin" on their character sheet, they need to write up their own code of conduct in consultation with the DM. These issues of following the law versus following their own code always come up. I think in the absence of a written code, the question to be considered is probably something like "what would Sir Galahad do?" And I don't think Galahad would say "slavery is legal here, so these slaves are now my property."

Also, if a player decides to play a paladin and doesn't take the responsibility of coming up with his own code of conduct ahead of time, he or she deserves what they get when the DM says, "that violates your code of conduct."

In my opinion, anyway.

hamishspence
2009-07-15, 12:31 PM
There is a book (Quintessenial Paladin 2) with a section dedicated to the code, and how to write your own.

It also has optional graduations of violation- I.e. if its small, you only lose a small amount of your paladin powere, if its big, you lose the lot. And mitigating factors (you break a minor rule to keep a major one) and aggravating factors (you break it after being warned)

Lapak
2009-07-15, 12:40 PM
Yeah... but I really wonder what a Paladin would be supposed to do with any evil slaves in this situation.

- Just free them? Then there are all those evil slaves running around that are up to no good.Paladins generally shouldn't be auto-killing people because they ping evil. What you're suggesting could be just as easily argued in a human town: he should kill every person he meets who pings evil, because otherwise there's evil people running around up to no good! Freeing them is probably the right answer.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-15, 12:42 PM
As a GM, I'd allow it. You are purposefully not trying to make waves, and not stuck on "Smite Everything". You are attempting to coexist peacefully with a traditionally hostile race, showing them respect, and hopefully showing them that there are more peaceful ways to deal with non-orcs. Perhaps the Orcs were simply needing a good example for them to begin the process of changing their ways, and this gesture of acceptance is the first step on that path.

Of course, it would be better to ask the slaves which ones would prefer to remain slaves, and which would wish to be free. If all the slaves wish to be free, then he is probably just a simple and cruel individual who needs to be removed from this life for the protection of all that is good and just. But if some of the slaves actually prefer a life of slavery under his aegis... who are we to judge their culture? Free the ones who don't want to be slaves, trade the rest for your friend.

Tokiko Mima
2009-07-15, 01:09 PM
Of course, it would be better to ask the slaves which ones would prefer to remain slaves, and which would wish to be free.

The problem I see is that if you're treating them as slaves, why would it matter what they thought or wanted? You're talking about property here; most people don't allow their horse to decide if it wants to carry them.

If you treat them as individuals with the ability to make choices in their lives, then you're asking them to forgo making anymore choices, and march into bondage and sublimate themselves because it will make less waves on their society for you. That's a pretty big thing to ask anyone in a casual fashion. Unconsciously waving around your martial prowess and the total control you have over the situation as you do that, you're likely to get answers from former slaves that will be based mainly around their odds of being hurt (by you or their former masters) in the immediate future, and not on their honest opinions of their desires to be slaves.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-15, 01:24 PM
The problem I see is that if you're treating them as slaves, why would it matter what they thought or wanted? You're talking about property here; most people don't allow their horse to decide if it wants to carry them.

If you treat them as individuals with the ability to make choices in their lives, then you're asking them to forgo making anymore choices, and march into bondage and sublimate themselves because it will make less waves on their society for you. That's a pretty big thing to ask anyone in a casual fashion. Unconsciously waving around your martial prowess and the total control you have over the situation as you do that, you're likely to get answers from former slaves that will be based mainly around their odds of being hurt (by you or their former masters) in the immediate future, and not on their honest opinions of their desires to be slaves.

Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn...

That's the problem with the Paladin class: everyone has a different interpretation of what is 'good'. When the GM and the Paladin's player have different interpretations, it leads to problems.

Also you are specifically missing the point. The point is not to cause less waves, the point is to demonstrate to a hostile race that hostility is not the only answer.

As far as your last point, I don't agree. Ask a slave what their former master was like, and you are going to get a list of complaints. Only those who were truly loyal to him would state a preference to return to him. You reward that loyalty, perhaps even love, by allowing them to return to their protector in exchange for your friend.

Starbuck_II
2009-07-15, 01:30 PM
- Kill them? Coldblooded murder. Maybe ok for a greyguard, but not for a normal paladin.


No, not cold blooded. The Paladin hates evil. He hates it. It would be hot blooded murder.
That is allowed.



Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn...

Yakko: ...and todays lesson is "Early to rise & early to bed makes a man healthy but socially dead."

hamishspence
2009-07-15, 01:37 PM
legally, cold blooded murder can be any murder where the murderer shows no remorse, or any murder where the victim is unarmed and no physical threat.

Alejandro
2009-07-15, 01:57 PM
I don't think a paladin would have bargained, say, over the technical legality of putting people in boxcars and sending them off to be gassed, even though it was 100% legal as written, signed, and enforced by the SS. In this case, Good trumps Lawful, at least IMO.

HamHam
2009-07-15, 02:00 PM
Yeah... but I really wonder what a Paladin would be supposed to do with any evil slaves in this situation.

Free them and pray that this act of kindness will show them the light. And/or magically force an alignment change.

#Raptor
2009-07-15, 02:01 PM
Paladins generally shouldn't be auto-killing people because they ping evil. What you're suggesting could be just as easily argued in a human town: he should kill every person he meets who pings evil, because otherwise there's evil people running around up to no good! Freeing them is probably the right answer.

If you read my post carefully (it IS fairly short, so this shouldn't be too hard), you will notice that I did in fact argue against killing them.

If a pally detects evil on someone it doesn't automatically equal "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!" The majority of evil people probably never has done anything so evil that it would warrant killing them.

I agree that freeing them is probably the right answer - or at least the 'least evil' option.
Though the situation is different than in a human town - the humans were already free evil beings before the paladin came into town.
The slaves were evil, but not free to do whatever evil things they wanted to do - untill the paladin came along, freeing them.

As a GM, I'd allow it. You are purposefully not trying to make waves, and not stuck on "Smite Everything". You are attempting to coexist peacefully with a traditionally hostile race, showing them respect, and hopefully showing them that there are more peaceful ways to deal with non-orcs. Perhaps the Orcs were simply needing a good example for them to begin the process of changing their ways, and this gesture of acceptance is the first step on that path. I've been thinking about the same thing - and if it doesn't work out that way, who can blame the paladin? Its his shtick after all, this whole belief in humanity ...errr ...orcity?

Mr.Moron
2009-07-15, 02:04 PM
Here is how I see the whole paladin/law thing, in general:

Paladins follow legitimate laws and authority, where legitimate laws are those that serve to protect and further Good-aligned behavior. A Paladin is in no way bound to obey laws that promote slavery, genocide, rape, or other evil practices. If anything he is obligated to fight against them, at first through "proper"/established channels if practical. In cases where there are no official channels that could serve as practical means of opposing the law, then more decisive & forceful action is warranted.

For the paladin Authority & Order are tools meant to help in ensure the dignity, safety, life and to a lesser extent the freedom of all sapient beings without the [Evil] subtype. Any "law" that does otherwise - isn't a law, it is an ambition, a mockery of the real thing.


So no, I would not say a Paladin is allowed to go slave trading. Or even consider it, really.

Telonius
2009-07-15, 02:05 PM
@Raptor: "Orcishness," I think.

It does at least somewhat depend on the circumstances though. A real pickle would be if the slaves were slaves for good cause. Suppose the orcs he captured had all been (correctly and fairly) judged guilty of crimes under orcish law, and sentenced to 20 years hard labor. Does he turn the orcs over to the nearest (evil) chieftain? Free them?

hamishspence
2009-07-15, 02:10 PM
If a pally detects evil on someone it doesn't automatically equal "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!" The majority of evil people probably never has done anything so evil that it would warrant killing them.



Consistent with any setting that has humans as roughly 1/3 Good, 1/3 Neutral, 1/3 Evil, according to Quintessenial Paladin 2.

Even consistent with settings where the vast majority of humans aren't evil or Good (something like 5% Good 90% Neutral 5% Evil)

Only settings where there are no moral repercussions for Detect And Smite, are ones where only evil clerics and monsters detect as evil, and even serial killers, wouldn't.

At least, according to that book. Others might disagree, but most (Heroes of Horror, Eberron Campaign Setting, Drow of the Underdark stress that it is wrong to kill based on Detect evidence alone.


Here is how I see the whole paladin/law thing, in general:

Paladins follow legitimate laws and authority, where legitimate laws are those that serve to protect and further Good-aligned behavior. A Paladin is in no way bound to obey laws that promote slavery, genocide, rape, or other evil practices. If anything he is obligated to fight against them, at first through "proper"/established channels if practical. In cases where there are no official channels that could serve as practical means of opposing the law, then more decisive & forceful action is warranted.

For the paladin Authority & Order are tools meant to help in ensure the dignity, safety, life and to a lesser extent the freedom of all sapient beings without the [Evil] subtype. Any "law" that does otherwise - isn't a law, it is an ambition, a mockery of the real thing.


So no, I would not say a Paladin is allowed to go slave trading. Or even consider it, really.


BoED presents pretty much that exact position (and is the only book to state outright "Slavery is Evil")

Tokiko Mima
2009-07-15, 02:16 PM
Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn...

That's the problem with the Paladin class: everyone has a different interpretation of what is 'good'. When the GM and the Paladin's player have different interpretations, it leads to problems.

Also you are specifically missing the point. The point is not to cause less waves, the point is to demonstrate to a hostile race that hostility is not the only answer.

As far as your last point, I don't agree. Ask a slave what their former master was like, and you are going to get a list of complaints. Only those who were truly loyal to him would state a preference to return to him. You reward that loyalty, perhaps even love, by allowing them to return to their protector in exchange for your friend.

I'm not even judging good and evil here. Whether to be free or a slave is a major, major life decision. It's not something you ask someone to make on the spot, especially when choosing to be a slave is beneficial to the person that is asking.

Look at it from the slaves perspective; a group of armed bandits (i.e. adventurers) chases off the people that have been making all the choices in your life, though a hostage is taken from the bandits. After they're done, they sit around deciding what to do with you, just like the people that have been making all the choices in your life. You know it would be most beneficial to them if you are return you in exchange for the person taken, so they don't have to bother with you further. Next they come and offer you a choice, freedom or slavery. Will they protect you from your former master if you say you want to be free? What sort of chances does a freed slave have in this country? Will they hurt you if you don't say what they want to hear?

So you can see it's not really a free choice, is it? There's all sort of reasons you might say that you want to be a slave, even if you really would like to choose freedom. Whether out of gratitude, fear, duty, or some other factor, there's going to be a lot of confusion initially. All I'm saying is you can't casually ask if someone wants to be a slave in that situation and expect any kind of a well reasoned, rational answer.

Again, If you treat them as slaves, it's silly to ask them this question. Slaves don't get to decide about their lives. If you want a choice made by free people, you'll have to remove them from this situation where your interests or their fears influence their decision.

As for missing the point, you must remember that this is not just a question of demonstrating your non-hostility and respect to a foreign race or culture. There is also the question of the individual liberties of the current/former slaves themselves to be concerned about. It doesn't matter if they're concerned about this, as their potential liberator *you* should be.

Kobold_Love
2009-07-15, 02:34 PM
As a GM, I'd allow it. You are purposefully not trying to make waves, and not stuck on "Smite Everything". You are attempting to coexist peacefully with a traditionally hostile race, showing them respect, and hopefully showing them that there are more peaceful ways to deal with non-orcs. Perhaps the Orcs were simply needing a good example for them to begin the process of changing their ways, and this gesture of acceptance is the first step on that path.

Of course, it would be better to ask the slaves which ones would prefer to remain slaves, and which would wish to be free. If all the slaves wish to be free, then he is probably just a simple and cruel individual who needs to be removed from this life for the protection of all that is good and just. But if some of the slaves actually prefer a life of slavery under his aegis... who are we to judge their culture? Free the ones who don't want to be slaves, trade the rest for your friend.


This brings up a question in my mind.

What if the paladin simply cuts the chains of the slaves, and then begins to walk of with the rest of the party to find the halfling. However, a few rounds later someone passes a spot check and notices the goblins and handful of female orcs are following them.

If one PC speaks goblin or orc, and asks why they are follow them a goblin walks up and says something like "We follow master" in a submissive way. And they then continue insisting to follow the paladin aka. "master".

What now? Does the paladin get to stay with the cheap goblin labor, and a harem of smexy orc females?

HamHam
2009-07-15, 02:56 PM
@Raptor: "Orcishness," I think.

It does at least somewhat depend on the circumstances though. A real pickle would be if the slaves were slaves for good cause. Suppose the orcs he captured had all been (correctly and fairly) judged guilty of crimes under orcish law, and sentenced to 20 years hard labor. Does he turn the orcs over to the nearest (evil) chieftain? Free them?

Prisoners and slaves are not the same thing.

hamishspence
2009-07-15, 02:59 PM
But they can overlap. A person sold into slavery to cover their debts, a person sentenced to life as a slave for a serious crime, both are common in fiction (and were probably common historically)

Mr.Moron
2009-07-15, 03:07 PM
@Raptor: "Orcishness," I think.

It does at least somewhat depend on the circumstances though. A real pickle would be if the slaves were slaves for good cause. Suppose the orcs he captured had all been (correctly and fairly) judged guilty of crimes under orcish law, and sentenced to 20 years hard labor. Does he turn the orcs over to the nearest (evil) chieftain? Free them?

Depends what their crime was. If it was for murder, or some otherwise serious crime that would legitimately warrant long-term improvement he can leave them to the authorities. So long as the paladin is able to somehow confirm that the Orcish justice system doesn't include torture, unreasonably poor prison conditions, shoving prisoners into coliseums with lions, or anything else similarly cruel it's OK to leave them to the authorities. However the chances of this happening if the government is evil-aligned is pretty slim.

If they're prisoners under an unjust Orcish law, such as getting 20 years hard labor for making fun of the Chieftains Hair, or stealing a loaf of Orc-Cookies to keep from starving he is just as obligated to fight against as he would any other evil law.

Tokiko Mima
2009-07-15, 03:10 PM
This brings up a question in my mind.

What if the paladin simply cuts the chains of the slaves, and then begins to walk of with the rest of the party to find the halfling. However, a few rounds later someone passes a spot check and notices the goblins and handful of female orcs are following them.

If one PC speaks goblin or orc, and asks why they are follow them a goblin walks up and says something like "We follow master" in a submissive way. And they then continue insisting to follow the paladin aka. "master".

What now? Does the paladin get to stay with the cheap goblin labor, and a harem of smexy orc females?

It's one of those things D&D likes to gloss over. A DM would rarely have this happen because it's one of the "personal responsibility for your actions" deals that fantasy is usually an escape from. Morally, I would say you have a responsibility to help these people with their new lives as ex-slaves, under the same principle as when you break something you need to take responsibility for it. This applies even though you 'broke' their lives in entirely positive fashion.

The quick fix is to make them your new hirelings. Otherwise you could spend a few weeks finding them homes, jobs, skills, and allow them to become independent and fit back into society. So that's why this doesn't come up much, it's sort of boring to play out.

#Raptor
2009-07-15, 03:12 PM
@Raptor: "Orcishness," I think.

It does at least somewhat depend on the circumstances though. A real pickle would be if the slaves were slaves for good cause. Suppose the orcs he captured had all been (correctly and fairly) judged guilty of crimes under orcish law, and sentenced to 20 years hard labor. Does he turn the orcs over to the nearest (evil) chieftain? Free them?
Orcishness certainly sounds better, even if the first mental image I get upon hearing it is moar dakka. :smallwink:

Slaves for a good cause... or maybe rather for a good reason. Yeah, that's a hard one. If by correctly and fairly judged you mean from the paladins point of view - then he'd agree with the orcish judgement that they can't be set free (though slavery is probably still harsh in his eyes). In this case his detect evil will do him some good (after getting him in the whole situation with the evil slaves in the first place) - bring them to the next nonevil chieftain.

If correctly and fairly judged means from the average orcs point of view - then he should probably set them free.


This brings up a question in my mind.

What if the paladin simply cuts the chains of the slaves, and then begins to walk of with the rest of the party to find the halfling. However, a few rounds later someone passes a spot check and notices the goblins and handful of female orcs are following them.

If one PC speaks goblin or orc, and asks why they are follow them a goblin walks up and says something like "We follow master" in a submissive way. And they then continue insisting to follow the paladin aka. "master".

What now? Does the paladin get to stay with the cheap goblin labor, and a harem of smexy orc females?
Huh. Well, I guess thats were Half-orc paladins come from?
And hey, probability says that at least one of them must have above average charisma...
Detect evil on them (theyr probably not, as evil = egoistical = getting outta there as soon as the chains are off). If they see this as a life debt, theyr probably not chaotic either. So, after detect evil doesn't go off, we're talking about a possible alignment ranging from neutral to lawful good.
In other words: A perfect match for our pally! :smallbiggrin:

The goblins can go and build him a loveshack or something. After all those alignment issues headaches, its time for him to kick back and relax.

Nah, but really... if they see it as a life debt (like chewbecca, for example) that they owe him for saving theyr lifes, then well - the paladin is lawful, he'll probably understand that. Telling them that he doesn't need/want them to serve him would be good, but I doubt he'd fall for not doing that or not thinking of it.
If they think they're his slaves now... well, ouch. Whoever speaks orc/goblin will have to explain that one to them.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-15, 05:49 PM
My personal interpretation (though this is clearly going to vary by campaign a great deal) - is that no, the Paladin cannot do this.

Just because something is legal, does not mean the Paladin should (or even can) do it. In a situation like that, the Paladin should still free the slaves. (And no, arguing that it's 'stealing' wouldn't work - because you've already had a battle + looting situation which is how they'd get the slaves in the first place)

The legality of slavery does not override the fact that it contravenes the Good part of the alignment.

The only way the paladin would be unable to free the slaves is if there were some law expressly forbidding it.

---

Before going further though - let's look at the Paladin's code so we know precisely what we're looking at here:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

---

May never willingly commit an evil act:

Engaging in the slave trade, in almost all but the most ruthless of campaign settings, is by nature an Evil act.

You must help those in need (provided they do not use that help toward evil or chaotic ends):

I have a very difficult time seeing "being free" as Chaotic ends. Some could argue it that way; but it's an enormous stretch. It's true a slave may indeed go on to do great evil - the Paladin has no way of knowing that. (Even an Evil alignment isn't guaranteed to cause any sort of major evil - otherwise Good nations would simply round up everyone who detected as Evil and be done with it.) - So "evil ends" is unlikely here as well. The exception of course being if a slave says "Let me go and I'll do <insert evil action>" (or gives hints in that direction.)

So this part of the code pretty much compels you to aid them.

Punish those who harm or threaten innocents:

Already taken care of in freeing said slaves and pursuing the people who captured the halfling.

Respect legitimate authority:

This is the only part out of the entire code where you might get into an issue freeing the slaves.

Note that it's only an issue if:

A) There is an orcish government to report to

B) Said government is legitimate (ie: Isn't simply an occupying power)

C) There is in fact a law against freeing captive slaves (this could go either way - some cultures with slave-trades have options to free them, some don't and make it expressly illegal to do so)

Note: There is no way whatsoever in a normal campaign for a paladin to justify dealing in slaves - no matter what the culture says. The issue isn't if the Paladin can sell them - but rather if they can be freed assuming all the above is true.

Even if all the above is true though, I'd argue that when confronted with an endemic (but legal) evil, the Paladin can use the parts of the code that point toward freeing the slaves to override this. It's essentially a catch-22 otherwise - as NOT freeing the slaves weighs heavily against the code; but doing so in a situation where the law expressly disallows it, and the authority is legitimate.

---

Long story short:

Paladin should free the slaves, go rescue the halfling. Failure to do either is going against the code; at least as I read it. Freeing them is only an issue if specific conditions are true, and one can make an argument that two sections of the code (including the "prime directive" of Paladins) outweighs one section of code with dubious grounds for consideration in this situation.

Even if the Paladin for some reason can't free the slaves, engaging in the slave trade is an evil act and a guaranteed fall.

Zeful
2009-07-15, 06:08 PM
The only way the paladin would be unable to free the slaves is if there were some law expressly forbidding it.
[...]
Even if the Paladin for some reason can't free the slaves, engaging in the slave trade is an evil act and a guaranteed fall.

Not exactly true on either count. A paladin would not free slaves if doing so would put them in more danger than keeping them. If there are no laws for the acceptable punishment of runaways (if the paladin's not sticking around it's the slave's word versus the master's, they're runaways), and this was a random encounter, it's neither good nor evil to keep or free them. If slaves are beaten/tortured/murdered for running away or the Paladin knew that the slave owner would beat/kill/torture them, then the Paladin not just can keep the slaves from the encounter, but can in fact buy slaves from the abusive owner, and have it be a Good act.

So in settings/areas where slavery is expressively illegal, then freeing them would have few negative repercussions (though releasing them "in the wild" isn't the best idea, since they might be recaptured). In areas/settings where slavery is not just legal, but the norm (as the OP stated), then it would reflect better on the Paladin to buy slaves away from an abusive master (or keep those whom he won) until they can be safely freed, or if he could otherwise provide a better life for them (either through patronage in the church, or finding adequate masters for them, etc.).

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-15, 06:32 PM
I think the idea that freeing slaves might go against a paladin's code to be nothing but ridiculous. Slavery as a concept is in most cases evil in itself. Paladins should follow their moral convictions, not a rigid code thrust upon them.

Zeful
2009-07-15, 07:00 PM
I think the idea that freeing slaves might go against a paladin's code to be nothing but ridiculous. Slavery as a concept is in most cases evil in itself. Paladins should follow their moral convictions, not a rigid code thrust upon them.

So the concept of owning slaves because if you don't claim them, they may be excessively beaten, tortured or killed, is ridiculous? If the Paladin simply cuts their chains and lets them loose into the wild, they are runaways, and considering how runaways were treated in our history (which given the OP's lack of statement on laws regarding slaves, is the only thing I have to go on) they will be beaten or whipped, some (read: the less profitable ones) killed to teach others slaves not to run away if recaptured. And they will very likely be recaptured because in places where slavery is both legal and common (Pre-Civil War American south, for instance) you have the government helping slave owners find their lost property (for a fee). So releasing the slaves is the "Worst Idea Ever(tm)" in this scenario. They are safer remaining your slaves until you can either, legally free them (so they can't be recaptured) or failing that, provide a safe and productive life.

You won't fall for freeing them, but you won't fall for owning them either (unless you start abusing them).

Mr.Moron
2009-07-15, 07:03 PM
They are safer remaining your slaves until you can either, legally free them (so they can't be recaptured) or failing that, provide a safe and productive life.


No. You're welcome to protect them all you want should they accept your protection but you can't forcibly make them your property. That is evil. Claiming ownership of another person is one of the most vile things a person can do. A Paladin cannot own slaves. Frankly, neither can anyone good, or even neutral-aligned.

Starbuck_II
2009-07-15, 07:16 PM
I have a very difficult time seeing "being free" as Chaotic ends. Some could argue it that way; but it's an enormous stretch. It's true a slave may indeed go on to do great evil - the Paladin has no way of knowing that. (Even an Evil alignment isn't guaranteed to cause any sort of major evil - otherwise Good nations would simply round up everyone who detected as Evil and be done with it.) - So "evil ends" is unlikely here as well. The exception of course being if a slave says "Let me go and I'll do <insert evil action>" (or gives hints in that direction.)


Whoa, Chaos is all about freedom. Read the PHB section if you don't think so.
Now as the above was your is personal view I won't say you are thinking wrong, but really that shows how Chaos is freedom.

In fact, that was why Complete Scoindrel rated Jack Sparrow as CN. He is all about freedom (his) and he hates slavery (which is anti-freedom).

Zeful
2009-07-15, 07:18 PM
No. You're welcome to protect them all you want should they accept your protection but you can't forcibly make them your property. That is evil. Claiming ownership of another person is one of the most vile things a person can do. A Paladin cannot own slaves. Frankly neither can anyone good, or even neutral-aligned.

But if you don't make them your property (or don't let another party member do so) then you have no legal method to protect them should you run into anyone with the legal authority to hold them (which, again, in a society where slavery is both legal and common, which the OP stated is true, is common, because you have government soldiers helping find and return runaway slaves, which the people you're protecting are). So you either have to preform a coup, kill a very large number soldiers and people just doing their jobs (or trying and failing in this case) or abuse the unjust laws to the oppressed advantage. Of course you could Take a Fourth Option and figure something else out, but those three are the only options I could think of. Besides, legally owning the slaves allows you to legally free them if the option exists, meaning technically ownership for a day equals actual freedom for a lifetime.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-15, 07:30 PM
But if you don't make them your property (or don't let another party member do so) then you have no legal method to protect them should you run into anyone with the legal authority to hold them (which, again, in a society where slavery is both legal and common, which the OP stated is true, is common, because you have government soldiers helping find and return runaway slaves, which the people you're protecting are).


It doesn't matter if it's legal or not when the law is illegitimate. The paladin is allowed obligated to disregard evil laws such as "Slavery is OK".

He's welcome to go around and act like they're slaves, assuming they're willing to go along with it, if that'd make things easier. However actually taking them as slaves, honestly holding them as property and "Meaning It" is evil, plain and simple.

If the government agents really come, and force the issue by attacking them he is allowed to defend himself. Ideally, he'd subdue nonlethally either with a merciful weapon, taking -4 on his attacks or having some sort of clever way to trap/redirect them. However when it comes down to it, those trying to do evil things (capture slaves) are ultimately making their own decisions. If conflict with them escalates despite best efforts, it isn't the paladin's fault.

Zeful
2009-07-15, 07:58 PM
You know, I think we're arguing different sides of the same coin, Mr. Moron. The Paladin would not approve of slavery. The Paladin would rather not kill people who are simply enforcing an evil law (where recapturing runaway slaves is part and parcel with other duties). The Paladin can use an Evil Law to the advantage of the oppressed (in this case "owning" them to set them free, if possible). But it seems that you're unwilling to accept a situation where he is unable to set the slaves free.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-15, 08:09 PM
But it seems that you're unwilling to accept a situation where he is unable to set the slaves free.


Correct. Any scenario in which the paladin forcibly makes the slaves do what he or she wants, and feels justified in doing so because they are property is one in which a paladin is committing an extremely evil act.
EDIT:
This is very different than getting them to agree to act as though they were his or her slaves until the situation had been resolved.

Zeful
2009-07-15, 08:56 PM
Correct. Any scenario in which the paladin forcibly makes the slaves do what he or she wants, and feels justified in doing so because they are property is one in which a paladin is committing an extremely evil act.

EDIT:
This is very different than getting them to agree to act as though they were his or her slaves until the situation had been resolved.

Yes, and I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about: The Paladin legally owns slaves. He does not like this. He cannot free them for whatever reason. He does not like this either. He manages to arrange jobs, homes and such for the slaves. Legally they are still his property, he is responsible for their actions and well-being, while in practice he's more akin to a parent or landlord, then a slave master.

GoatToucher
2009-07-15, 10:27 PM
It seems to me that a situation whereina paladin could not free these slaves by any means is an unlikely contrivance that would have to be set up by the DM to test/screw with the paladin.

Paladins -cannot- knowingly commit or tolerate evil acts, lest they fall from paladinhood. They can't. If they were in this rather unlikely circumstance, they would strive with all their effort to rectify it postehaste. A paladin who would just shrug and say "Oh, well: the laws' the law." is no kind of paladin at all.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-15, 10:30 PM
Legally they are still his property, he is responsible for their actions and well-being, while in practice he's more akin to a parent or landlord, then a slave master.


If he or she is only giving the a "Nod" to the legal status, without actually believing he or she has any claim to them that's fine. So long as they're OK with it. However if they aren't free to walk away at any time (even if it would spell their own certain death or recapture) it's evil. They must be aware that they're free, and actively choose to put up the "front' with the paladin.