PDA

View Full Version : Paladins choice



Adamaro
2010-04-08, 03:52 AM
Woman is severaly beaten on the street by her husband. When paladin intervenes, both of them tell him to mind his own business (woman is not intimidated by husband). What does paladin do in order he does not fall? Also, is it ok for him to "confiscate" children in such a family, regarding the "fall" thing?

kamikasei
2010-04-08, 03:59 AM
Walk away, and no it's not.

Killer Angel
2010-04-08, 04:11 AM
Walk away and eventually report the thing to the local church: certainly they know the situation and can judge better than him.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-04-08, 04:12 AM
Ask your DM, in character! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

Killer Angel
2010-04-08, 04:16 AM
Ask your DM, in character! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

Indeed, no sane paladin should adventure without one of these... :smallwink:

AslanCross
2010-04-08, 04:49 AM
If the paladin is a member of the local law enforcement, he can arrest the husband (and the wife, if it's a full on brawl), throw them in separate cells and volunteer to spend the night talking to them. If he's not, I agree that he can go walk away and call the city watch on them or alternatively, use his diplomacy to talk the husband out of it. He's beholden to his church and to his god, not the snappy opinions of people.

I don't think a paladin would do the Social Services thing and take the children away for "safety."

I think ample use of the Diplomacy skill would be the best way to deal with this.

hamishspence
2010-04-08, 04:52 AM
How about if one or the other partner is evil-aligned?

Most D&D splatbooks seem to go with "being evil is not necessarily a crime"

Paladins are supposed to defend the weak, generally- but sometimes that might conflict with other basic principles.

Adamaro
2010-04-08, 04:58 AM
Paladins are supposed to defend the weak, generally- but sometimes that might conflict with other basic principles.

My point exactly.

Ossian
2010-04-08, 04:59 AM
Ask your DM, in character! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

Man, that´s a Tefillin. Who would have figured the SRD had that stuff in the list of items :)

Back to the OP, Paladin should discreetly step out of the discussion and keep an eye on the scene until the drama is over. The woman, though not intimidated, might be underestimating the gravity of the situation, or husband might think he can keep control only to realize he´s gone ape**** when it is too late. It might drag for hours, and you are gonna have to stand in the shadows with your righteous 30kg of full plate on, but no one said that taking it upon yourself to be a custodian of the highest values was gonna be easy.

If the situation degenerates (i.e. you see blood or any kind of weapon, even just a wooden ladle) make sure the homie gets a lesson in good manners.

Then, you know, your paladin will leave and continue on the path of Awesome, all happy and righteous, and probably the husband will take it out on the wife when they are back at home and no one can protect her, but this is D&D, not Social Services Inc.

O.

Kris Strife
2010-04-08, 05:14 AM
I think ample use of the Diplomacy skill would be the best way to deal with this.

QFT. I always make sure to get Diplomacy as a class skill and max my ranks in it, with any character I make. :smallbiggrin:

Calmar
2010-04-08, 06:06 AM
Woman is severaly beaten on the street by her husband. When paladin intervenes, both of them tell him to mind his own business (woman is not intimidated by husband). What does paladin do in order he does not fall? Also, is it ok for him to "confiscate" children in such a family, regarding the "fall" thing?

The Paladin as a holy warrior can certainly be seen as a 'religious' character. She fights for right and good in the name of her deity. Therefore we can assume that the paladin’s code is quite like an embodiment of her deity’s creed. To break the code of conduct means, therefore, to act against faith, thus committing heresy.

According to William Ockham, a heretic is a person who consciously and willingly errs against the faith and insists upon his error, despite being proven wrong (I Dialogus V, c. 1).

Now, would a paladin’s deity, a being of righteousness and goodness, want
a) his champion to confidently prevent violence and to protect another person?
b) to stab his champion in the back on the first chance for following her conscience?

The concept of the "Fall", as it is commonly understood, itself is a ridiculous and completely unjust game mechanic. A paladin should only fall if she purposefully commits an evil act, not accidentally. The code and the possibility to fall should enhance the role play, not block it. To advance good according to one self’s best knowledge and conscience is not evil and would not cause a paladin to fall.

hamishspence
2010-04-08, 06:51 AM
The concept of the "Fall", as it is commonly understood, itself is a ridiculous and completely unjust game mechanic. A paladin should only fall if she purposefully commits an evil act, not accidentally. The code and the possibility to fall should enhance the role play, not block it. To advance good according to one self’s best knowledge and conscience is not evil and would not cause a paladin to fall.

It may be unfair- but it's of long standing. 2nd ed had the same "fall for accidental evil acts or ones committed under magical compulsion" rule.

There is also the issue of "nonevil acts that are gross violations of the code".

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-08, 06:58 AM
Kill 'em all, and let the Gods sort them out. :smallwink:

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-08, 07:43 AM
Depends on how old school you want to go.

Alot of older societies didn't look at beating your wife or kids as a bad thing.

So check with your GM out of game to see if that is the way the society works in his world.

Confiscating the kids in said old world would be up to you but you would most likly be breaking local law.

hamishspence
2010-04-08, 09:48 AM
If you're going by modern mores (slavery, torture, gender/racial discrimination, etc being considered evil) for alignment, but old-style values for many of the societies, then you end up with a lot of "evil societies"-

thus, the paladin needs to tread carefully- even if something is evil, if the society accepts it the paladin might get into trouble if they overtly oppose it- or use force to prevent "evil acts".

Telonius
2010-04-08, 12:04 PM
First off, the couple is incorrect - if the disturbance is public, it is the paladin's business.

So, in the ideal situation: first step, defuse the situation. Stop any current beating that's going on, and allow them to calm down. Step two, investigate. Find out what happened. Determine if any laws or traditions have been broken, and if so, turn them over to the legitimate authorities. Find out from the authorities if this has been going on for awhile, if it's tolerated, any other circumstances he should be aware of, etc. Step three, diplomacy. Convince them beating isn't a good idea, be a medieval couples counselor, whatever.

If the situation is short of ideal (i.e. in the middle of a kingdom run by a cabal of Priests of Hextor, there is no local authority, laws on the subject are hazy or favoring beatings), the Paladin will have to change the strategy as necessary, possibly proselytizing a little bit along the way.

LichPrinceAlim
2010-04-08, 12:57 PM
I agree with the most recent post

Frosty
2010-04-08, 01:25 PM
Do what the Paladin's deity has taught is right in this situation. Seriously. Your god doesn't care what the local laws says is Good or not. Your god has his/her own concepts of Good. Hell, by RAW, the entire universe has a Concete Concept of Good and Evil. In fact, even if the local laws proclaim that marital beatings and legal and Good, it is your DUTY as a Paladin to stop it if it is not Good according to your deity/the universe.

The Paladin is under no compulsion to obey evil/unjust laws.

Person_Man
2010-04-08, 02:13 PM
What is the status of women in the campaign world? Because prior to the 20th century, appalling domestic violence was pretty common and accepted across most cultures.

Frosty
2010-04-08, 02:53 PM
What is the status of women in the campaign world? Because prior to the 20th century, appalling domestic violence was pretty common and accepted across most cultures.
But it doesn't (necessarily) mean that your deity considers to non-Evil

snoopy13a
2010-04-08, 03:04 PM
It's perfectly alright to arrest the man as a person cannot consent to being a victim of a crime. A crime is society's business so the "none of your business" argument doesn't work.

Nonlethal force should be used if he resists. If the woman tries to physically prevent the arrest then it is fine to use nonlethal force to arrest her as well. Then drop off the person(s) off at the authorities and offer to testify at any trial.

Since nonlethal force is key, a paladin ought to carry a weapon such as a sap for this very purpose.

LibraryOgre
2010-04-08, 03:18 PM
Woman is severaly beaten on the street by her husband. When paladin intervenes, both of them tell him to mind his own business (woman is not intimidated by husband). What does paladin do in order he does not fall? Also, is it ok for him to "confiscate" children in such a family, regarding the "fall" thing?

I think the best thing for the paladin to do is intervene in the immediate beating. That's what he can do right now, and one can't necessarily tell if "dude beating a woman" is domestic abuse or regular assault and battery. I might also ask to talk to the guy, offer to buy him a drink... and talk to him, figure out what's going on, why he thinks a beating is necessary, etc. In the meantime, I'd be gathering information like where they live, what kids they have, his and his wife's name. That I would probably share with a religion that dealt with these kinds of issues (a deity of marriage or children, or one of peace or things of that nature; local lords might also work, especially if they or their families have a reputation for taking care of children).

A paladin cannot make people's choices for them. He can't stop her from going back to him, nor should an itinerant paladin confiscate children he's going to lack the means to take care of. On the other hand, using existing social structures to achieve good ends (i.e. making sure the children are taken care of and the adults don't beat each other to death) is well within a paladin's purview.

hamishspence
2010-04-08, 03:28 PM
What is the status of women in the campaign world? Because prior to the 20th century, appalling domestic violence was pretty common and accepted across most cultures.

BoED suggests that while its not the default D&D world, it is possible to play in a campaign where the the mores of society are more medieval- with slavery, discrimination, torture, etc being accepted.

However- they still count as evil.

Which is not to say it is OK (morally) in D&D to slay an evil-aligned wife-beater on sight- you should try and prevent evil deeds, but not necessarily by killing all those you catch doing evil things- sometimes non-lethal force is more appropriate.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-08, 03:33 PM
Don't forget if you play with a more medivel bent alot of the Good/Evil access changes. Well actualy theres no RAW behind that but i would assume it would as well.

For instance being a paladin of perlor, i could see that said wife beating would probly not be a big issue.

But a god of freedom and anti oppression probebly would have an issue.


You should deffinetly talk to your GM about where that falls on the universal Good evil line and where it falls for your specific god.

hamishspence
2010-04-08, 03:44 PM
Don't forget if you play with a more medivel bent alot of the Good/Evil access changes. Well actualy theres no RAW behind that but i would assume it would as well.

BoED takes the approach that nothing that is Good (or evil) as described in PHB, BoVD, and BoED itself, changes in a medieval themed campaign.

This can lead to a "good aligned characters are rare" situation- but if the players like that, this can make for an interesting feel to the game.

Alternatively, players could take a "relative morality" approach, with Good and Evil changing to correspond more closely to what was seen as Good and Evil in medieval times. It would be very different to the standard alignment system though.

Heroes of Horror mentions it, but says "using relative morality changes the game on a fundemental level, and is well beyond the scope of this work."

Frosty
2010-04-08, 03:48 PM
BoED suggests that while its not the default D&D world, it is possible to play in a campaign where the the mores of society are more medieval- with slavery, discrimination, torture, etc being accepted.
All that means, as you understand very well, is that in such a society, most of the souls there will go to the Nine Hells.

In fact, Devils *actively encourage* such social mores just to get more soul traffic to Baator. Seriously. It's spelled out in Fiendish Codex II. It doesn't matter that society pressures you to do evil or that they tell you evil acts aren't evil. You do it, you pay the price when you die.

hamishspence
2010-04-08, 03:58 PM
Yup- when reading FC2's description of "devil influenced" societies, it seemed to me that they did fit rather well.

Istari
2010-04-08, 04:00 PM
It's perfectly alright to arrest the man as a person cannot consent to being a victim of a crime. A crime is society's business so the "none of your business" argument doesn't work.

Nonlethal force should be used if he resists. If the woman tries to physically prevent the arrest then it is fine to use nonlethal force to arrest her as well. Then drop off the person(s) off at the authorities and offer to testify at any trial.

Since nonlethal force is key, a paladin ought to carry a weapon such as a sap for this very purpose.

The problem with that is, your barely better then the man. The man isn't trying to kill his wife so why would proceed to beat them up? Calling the proper authorities is much less likely to cause any violence, and even it does force is then appropriate.

Mikeavelli
2010-04-08, 04:51 PM
Woman is severaly beaten on the street by her husband.

Husband is committing a crime, haul him off to jail. If societal laws aren't compatible with this mindset, most every good-aligned god I can think of still has a "defend the defenseless" clause in there somewhere. Beat him silly, and use a diplomacy or intimidation check to convince him to never do it again.

The difference between him beating her silly and you beating him silly is that: He's a bully, you're defending someone against a bully.

Ensure the woman is able to take care of her children while her husband is recovering \ in jail whether with money (even low-level adventurers lose enough coins between the couch cushions to keep a peasant woman living comfortably for a year), or by the intercession of your fellow clergymen.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-08, 05:31 PM
BoED takes the approach that nothing that is Good (or evil) as described in PHB, BoVD, and BoED itself, changes in a medieval themed campaign.

This can lead to a "good aligned characters are rare" situation- but if the players like that, this can make for an interesting feel to the game.

Alternatively, players could take a "relative morality" approach, with Good and Evil changing to correspond more closely to what was seen as Good and Evil in medieval times. It would be very different to the standard alignment system though.

Heroes of Horror mentions it, but says "using relative morality changes the game on a fundemental level, and is well beyond the scope of this work."

We just shift the societies views along with it.
for example slavery has no right or wrongness. Its right or wrong depends on the nation/dutchy/land what have you. Though some gods disaprove of it(mostly CG gods) some don't care or are indifferent to it.

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 04:54 AM
It can be done- but it's a bit different from the standard D&D alignment system.

BoED isn't the only source to suggest slavery and discrimination are evil regardless of whether a particular society (or deity) thinks they are evil or not- Cityscape states pretty much the same thing- stating that no Good-aligned society practices slavery, or systematic discrimination in the law:

(for example, a person murdering a human getting the death penalty, but a person murdering an elf only getting a fine, in a society that practices systematic discrimination against elves)

A Neutral society might, but not a Good one.

It's certainly possible for a paladin's deity to order the paladin to do an Evil act (even Good deities can occasionally do, or order done, evil acts) but this doesn't affect the rules governing the paladin, normally.

So- a Paladin might have a LN deity, live in a LN society where slavery is practiced and the deity does not disapprove of it- but the paladin still has to be LG- so if the paladin actually enslaved another person, they might be in danger of falling, what with PHB's "Evil implies oppressing others" (it also mentions hurting and killing others, but oppression itself could be deemed an evil act.)

About the only place where it's implied that the milder forms of slavery can be tolerated by paladins ruling the society, is in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book- Mulhorand is a society that practices slavery, and is ruled by a paladin.

2xMachina
2010-04-09, 06:17 AM
... None of your business. There are cops for that. If there are no cops for that, there aren't going to have judge for that either.

Leave and go find some evil guy doing evil to kill. You're not a One Man Army taking on the entire world to fix all problems.

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 06:50 AM
Part of Good alignment is being altruistic- if someone is "in need" a Good character should try and help them in some way, if possible.

Now when the someone refuses to admit that they are "in need" its trickier- some people just don't want to be helped.

But it doesn't invalidate the basic precept of Good- "help others who are in need".


... None of your business. There are cops for that. If there are no cops for that, there aren't going to have judge for that either.

Leave and go find some evil guy doing evil to kill. You're not a One Man Army taking on the entire world to fix all problems.

Evil deeds of any kind are the business of all good characters (paladins included)- however, depending on the context, a less violent response to the evil deeds may be appropriate.

LibraryOgre
2010-04-09, 12:34 PM
... None of your business. There are cops for that. If there are no cops for that, there aren't going to have judge for that either.

Leave and go find some evil guy doing evil to kill. You're not a One Man Army taking on the entire world to fix all problems.

"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

This doesn't mean you stop chasing a murderer to break up a mugging, or stop saving the world to stop one unjust beat-down... you're one man, and have to prioritize. But stopping a beating, when you have nothing else to do? Ignore that it's domestic violence... it's simply something a good person will intervene in.

A major part of what a paladin does is protect the weak. Make sure that the law is being used for the benefit of all, not their oppression. Violence is sometimes necessary; in this situation, it would probably be best to grapple the guy (grab his arm) rather than run him through with a sword. But just walk off, figuring "It's not my problem"? That's an attitude that leads to a slippery slope of not caring about anything but noble quests.

Name_Here
2010-04-09, 12:54 PM
Woman is severaly beaten on the street by her husband. When paladin intervenes, both of them tell him to mind his own business (woman is not intimidated by husband). What does paladin do in order he does not fall? Also, is it ok for him to "confiscate" children in such a family, regarding the "fall" thing?

What action beyond joining in on the wife beating would cause the paladin to fall? Scaring off the husband shouldn't make him fall, beating up the husband shouldn't make him fall, making sure nothing happens until the guards come to sort out the situation shouldn't make him fall. Hell stepping away once they both cool off shouldn't even make him fall, certainly isn't very bright or helpful but not worthy of a fall.

And no I don't think confiscating the children falls under his jurisdiction.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-09, 01:15 PM
ya know that brings up a good point...

Back in that day did the government even take your children for "abuse" seeing as "parental abuse" realy wasn't even looked at badly untill like the 1900's

HenryHankovitch
2010-04-09, 01:40 PM
Indeed, no sane paladin should adventure without one of these... :smallwink:

I'm of the opinion that a paladin who needs to constantly "call Mom" to tell him what to do, ought to end up on his deity's ****-list rather quickly.


But then, that Phylactery is basically metagaming made into artifact form, so it's pretty silly from the get-go.


DM: ...okay, so what do you do?

Player: I consult my Amulet of Metagaming to find out what the DM will let me get away with.

Telonius
2010-04-09, 02:34 PM
... None of your business. There are cops for that. If there are no cops for that, there aren't going to have judge for that either.

Leave and go find some evil guy doing evil to kill. You're not a One Man Army taking on the entire world to fix all problems.

I've always thought that's kind of what a Paladin is. He's the marshal that rides in and cleans up town when the local sheriff can't handle it.

2xMachina
2010-04-09, 02:39 PM
I'm pretty sure the local sheriff can handle domestic disputes.

So, the Paladin will be off doing something commoners can't handle.

Gorilla2038
2010-04-09, 02:45 PM
I'm pretty sure the local sheriff can handle domestic disputes.

So, the Paladin will be off doing something commoners can't handle.

I think you miss the point of a Paladin. There supposed to stop evil. Thats it. Should they take weeks to stop and help these people, when the world is dieing around them? no.

But holding yourself above helping real people, only holding back to save 'the world'? Thats pretty evil. Your saying you hour, day, whatever, is more valuable than either person.

To consider yourself better than everyone else is the start of a easy path of evil.

Telonius
2010-04-09, 03:33 PM
I'm pretty sure the local sheriff can handle domestic disputes.

So, the Paladin will be off doing something commoners can't handle.

The local sheriff isn't present; the Paladin is. That's like saying an FBI agent on his coffee break ought to walk by and do nothing if he sees kids throwing rocks at a window.

LibraryOgre
2010-04-09, 04:36 PM
The local sheriff isn't present; the Paladin is. That's like saying an FBI agent on his coffee break ought to walk by and do nothing if he sees kids throwing rocks at a window.

Actually, due to different jurisdictions, he probably shouldn't do much more than make a phone call and take some pictures... unless it's a post office, he doesn't have much jurisdiction.

@Ragnaroks_Chosen: Here's my problem... there is no "back in that day" when talking about D&D. Heck, according to Ed Greenwood, the 1350s in the Realms was the same as the 1980s on Earth... he knew because Elminster would come into his kitchen and tell him stories about the Realms. The social mores of D&D's various worlds far more closely mirrors our own than that of the 1300s in Europe. To that end, I find it far more helpful to think of D&D worlds as being equivalent to the late 1800s/early 1900s... the Wild West. On the verge of a lot of breakthroughs (driven by PCs with dreams of Sending-powered Blackberries), with more open acceptance of race and more protective views of children.
In this analogy, the Paladin is more akin to the Lone Ranger. He comes in and solves problems, both those that the local law enforcement can't handle, and those that have festered under the nose of the local law. He solves problems not because the law is incompetent, but because he's there, and he's capable of doing so.

Hi ho, Silver, AWAY!

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 04:41 PM
In this analogy, the Paladin is more akin to the Lone Ranger. He comes in and solves problems, both those that the local law enforcement can't handle, and those that have festered under the nose of the local law. He solves problems not because the law is incompetent, but because he's there, and he's capable of doing so.

Hi ho, Silver, AWAY!

I like this one.

I thought Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar were rather paladinlike- they have powers, they get a steed of celestial origin (even if most of the present-day ones are born on the Material Plane) they judge those accused of being evildoers, defend people from bandits, on rare occasions fight marauding monsters, and so on.

And if they become corrupt- their steed will reject them.

Heralds aren't nearly as uptight as paladins tend to be portrayed though.

LibraryOgre
2010-04-09, 04:54 PM
I like this one.

I thought Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar were rather paladinlike- they have powers, they get a steed of celestial origin (even if most of the present-day ones are born on the Material Plane) they judge those accused of being evildoers, defend people from bandits, on rare occasions fight marauding monsters, and so on.

And if they become corrupt- their steed will reject them.

Heralds aren't nearly as uptight as paladins tend to be portrayed though.

Which, IMO, is a big part of it. Heralds are probably G-only, rather than LG-only (q.v. Skif; while he's an agent of Valdemar, he is still a thief, and quite often a thief in Valdemar's service), but they have a lot in common with paladins.

Name_Here
2010-04-09, 05:08 PM
I'm of the opinion that a paladin who needs to constantly "call Mom" to tell him what to do, ought to end up on his deity's ****-list rather quickly.


But then, that Phylactery is basically metagaming made into artifact form, so it's pretty silly from the get-go.


DM: ...okay, so what do you do?

Player: I consult my Amulet of Metagaming to find out what the DM will let me get away with.

I think it's a necessary evil due to the absurd overuse of fall by GMs who dislike paladins and want to punish anybody playing one or GMs who hold the paladins to levels of righteousness far beyond absurd.

Without it the paladins are basically walking a tightrope in the dark without a net and something cutting through the rope.

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 05:17 PM
Heralds are probably G-only, rather than LG-only (q.v. Skif; while he's an agent of Valdemar, he is still a thief, and quite often a thief in Valdemar's service), but they have a lot in common with paladins.

Yes- their mounts are also (in some cases) a bit more forgiving of evil acts- it takes a lot to get a complete repuditation.

In the Mage Winds trilogy (Winds of Fate, Winds of Change, Winds of Fury) Skif mentions the revenge he took on a villain, to one of the Hawkbrothers. And its clear that while Skiv's Companion disapproved, she didn't reject him, or report him, either.

The Hawkbrother's response:


"I learned this lesson when I was a little older than you, now- when I visited similar retribution on a very stupid bandit who had been tormenting hertasi and killing them for their hides. It does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature. It teaches him nothing, and makes your nature closer to his. And that is why you are troubled, Wingbrother. You knew this all along, did you not?"

"What was done, was done in the heat of anger, and in the heat of anger, one loses perspective- and sanity. Now you are sane- and sickened. Do not forget the lesson, Wingbrother- but do not let it eat at you like a disease. Let it go, and learn from it."

"Others will forgive you this, Wingbrother, but only you can forgive yourself. You must never, never forget."

"Although you feel relief now, this is likely to be the source of many sleepless nights for you. You will lie awake, look at your heart, and find it unlovely. You will be certain that, regardless of what I have said, you are the greatest of monsters. This is a good thing; although you may forgive yourself, you must never come to think that your actions were in any way justifiable. But-" (he chuckled ironically) "As Iceshadow told me, being a sane, honorable human being is not always comfortable."

Agrippa
2010-04-09, 06:03 PM
Okay hamish, what's so bad about seeking retribution against those who harmed or still harm innocent people, especially if they lack remorse for their cirmes? Isn't that part of the job of a paladin, to punish the irredeemably wicked? At least give me some context.

hamishspence
2010-04-10, 03:38 AM
Context was- he did what to the villain what was done to the villain's victims- tortured him to death.

The recommendation given was to kill villains cleanly-

"it does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature"

2xMachina
2010-04-10, 01:35 PM
Actually, due to different jurisdictions, he probably shouldn't do much more than make a phone call and take some pictures... unless it's a post office, he doesn't have much jurisdiction.


Well, Paladin jurisdiction are iffy (he probably can intervene. The local law probably doesn't care that he does though)

So, yes. Call the cops and go do something important.

The most I'd do is Lay on Hand/Cure them, tell them to work it out, and do something important.

LibraryOgre
2010-04-10, 01:42 PM
Well, Paladin jurisdiction are iffy (he probably can intervene. The local law probably doesn't care that he does though)

So, yes. Call the cops and go do something important.

The most I'd do is Lay on Hand/Cure them, tell them to work it out, and do something important.

<Yoda>And that is why you fall</Yoda>

Seriously, though, the FBI agent is a separate case from a Paladin; the US has some fairly well-defined and separate jurisdictions that D&Dland usually lacks. A paladin who dismisses things like this as "not important" is likely walking on Miko's edge.

I probably wouldn't include this in a game, mind you... it's not the sort of things that most adventurers are going to find fascinating. But Paladins aren't most adventurers.

Kish
2010-04-10, 01:49 PM
Paladins fall if they do something evil. Not something illegal, not something a deity disapproves of. "Walk away because you don't know if he's breaking the law" is not a good answer.

2xMachina
2010-04-10, 01:50 PM
It's not really not important, as not your business.
The most I'd do is offer counseling/help, which I would not press on them.

What would you do? Whack them until they agree to stop fighting? Take their children to some foster home, and hope they won't miss Mom and Dad?

Coidzor
2010-04-10, 02:03 PM
^: Well, there is a reason why every paladin should carry some sort of merciful weapon/sap. :smallwink:

So, yes, if in his attempts to intervene one or both attacks like maddened wolverines and he didn't have a calm emotions to burn on it anyway, the correct course of action is to beat the attacker into submission/unconsciousness, even if there's not a whole lot an unarmed commoner can do to a paladin in armor.

It gives the little people some perspective, especially when they wake up and realize how easily the paladin could have just slain them instead.

Considering he doesn't know if they even have children and all he knows is that some woman is being beaten by her husband in the public street, he doesn't need to consider what to do with the children until it comes up as his knowledge of the situation increases via investigation and interaction with it.

hamishspence
2010-04-10, 02:04 PM
Only once the fight is over, might "not your business" come into play.

And even then- paladin should warn them- maybe tip off the local authorities to keep an eye on the offender.

However, when interfering between two people fighting (when one is clearly the aggressor) the paladin should still use as little force as necessary.

LibraryOgre
2010-04-10, 02:30 PM
It's not really not important, as not your business.
The most I'd do is offer counseling/help, which I would not press on them.

What would you do? Whack them until they agree to stop fighting? Take their children to some foster home, and hope they won't miss Mom and Dad?

Were I a paladin, in the situation we have? Grapple the clear aggressor to force him to stop. Separate them as much as possible, heal as necessary. Find at least a temporary solution to the problem (i.e. put the husband up in a hotel for the night to cool down). Recommend the two of them to a local organization that deals with this sort of thing (usually a temple).

Taking the kids is an in extremis response. If you're at the stage where you think the kids need to be taken out of the home, you're probably also at the point where you can take the aggressor to prison, or, perhaps, a monastery (prison might not care, but a temple where he could work off his aggression isn't unheard of).

Solarn
2010-04-10, 02:44 PM
It's not really not important, as not your business.
The most I'd do is offer counseling/help, which I would not press on them.

What would you do? Whack them until they agree to stop fighting? Take their children to some foster home, and hope they won't miss Mom and Dad?
Problem is, for Paladins, there's no such thing as "not my business". Their business is making everybody else's business their business.

hamishspence
2010-04-10, 03:21 PM
Pretty much- a paladin's job is to stop evil acts if they witness ones in progress- however minor.

Severely beating someone up without justification (such as self-defense), would probably fall into the category of evil acts.

Agrippa
2010-04-10, 06:45 PM
Context was- he did what to the villain what was done to the villain's victims- tortured him to death.

The recommendation given was to kill villains cleanly-

"it does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature"

Then you should have said that. Otherwise pay evil unto evil.

Apollo1776
2010-04-10, 07:17 PM
Paladins don't instantly go slay evil willy-nilly either. They might hate evil, but they don't *detect evil* AHA! KILL KILL! (though I think that all the time)

Take my character for a spin. He was in a gathering of nobles to discuss whether a dragon slayer who illegally built a keep should be given the title of noble and be absolved of his crimes. I of course, was on this man's side. He broke they law, but was tremendously helpful in our search for dragon's blood to help cure the king of lethal and potent poison.
There was a noble who opposed him becoming a noble - and this man was evil (detect evil ftw, but you didn't have to do that to tell, he was a jerk). Despite that I could not so much as brandish my sword because the noble was within the bounds of the law. Lawful evil is such a bitch.

Paladins are not neutral good. They cannot whimsically break laws or see them broken without having serious thoughts about the matter. What does the law dictate, and what is good? The law says the man was assaulting the woman (and as a paladin upholding your code you had to step in). As a good character you would try to find a solution that avoids punishment to them. There's your answer.

How you go about this depends on your character's personality and what you want to do as far as that.

Kish
2010-04-10, 07:21 PM
What does the law dictate, and what is good? The law says the man was assaulting the woman (and as a paladin upholding your code you had to step in). As a good character you would try to find a solution that avoids punishment to them.
What? Why in the world?

Greenish
2010-04-10, 08:30 PM
What? Why in the world?To punish people (for the sake of punishment) is not Good. To show them the error in their ways and to forgive them is.

hamishspence
2010-04-11, 05:15 AM
Then you should have said that. Otherwise pay evil unto evil.

The original quote did say "it does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature"


"Pay evil unto evil" is a common way for good characters to slip into evil alignment- where do you draw the line between "just punishment" and "excessive"?

In D&D, execution for really serious crimes is not evil, even if forgiveness and redemption is an ideal.

However (at least in BoED & FC2) torture is evil.

"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

as somebody once said "An eye for an eye ends up with the whole world blind"

Agrippa
2010-04-12, 12:07 AM
"Pay evil unto evil" is a common way for good characters to slip into evil alignment- where do you draw the line between "just punishment" and "excessive"?

Watch the TNT show Leverage and the USA show Burn Notice. That's paying evil unto evil. Throw in the Punisher when he's going after human traffickers (especially sex slavers) and particularly horrendous Mafiosi. He may go too far but he never harms honest cops or innocent bystanders. Maybe even Max Keenan from Bones. While he may be a career criminal but like Frank Castle he won't harm good cops or innocents. But may God have mercy on your putified soul if you threaten his either his two children or their friends and loved ones with bodily harm. He might go overboard at times but I wouldn't consider him evil. Chaotic Neutral with Good tendancies would be more like it.


In D&D, execution for really serious crimes is not evil, even if forgiveness and redemption is an ideal.

However (at least in BoED & FC2) torture is evil.

I won't argue with you on this part.


"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

as somebody once said "An eye for an eye ends up with the whole world blind"

Ghandi was a great and good man. Paladins are supposed to be great and good men and women. Paladins, are not Ghandi and Ghandi was never a paladin. Why would they have combat and full weapons and armor training if they aren't mentally and physically equiped to use those skills.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 02:27 AM
Throw in the Punisher when he's going after human traffickers (especially sex slavers) and particularly horrendous Mafiosi. He may go too far but he never harms honest cops or innocent bystanders. Maybe even Max Keenan from Bones. While he may be a career criminal but like Frank Castle he won't harm good cops or innocents. But may God have mercy on your putified soul if you threaten his either his two children or their friends and loved ones with bodily harm. He might go overboard at times but I wouldn't consider him evil. Chaotic Neutral with Good tendancies would be more like it.

You might think of the Punisher type of character as Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies, but gamewise, he could just as easily be Lawful Evil. With the Evil confined to "deserving victims" and the Law, being his obsession with meting out "justice".


Why would they have combat and full weapons and armor training if they aren't mentally and physically equiped to use those skills.

Use them. Not Abuse them. When a "good guy" starts torturing villains- he's heading off the path of Good- and needs to realize that this is wrong.

Riffington
2010-04-12, 07:09 AM
Okay hamish, what's so bad about seeking retribution against those who harmed or still harm innocent people, especially if they lack remorse for their cirmes? Isn't that part of the job of a paladin, to punish the irredeemably wicked? At least give me some context.

Punishment and retribution are nonidentical.
Retribution is at best Neutral.
Punishment can be Good, but if so it must have as its goal the rehabilitation of the offender. Torture does little to rehabilitate.

That all said, if you are kind to the cruel you will end up being cruel to the kind. Forgiveness is inappropriate for ongoing evil - the evil must first be stopped.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 07:26 AM
That all said, if you are kind to the cruel you will end up being cruel to the kind. Forgiveness is inappropriate for ongoing evil - the evil must first be stopped.

BoED's approach was (if you manage to capture the villain)- show them the error of their ways- try and reform them, and if they reform, then you forgive them.

It's an improvement on the alternative magical method of reforming them, anyway. (Sanctify the Wicked always came across as a little off.)

Being kind to the evil is part of reforming them- but kindness doesn't mean stupidity- such an evil character should still be restrained, until they reform.

And, while reforming the villain is the ideal, it's not always practical- sometimes it is necessary for an unreformed villain to be executed (and execution under these circumstances is specified as not evil).

Riffington
2010-04-12, 07:37 AM
Rehabilitation is a much lower bar than reformation. Reformation requires the evildoer to see the error of her ways and become a better person. This is the ideal, of course. Rehabilitation merely requires the evildoer to stop doing such heinous acts; she can remain evil.
While reformation is obviously better, a punishment that merely attempts rehabilitation can still be Good.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 09:28 AM
Depends on if it avoids slipping into cruelty or not. Severing both a thief's hands might "rehabilitate" them (since it becomes vastly harder for them to continue stealing)- nontheless- it can be deemed cruelty.

Agrippa
2010-04-12, 02:27 PM
Use them. Not Abuse them. When a "good guy" starts torturing villains- he's heading off the path of Good- and needs to realize that this is wrong.

What makes you think I'm talking about torture?

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 02:36 PM
The Punisher doesn't torture particularly horrendous villains?

He was one of the examples you gave.

I think Jack Bauer is another notable example of a character who fits "pay evil unto evil" including torture- though his is more for info than punishment.

Terry Goodkind had one or two scenes where villains are tortured horribly to death by "heroes" as punishment for their crimes.

In general, Pay Evil Unto Evil seems to end up this way a lot.

snoopy13a
2010-04-12, 02:38 PM
"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.



Eye for an eye justice stems from cultures where imprisoning people was problematic. For example, take a nomadic society that catches a member stealing. There's no prison to put him (or her) in, so what do you?

One option is to demand restitution. This can work if the thief can afford it.
Another option is death. However, this may seem like a harsh penalty for some offenses.
A third option is exile.
A fourth option is forcing the offender into some form of slavery.
A fifth option is the "eye for an eye" method which would be chopping off a hand.

Not all societies will like our modern societies where you give the felon 5-10 years. Especially when it comes to nomadic societies (where you can't have prisons) and societies where food is scarce. If honest peasants are starving, it wouldn't be very popular to give convicted felons three square meals a day.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 02:42 PM
"hard labour" as opposed to actual slavery (where the person and any future offspring of them are legally property- seems about right.

How common was hard labour as a punishment?

Remember that the D&D world is a bit more modern in its sensibilities, than medieval times (In gender roles, especially).

Apollo1776
2010-04-12, 03:17 PM
Eye for an eye is a lawful neutral point of view.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 03:52 PM
I can certainly imagine plenty of Lawful Neutral characters propounding it.

The question is- when it comes to carrying it out, and when doing so would involve torturing an offender horribly (one who has, themselves, tortured people, and got caught) - would they stay Lawful Neutral?

I'm dubious about that one.

Torture, even as a punishment, I see as somewhat corrupting.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 03:55 PM
To OP:

1. you assume that the husband is "beating his wife" and its not a case of a brawl. "On average 10% weaker" doesn't mean all women are... heck, men DO get beaten by their wives...

2. one or both are breaking the law, if you are an officer of the law arrest him or both depending on local law, and sort it out in the station.

3. if you are not a member of the law, report it to the police.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 03:58 PM
"Eye for eye" justice can become evil when it crosses the line into torture.

That is your opinion...

I view myself as the most morally just person to ever walk the planet and I believe that child rapists should be TORTURED yet kept a alive as long as possible in a perpetual "hell on earth" state and that this belief is GOOD and morally just because the fear of such a punishment (compared to just death) will protect children (the real victims) from such a horrid violation by an inhumane scum that does not deserve a single shred of mercy or rights.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 03:58 PM
1. you assume that the husband is "beating his wife" and its not a case of a brawl. "On average 10% weaker" doesn't mean all women are... heck, men DO get beaten by their wives...

...even in medieval times.

In D&D, it seems even more plausible.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 03:59 PM
...even in medieval times.

In D&D, it seems even more plausible.

true, by RAW women do NOT have a strength penalty! that means DnD women are equally as strong as their male counterparts (actually it flat out says that in the fluff as well!)

Apollo1776
2010-04-12, 04:01 PM
I can certainly imagine plenty of Lawful Neutral characters propounding it.

The question is- when it comes to carrying it out, and when doing so would involve torturing an offender horribly (one who has, themselves, tortured people, and got caught) - would they stay Lawful Neutral?

It is iffy. It depends on what type of neutral they are. Do they believe in balancing out good and evil, or are they just not swayed either way? The latter would just give out a sentence or make sure the offender gets justice as according to the law.

I guess it is one of those things that walks the line between neutral and evil.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 04:03 PM
I view myself as the most morally just person to ever walk the planet

Hmm.


I believe that child rapists should be TORTURED yet kept a alive as long as possible in a perpetual "hell on earth" state and that this belief is GOOD and morally just


I think Mercedes's Lackey's take on it was better.

"It does no good to visit torments on a creature of that nature. It teaches him nothing, and it makes your nature more like his"

Or David Gemmell: "Hatred is the true enemy"

David Gemmell villains sometimes managed to redeem themselves in some way, despite being exceptionally vile.

Or the AIs of Shub, in Simon R. Green's Deathstalker- whose record of atrocities was pretty awful- yet they ended up becoming nonevil- and spending the next few centuries trying to redeem themselves.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 04:08 PM
i am sure there are people who disagree with me. I think those people are wrong.

My point is, torture is not universally seen as evil in every and all situations and "an eye for an eye" isn't either. I was not exaggerating either, I meant every single word of that post.

technically rapists get sent to jail so we do have eye-for-eye in that case... although that is the only case in which we have that... the penalty for any crime, from car jacking to murder through corporate theft is to be raped in prison.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 04:14 PM
While some people might rationalize torture for "life-saving information" or as "punishment for the deserving" it has, over time, reached the point where the torturer is seen as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_mankind

As for "eye for eye" - the case you are describing isn't justice- but revenge. People get angry at evildoers- and respond by doing evil to them.

Very natural, but also an example of the dark side of humanity.

Sadism directed at the "evil" or the "deserving" is still sadism.

Solarn
2010-04-12, 04:18 PM
i am sure there are people who disagree with me. I think those people are wrong.

My point is, torture is not universally seen as evil in every and all situations and "an eye for an eye" isn't either. I was not exaggerating either, I meant every single word of that post.
Yes it is.

technically rapists get sent to jail so we do have eye-for-eye in that case... although that is the only case in which we have that... the penalty for any crime, from car jacking to murder through corporate theft is to be raped in prison.
That's not the punishment, that's just proof that the prison system's broken.

hamishspence
2010-04-12, 04:21 PM
Aside from Terry Goodkind (of "evil pacifists" fame) I'm not sure if there are any mainstream fantasy authors which show the torture of evil guys by good guys, as OK.

Plenty have their heroes do it once or twice, but this is nearly always portrayed as a moral failure by the hero.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 04:32 PM
fantasy authors do not represent humanity as a whole.


That's not the punishment, that's just proof that the prison system's broken.
Semantics... ask anyone why they don't commit crime and they will tell you because they fear prison rape...
ask anyone what the real penalty is, imprisonment or the rape, and they will save the rape.

Heck, if I get thrown in prison I am ****ed, because there are the mexican gang, the black gang, the asian gang, and the KKK/Neo Nazi white supremecist gang... and I am a pasty white jew. So I can't join the nazi gang (and any white person who doesn't get a swastika tatt in prison is gonna get his ass shivved).

Anterean
2010-04-12, 04:33 PM
. A paladin who dismisses things like this as "not important" is likely walking on Miko's edge.



Even Miko didn´t consider the common people's problems beneath her.
She even halted a quest from her lawful liege, to help a pair of dirt farmers. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html)

taltamir
2010-04-12, 04:44 PM
Even Miko didn´t consider the common people's problems beneath her.
She even halted a quest from her lawful liege, to help a pair of dirt farmers. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html)

Who asked for her help... they did NOT tell her to buzz off...
If I recall, the sorceress and her dad who used to be bandit kinds? (wasn't he chaotic good and she chaotic neutral?)... they got murdered when they told her to buzz off.

roy on the other hand left them tied together in the forest with their army gone where they have to resolve their family issues etc.

Solarn
2010-04-12, 04:50 PM
fantasy authors do not represent humanity as a whole.


Semantics... ask anyone why they don't commit crime and they will tell you because they fear prison rape...
No. I don't commit crimes because crimes are wrong. Pls not to be judging the whole of humanity after yourself.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-04-12, 05:02 PM
The Paladin as a holy warrior can certainly be seen as a 'religious' character. She fights for right and good in the name of her deity. Therefore we can assume that the paladin’s code is quite like an embodiment of her deity’s creed. To break the code of conduct means, therefore, to act against faith, thus committing heresy.

According to William Ockham, a heretic is a person who consciously and willingly errs against the faith and insists upon his error, despite being proven wrong (I Dialogus V, c. 1). Wow. You just won this thread on the first page.

I have never seen you post before, but would love to see more of you (and Ockham)

Ormur
2010-04-12, 06:07 PM
There's a reason D&D claims humans don't tend to any alignment, being good probably isn't the default. Being good is very hard and means staying true to your beliefs in a society or circumstances that don't reward good behaviour.

I'd say torture falls pretty squarely under that. It doesn't even matter if the circumstances make it seem a sensible choice at the moment, it's still evil. You might justify it as necessary evil but it still takes you a long step from the good alignment, not to mention that torture isn't really effective, whether it's at extracting information or as a deterrent against horrible crimes. A good person or a society debases itself by engaging in evil acts like torture. As a DM I'd place a person that condones such things in general for good purposes as morally neutral. Someone that actually engages in torture would have to have an exceptional excuse or come around quickly in order not to become evil. If you can inflict calculated pain on people you're really loosing your grip on morality and normalizing such cruelty, I think that applies to both individuals and societies.

Taelas
2010-04-12, 06:19 PM
Not all paladins are the same.

There is no action that specifically is "wrong" because of this situation.

Helping the woman (regardless of her wishes) by arresting the man is a Good (as well as Lawful) action. Accepting her ability to defend herself (thus recognizing her wishes) is also Good, though if you simply take her refusal as an excuse not to help, it is more Neutral. Refusing to get involved is Neutral, and a paladin is not penalized for committing Neutral actions.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:21 PM
No. I don't commit crimes because crimes are wrong. Pls not to be judging the whole of humanity after yourself.

Actually I don't commit most crimes because they are wrong...
I meant "ask anyone why they don't commit a crime which they believe shouldn't be a crime"... I should have phrased it better.
And I am not basing it off of myself, I really did ask a bunch of people and everyone knows and fears that prison = rape.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:24 PM
I'd say torture falls pretty squarely under that. It doesn't even matter if the circumstances make it seem a sensible choice at the moment, it's still evil. You might justify it as necessary evil but it still takes you a long step from the good alignment, not to mention that torture isn't really effective, whether it's at extracting information or as a deterrent against horrible crimes.
That is one possible interpretation, but it is certainly arguable against.
Or maybe it is evil to NOT torture under such circumstances... by labeling the torture of child rapists wrong and evil and forbidden you are directly causing more children to be raped. Which is an evil act.
This is NOT justifying "torture the evil act", that is saying that NOT torturing is an evil act.

And what the hell is wrong with JUSTIFYING actions? You better have a pretty damn good justifications for moral choices you make otherwise you are just randomly doing things without sense or reason. Justifying things means "making them just", and its a pretty good term because it can do exactly that when done CORRECTLY.

Taelas
2010-04-12, 06:27 PM
You can stop a child molester without torturing them.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:31 PM
You can stop a child molester without torturing them.

I thought it was pretty clear i was talking about others...

If you torture bob the child rapist to death, you save amber the 9 year old from being raped and murdered by james, because james heard what happened to bob and is too afraid to do so himself.
You saved amber from james. Not saving amber from james because of some flimsy moralistic excuse (torture is always evil) is an evil act in of itself. I wasn't saying that torturing bob will make bob himself reform his ways

If you gave bob a second chance and released him on an unsuspecting public and like the other 98% of rapists released from prison he becomes a repeat offender you are DEFINITELY responsible for his victims and you have definitely done evil by releasing him.

EDIT: and doing this sort of evil via an "ignorant" (according to my beliefs; not universal; many would say I am the one being ignorant) desire to do good is fairly understandable, very common, and forgivable to a degree.

Frosty
2010-04-12, 06:33 PM
I thought it was pretty clear i was talking about others...

If you torture bob the child rapist to death, you save jill the 8 year old from being raped by james, because james heard what happened to bob and is too afraid to do so himself.
You saved jill from james. Not saving jill from james because of some flimsy moralistic excuse (torture is always evil) is an evil act in of itself.
The whole "scarying people into not doing evil" efficiency is not generally agreed upon. I do not have them on hand, but I hear that studies have shown that (for example) capital punishment is NOT an effective deterrent to crime.

Torture may or may not be more efficient. Who knows?

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:36 PM
The whole "scarying people into not doing evil" efficiency is not generally agreed upon. I do not have them on hand, but I hear that studies have shown that (for example) capital punishment is NOT an effective deterrent to crime.

Torture may or may not be more efficient. Who knows?

every study I have ever read that asked prisoners what their biggest fear was and it was always "an armed victim"...

Keep in mind that different studies have different agendas to prove and lying with statistics is trivially easy.

I am just saying that the notions they have presented as the only possible argument are simply not. In this rare case I am actually arguing the point I believe in... but I'd be playing devils advocate anyways if a person refused to acknowledge the mere existence of opposing viewpoints.

They can say that I am wrong, that it doesn't work, and so on... but don't tell me "you know its evil to torture you are just making excuses to yourself despite knowing better". Torture is not universally believed to be evil, in fact, by the above examples NOT torturing under specific circumstance is evil.
I am willing to accept that I might be wrong on the issue, I am CERTAINLY willing to accept that there are other opinions on the issue which disagree with mine. please extend equal courtesy and accept that there are people who truly and honestly believe that under certain circumstances torture is good and not torturing is evil.

Deme
2010-04-12, 06:37 PM
Not to mention, couldn't you punish or kill Bob the child rapist in a detterent-y way (even though I'm not sure myself how effective that idea is, I'm just running with it) without actually torturing him? It's sometimes a fine line, I admit...but sometimes it's not a very fine line at all.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:40 PM
Not to mention, couldn't you punish or kill Bob the child rapist in a detterent-y way (even though I'm not sure myself how effective that idea is, I'm just running with it) without actually torturing him? It's sometimes a fine line, I admit...but sometimes it's not a very fine line at all.

Maybe you could... do you have a specific suggestion?
Recall some people argue that capital punishment in of itself is always wrong and that killing should never be a deterrent; the whole torture as a deterrent is just taking it one step further.

I totally accept that my belief on the subject is not the only one and that some people genuinely believe that what I think to be "good" is "evil" and that what I think to be "evil" is "good" and that my values are in no way universal (my values just happen to be the correct ones and theirs are the incorrect ones *wink*).

Anterean
2010-04-12, 06:41 PM
Who asked for her help... they did NOT tell her to buzz off...
If I recall, the sorceress and her dad who used to be bandit kinds? (wasn't he chaotic good and she chaotic neutral?)... they got murdered when they told her to buzz off.

roy on the other hand left them tied together in the forest with their army gone where they have to resolve their family issues etc.

I did not write to to turn this into a debate whether or not Miko was a shinning example of all a paladin should be, because we all know she was not.
However that is just not how it went down (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html)

What I meant was that if even a paladin as self absorbed and powerful as Miko considered helping the commoners important and not only concern her self with world changing events, then every paladin properly should.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:45 PM
I did not write to to turn this into a debate whether or not Miko was a shinning example of all a paladin should be, because we all know she was not.
However that is just not how it went down (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html)

What I meant was that if even a paladin as self absorbed and powerful as Miko considered helping the commoners important and not only concern her self with world changing events, then every paladin properly should.

I agree... you should show concern and compassion and willingness to help.
Although if you are really on a world shattering event you could just say "look, you should really resolve this or go to the police" and make a mental note to check back on them after having saved the bus full of orphans / the country / world.
But it is really a matter of perspective there... I would as a DM ask the paladin "why are you walking away" and have a different reaction if the response was "I don't care about them", "they are just lesser beings", "I am not letting millions die so I can solve a domestic dispute" or "they have a right to private and neither of them wants aid or to press charges" or any other response.

And I am not even sure "I just don't care" warrants an automatic fall... (and I would ask "why don't you care, specifically")

Apollo1776
2010-04-12, 08:02 PM
Good and evil in D&D is not subjective, it is objective. Good is being merciful, forgiving, and kind. Evil is being selfish, harmful, and malicious. Even if a character does not think he is doing evil it is not the thought, but it is the action that counts.

Also, paladins can hardly get away with doing neutral acts. For example, if a paladin were to pass by someone innocent in trouble he would be violating his code. Whereas a neutral alignment would be able to do this. You serve a deity as a paladins, if you don't uphold the deities wishes you lose your powers. Paladins aren't meant to be played by temperamentally. You're given responsibility with that class, and if you ruin it, you lose your privileges too.

Torture's full purpose is to inflict pain and suffering on an individual, and is therefore an evil act. I don't care about bob the rapist. As a paladin it is your duty to uphold the law and your deity's values. If that means you don't kill people unlawfully or without just reason then you don't do it period. There are no exceptions.

A kensai is a good example of another class that requires a huge commitment (to a more extreme level). If you violate your code for any reason you lose your powers and have to atone. It doesn't matter whether it was for the greater good or not, you violated your code.

Kish
2010-04-12, 08:08 PM
If I recall, the sorceress and her dad who used to be bandit kinds? (wasn't he chaotic good and she chaotic neutral?)...

1) They were bandits up until they died.
2) Where on earth are you getting him being Chaotic Good and her being Chaotic Neutral?
3) Rich said in the commentary on one of the books that he considered Samantha clearly evil, her father dark-side-of-neutral at best.

they got murdered when they told her to buzz off.

4) And when you say, "Told her to buzz off," you mean told her, "You'll serve me or you'll die! Hold Person!" And when you say "murdered," you mean "killed in clear and unambiguous self-defense." Really, there are things Miko did that you actually can condemn her for. You don't need to spin one of the times she didn't do anything wrong in this painful-looking fashion.
5) Torture is unambiguously evil. Paladins don't do evil things and stay unFallen--not because they want to and not because they can imagine a way that torturing one person will scare everyone else into acting better.
6) "Not torturing is an evil act" is just plain goofy.
7) Okay, you disagree with the Geneva Conventions. Given that we're not allowed to talk about real-world issues here, I have a question about D&D, specifically: Do you think there's even a minuscule chance that any of the authors who wrote the D&D alignments and/or the paladin class meant Not Torturing to be one of the evil acts a paladin falls for--or didn't mean Torturing to be one of the evil acts a paladin falls for?

Riffington
2010-04-12, 08:21 PM
every study I have ever read that asked prisoners what their biggest fear was and it was always "an armed victim"...

An armed victim != capital punishment. Punishment is different than self-defense.



but I'd be playing devils advocate anyways if a person refused to acknowledge the mere existence of opposing viewpoints.
Of course there are opposing viewpoints. But by RAW those viewpoints are wrong. Torture is evil in D&D.

So regarding your "practical argument": are you sure that it is a deterrent? Why do areas with prison-rape have higher crime rates than areas without? Additionally, torture serves to attract publicity; highly-publicized crimes are more likely to be emulated.

And besides: I can name a bunch of people who torture "wrongdoers". All of them are otherwise horrible people who mistreat their populace and/or spouse. If torturing evil people is right, shouldn't I know about some torturers who are really active in community service and help widows and bring joy to their neighbors?

hamishspence
2010-04-13, 02:52 AM
by labeling the torture of child rapists wrong and evil and forbidden you are directly causing more children to be raped. Which is an evil act.
This is NOT justifying "torture the evil act", that is saying that NOT torturing is an evil act.

Major logical problem here. Banning torture as a punishment, does not "directly cause more crimes"

Its indirect. That is, if you take the view that it has a contributory influence at all.

Taelas
2010-04-13, 04:13 AM
I thought it was pretty clear i was talking about others...
I was using a metaphorical "you", not you specifically.


If you torture bob the child rapist to death, you save amber the 9 year old from being raped and murdered by james, because james heard what happened to bob and is too afraid to do so himself.
You saved amber from james. Not saving amber from james because of some flimsy moralistic excuse (torture is always evil) is an evil act in of itself. I wasn't saying that torturing bob will make bob himself reform his ways
You do not have to stoop to that level of force in order to deter a criminal.

And "not saving" anyone is Neutral, not Evil. Yes, caring more about your own skin than someone else's is not Evil.


If you gave bob a second chance and released him on an unsuspecting public and like the other 98% of rapists released from prison he becomes a repeat offender you are DEFINITELY responsible for his victims and you have definitely done evil by releasing him.
You cannot know that Bob will become a repeat offender, and if you have the belief that he might do so, you would not release him in the first place.


EDIT: and doing this sort of evil via an "ignorant" (according to my beliefs; not universal; many would say I am the one being ignorant) desire to do good is fairly understandable, very common, and forgivable to a degree.
It is not Evil by D&D's standards.

hamishspence
2010-04-13, 04:52 AM
And "not saving" anyone is Neutral, not Evil. Yes, caring more about your own skin than someone else's is not Evil.


BoVD gives as an example- If you are fleeing monsters more powerful than you- and in order to escape, you must cross a dangerous mountainside that is highly likely to landslip and kill people, and you do it anyway (because you value your life more than theirs)- that's Evil.

"Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act"

As to the whole issue of deterrence- with not torturing people horribly being called an evil act because it leads to higher crime rate- imagine if alignment did work that way:

Paladin ruler signs a decree replacing crucifixion with swift, relatively painless, beheadings for really serious crimes which are evil acts.

DM: "20 more murders will happen because you reduced deterrence. You caused those 20 murders. You Fall."

Paladin player: "Right! No more merciful beheadings!!"

Doesn't sound very fair- or very consistant with D&D.

Prohibitions on "cruel and unusual punishment" go back some way- and D&D morality tends to be based on more recent principles, such as that one.

Taelas
2010-04-13, 06:09 AM
There is a difference in actively endangering others and simply not helping them. I am talking about the latter, not the former.

EDIT: And please, stop looking at either the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds for examples on what happens regarding alignment. Both books are utterly terrible in that regard. For every thing they get right, they get another thing wrong.

Amphetryon
2010-04-13, 06:16 AM
Doesn't sound very fair- or very consistant with D&DD&D's writers have not, themselves, been entirely consistent as far as alignment is concerned. That's one reason we get into esoteric debates like this one.

I'll leave it to other discussions whether the writers are otherwise consistent.

hamishspence
2010-04-13, 06:20 AM
Indifference to the sufferings of others can be Neutral.

However, taken to an extreme, it may fit part of the PHB description "This person simply has no compassion for others"- which is paired with "and will kill if doing so seems convenient"

Not helping someone when doing so would put you at risk, is easier to justify as Neutral "A neutral person will risk themselves for friends or family, but generally not for strangers"

But when helping someone in trouble won't put you at risk, ignoring their need for help may end up with the character very slowly slipping toward evil (if they ignore others in need a lot)

"The easiest way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"-

And when evil is triumphing, such "do-nothing" people, may end up slipping toward Neutral and Evil, if they keep doing nothing for long enough.

The first line in Cheesegear's signature said it best:


Standing by, while evil happens, is not Neutral. It's Evil.
Only doing what interests you is not Neutral. It's Chaotic, and possibly Evil.
Just because you're organised, that doesn't mean you're Lawful.
Evil people want friends too.



EDIT: And please, stop looking at either the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds for examples on what happens regarding alignment. Both books are utterly terrible in that regard. For every thing they get right, they get another thing wrong.

What other in-depth alignment sourcebooks are there?

And which things do you deem them as having "gotten right" and which "gotten wrong"?

Personally I'd say the "context matters" bit, concerning the paladin and the landslide, is bang on.

Ormur
2010-04-13, 06:46 AM
That is one possible interpretation, but it is certainly arguable against.
Or maybe it is evil to NOT torture under such circumstances... by labeling the torture of child rapists wrong and evil and forbidden you are directly causing more children to be raped. Which is an evil act.
This is NOT justifying "torture the evil act", that is saying that NOT torturing is an evil act.

There is nothing to indicate that torturing child molesters reduces molesting. When people are committing a crime most of them aren't really thinking about the consequences, that's why they commit crimes. Deterrence isn't that useful. Perhaps horrible torture would deter a few but at the cost of making horrible torture a part of your justice system, an accepted routine act. The evil caused by that could just as well be greater than not doing anything.
There are also usually ways of combating crimes that are both good and effective. You mentioned prison rape but where I live that's not a big problem and our crime rate is much lower than in most of the US. There may not be a direct link but it shows that you can have low crime without prison rape. Conversely you can probably also have low rates of child molestation without horrible torture.


And what the hell is wrong with JUSTIFYING actions? You better have a pretty damn good justifications for moral choices you make otherwise you are just randomly doing things without sense or reason. Justifying things means "making them just", and its a pretty good term because it can do exactly that when done CORRECTLY.

My point would be that you can justify the use of evil acts as necessary but that doesn't make the act good. Heck you can justify genocide by saying it's for the greater good. This touches on that point in most cases you can't accurately predict the consequences of your actions. You have to think whether the act is good in itself. You have no way of knowing your horrible torture will result in anything positive but you definitely know that you just did something horrible. I think with the absolute morality of D&D this would have to be the benchmark. What if your torture wasn't an effective deterrence, does the Paladin fall when the crime rates for the next year are tallied? Is the intention of torturing for good enough, wouldn't that not allow for a whole slew of horrible "good" acts by the well intentioned extremists of the world?

Torture is evil. It leads down a slippery slope, it's ineffective, it's the barbaric calculated infliction of pain on a human being. Balancing such evil acts against good intentions might slip as neutral. Who know maybe there are times when you need a morally neutral anti-hero to dispense with the pleasantries but that doesn't change that in general such actions cause pain and misery and that we'd all be better of if everyone were good. In a cynical setting (most likely including real life) being good may not be the obvious moral choice and being good is probably pretty hard.

Taelas
2010-04-13, 07:29 AM
Indifference to the sufferings of others can be Neutral.

However, taken to an extreme, it may fit part of the PHB description "This person simply has no compassion for others"- which is paired with "and will kill if doing so seems convenient"

Not helping someone when doing so would put you at risk, is easier to justify as Neutral "A neutral person will risk themselves for friends or family, but generally not for strangers"

But when helping someone in trouble won't put you at risk, ignoring their need for help may end up with the character very slowly slipping toward evil (if they ignore others in need a lot)
If you are not helping someone, you are simply not Good, you are not automatically Evil.

Having no compassion does not make you Evil either, unless you combine it with "will kill if doing so is convenient". It is certainly a step closer than someone who does have compassion, but it is still not Evil outright.

It does not matter whether helping someone will put you at risk or not. Choosing to do nothing is Neutral.


"The easiest way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"-

And when evil is triumphing, such "do-nothing" people, may end up slipping toward Neutral and Evil, if they keep doing nothing for long enough.
No. You do not simply become Evil without actually doing Evil. Refusing to do Good DOES NOT make you Evil. Period.

That quote does not concern the D&D alignment system. In most morality systems, if you are not good, you must be evil. In D&D, the default alignment is not Good -- it is Neutral.


What other in-depth alignment sourcebooks are there?
None that I am aware of. That changes nothing regarding their quality.


And which things do you deem them as having "gotten right" and which "gotten wrong"?
Half the examples I see quoted are so misleading that they give people the wrong conclusion. The one you just gave, for instance. It is an Evil act because you kill people who are not actively threatening you simply because it is necessary for you to save your own life. Killing someone who directly threatens you, however, is a pure Neutral act.


Personally I'd say the "context matters" bit, concerning the paladin and the landslide, is bang on.
Context always matters.

hamishspence
2010-04-13, 08:30 AM
Context always matters.

Except in the case of torture (defined by BoED, and FC2, as evil, regardless of how many lives it might save).

BoED points out that it is required for Good characters to help others (when that help is genuinely needed)- a Good guy can investigate before helping- but they can't just say "I'm not helping" and remain good- if they keep doing that nearly every time help is needed.

Being good requires more than not committing evil acts, and doing the occasional Good act- it's a standard of behaviour, that requires the character to act in a consistantly altruistic way.

If a Good character ceases to behave in that fashion (by repeatedly not helping others when that help is visibly needed)- the character will start to move away from Good.

Whether "not helping" is a Neutral rather than Evil act, or not.

It's true that a Good character can't help everyone, and may have to prioritize, but when they reach the point of routinely not helping when the help is visibly needed and there's nothing stopping them (such as a really urgent mission)- they won't be Good anymore.

Telonius
2010-04-13, 08:43 AM
For another perspective, let's take the issue of the Gray Guard (CSco). I think that just about everybody would say that they have a much more morally flexible point of view than a typical Paladin. But there are still some lines that even they aren't allowed to cross.

Specifically called out as being unforgivably evil:
- Slaughtering innocents
- Despoiling a temple of your faith

So we have at least two examples of Always Evil acts from a source outside of BoED - and from a class that many people feel makes it too easy to commit evil acts in the service of good. I think that this is a pretty good yardstick to determine where other "unforgivably evil" acts might be. If it's worse than despoiling a temple of your faith, it's evil.

hamishspence
2010-04-13, 08:49 AM
Fiendish Codex 2 has a short list of Corrupt acts (ones which can send the Lawful character to the Nine Hells regardless of their actual alignment, if there's enough not atoned for.

Desecrating a Good temple was one.

Stealing from the needy was another.

Torture (which ranges in evilness from intimidating torture, that does not involve inflicting lethal damage, to indescribable torture, that involves inflicting a great deal of damage) was a third.

Murder (unfortunately not explicitly defined in D&D) was a fourth- with "ordinary" murder being least bad "cold-blooded" murder being worse, and "murder for pleasure" being worst of all.



on the question of whether "doing nothing" can itself be an act with moral weight- there is an old joke:

Student- "Should I be punished for something I haven't done?"
Head- "No."
Student- "Good- cos I haven't done my homework."

A sentry who does nothing but watch while enemy scouts break into the castle he's guarding will get court-martialled, a doctor who does nothing but watch when sick people in urgent need of treatment are brought in when he's on duty, will get fired,

and a Paladin who does nothing but watch while evil deeds are committed in front of him, will probably fall- as might a Paladin who does nothing but watch while a person dies who could be saved by him at little effort.

Good characters have a duty to others- there are times when doing nothing at all, is a dereliction of that duty.